Argument Against Miracles

[seer]

My history?

Historical events can be cross referenced with other extant sources from the period under examination.

Your history can not be replicated. And replication was the objection you brought up - moving the goal posts again!

That many people today remain as superstitious as many did in the ancient world and still, despite the benefits of modern science and technology, accept that the irrational [or impossible] are facts.

So why even bring up the ancient world in the first place? Obviously things haven't changed that much. And what do you mean by irrational? What laws of logic do miracles or the supernatural violate? You have offered no example, therefore calling something irrational is merely an unfounded assertion.

[Sparko]

No I am not. All these miracles are hearsay and can never be replicated.

You can replicate THIS miracle!

kraft_miracle_whip_original_dressing_1.jpg

Ingredients For homemade miracle whip

• 2 egg yolks
• 1/2 tsp salt
• 1 Tbsp powdered sugar
• 3 Tbsp lemon juice or vinegar
• 1 1/2 c vegetable oil
• 1 1/2 Tbsp flour or corn starch
• 1 tsp dry mustard
• 1/2 c boiling water
• 2 Tbsp vinegar

1. Using a blender or electric mixer, blend egg yolks, salt, sugar and 1 tablespoons of the lemon juice.
2. Slowly pour in 1 cup oil, a few drops at a time, mixing thoroughly.
3. Add remaining 1/2 cup oil a little faster, carefully blending in each bit before adding the remaining 2 tablespoons lemon juice.
4. Mix the flour, mustard, boiling water and vinegar together until smooth
5. Pour into a small saucepan and cook until smooth and paste-like (but not too thick).
6. Slowly add this hot mixture to the mayonnaise and blend well.
7. Pour in a container and cool in the refrigerator

[seer]

You can replicate THIS miracle!

That is fake mayonnaise!

[Stoic]

Who is inconsistent? As far as this thread goes, it is Hume who is inconsistent... His argument holds no water according to his own reasoning...

You are being inconsistent. You admit that you use inductive reasoning all the time, yet you dismiss Hume's argument because it uses inductive reasoning.

[tabibito]

No I am not. All these miracles are hearsay and can never be replicated.

Now there's a mirth worthy claim

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your history can not be replicated. And replication was the objection you brought up - moving the goal posts again!

No one can walk unassisted on deep water.

So why even bring up the ancient world in the first place?

To put those texts into their contemporary socio-religious context.

Obviously things haven't changed that much.

For a lot of people, sadly not.

[seer]

You are being inconsistent. You admit that you use inductive reasoning all the time, yet you dismiss Hume's argument because it uses inductive reasoning.

Good grief - that was not the point!

He said:

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."

First formulated by David Hume, the problem of induction questions our reasons for believing that the future will resemble the past, or more broadly it questions predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. This inference from the observed to the unobserved is known as "inductive inferences", and Hume, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify them.

But he doesn't really believe that our experience is unalterable - that the laws of nature can not be violated - because there is no way to confirm that apart from circular reasoning.

[Sparko]

No one can walk unassisted on deep water.

9.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:240).jpg

[seer]

No one can walk unassisted on deep water.

How do you know that? Can you offer a logical objection - something apart from your opinion.

To put those texts into their contemporary socio-religious context.

For a lot of people, sadly not.

It seems that the socio-religious context in ancient times were not much different than today.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

9.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:240).jpg

Amusing but hardly evidence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How do you know that?

Use your common sense. Better still, take a boat out to sea and try walking on the water.

It seems that the socio-religious context in ancient times were not much different than today.

The socio-religious situation today is not the same as it was in the Roman Hellenistic world of the late first century CE.

However, as to believing things that are now considered to be both irrational and superstitious apparently many today still adhere to beliefs akin to many of those that existed with that first century society and and whose [then] believers you considered to be "rubes". By the way, are you including yourself and millions of other religious believers in that definition of "rubes"?

[seer]

Amusing but hardly evidence.

So? Like many events in your life miracles would probably be local, small and witnessed by a limited number of people.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So? Like many events in your life miracles would probably be local, small and witnessed by a limited number of people.

Hearsay is not proof.

[seer]

Use your common sense. Better still, take a boat out to sea and try walking on the water.

That makes no sense, a miracle by definition would be an unusual event. Not a common occurrence. The fact that I can not walk on water does not mean it never happened.

The socio-religious situation today is not the same as it was in the Roman Hellenistic world of the late first century CE.

However, as to believing things that are now considered to be both irrational and superstitious apparently many today still adhere to beliefs akin to many of those that existed with that first century society and and whose [then] believers you considered to be "rubes". By the way, are you including yourself and millions of other religious believers in that definition of "rubes"?

Hey bonehead, the rube thing was a about how you see us as. And you did it again - suggesting that believers are irrational! But you have not offered a reason why the supernatural violates any law of logic. So your irrational claim is meaningless bluster...

[seer]

Hearsay is not proof.

So? That tells us nothing about the truth of the matter...