Argument Against Miracles

[Stoic]

Good grief - that was not the point!

He said:



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.

You completely misunderstand his argument. He is not arguing that the laws of nature cannot be violated. He is giving a probabilistic argument, weighing the extremely uniform experience of the laws of nature not having been violated against the generally sketchy testimony claiming that they have.

Indeed, he points out that their extremely low prior probability is what gives miracles their force. But unfortunately, the testimony of men isn't strong enough to overcome that low probability and give good reason to believe it.


BTW, our experience is unalterable because it is in the past, and the past cannot be altered, at least until someone invests a time machine.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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

Then it cannot be considered to be true.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That makes no sense, a miracle by definition would be an unusual event. Not a common occurrence.

Go out to sea in a boat and see if one takes place.

Hey bonehead, the rube thing was a about how you see us as.

You wrote it.

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...

Of course it is irrational to believe some of the things religious type believe. As to the supernatural - the definition of the word explains it.

If someone believes they have pixies and unicorns dancing around their garden every full moon. Is that rational?

[seer]

You completely misunderstand his argument. He is not arguing that the laws of nature cannot be violated. He is giving a probabilistic argument, weighing the extremely uniform experience of the laws of nature not having been violated against the generally sketchy testimony claiming that they have.

Indeed, he points out that their extremely low prior probability is what gives miracles their force. But unfortunately, the testimony of men isn't strong enough to overcome that low probability and give good reason to believe it.


BTW, our experience is unalterable because it is in the past, and the past cannot be altered, at least until someone invests a time machine.

But how does he know what past experiences are? Because induction works backward as well as forward, he is assuming past uniformity of nature. And probability is merely an inference based on that assumption. If our experience can not predict future events of nature without arguing in a circle (as Hume states) how can he make a probabilistic argument if we don't have comprehensive knowledge of past events (and we don't) without also arguing in a circle?

[seer]

Go out to sea in a boat and see if one takes place.

That has nothing to to with whether a miracle can happen or not.

You wrote it.

Because you implied it...

Of course it is irrational to believe some of the things religious type believe. As to the supernatural - the definition of the word explains it.

If someone believes they have pixies and unicorns dancing around their garden every full moon. Is that rational?

Pixies and unicorns dancing around would not be an irrational claim if they are not violating a law of logic.

[Sparko]

Amusing but hardly evidence.

Just a reminder to never speak in absolutes. Sometimes it just takes a slightly different viewpoint to prove you wrong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Just a reminder to never speak in absolutes. Sometimes it just takes a slightly different viewpoint to prove you wrong.

Firstly we are all writing and not "speaking" and secondly nothing I wrote contained "absolutes".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That has nothing to to with whether a miracle can happen or not.

By what passes for logic and rational thinking according to you you consider anything is possible.

Because you implied it...

Not to the people of the ancient world.

Pixies and unicorns dancing around would not be an irrational claim if they are not violating a law of logic.

See my first comment.

[seer]

By what passes for logic and rational thinking according to you you consider anything is possible.

I'm using rational/irrational in the sense of the violation of the laws of logic. Miracles do not necessarily violate those those laws. As far as the psychological, I would agree that there are mental states that are irrational, like a man who thinks he is a woman. Or a person who sees your Pixies that aren't really there.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm using rational/irrational in the sense of the violation of the laws of logic.

Well you think you are

Miracles do not necessarily violate those those laws. As far as the psychological, I would agree that there are mental states that are irrational, like a man who thinks he is a woman. Or a person who sees your Pixies that aren't really there.

How do you know the pixies [and the unicorns] are not really there?

You believe in totally irrational things. Why distinguish?

[Machinist]

What law of logic do miracles violate?

The Law of identity? Excluded middle? Non-contradiction?

Which one, and how so?

[seer]

Well you think you are

Well then show me where I am wrong, be specific please.

How do you know the pixies [and the unicorns] are not really there?

I don't and neither do you.

You believe in totally irrational things. Why distinguish?

Really - what?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well then show me where I am wrong, be specific please.

Which branch of logic are you applying? However, I think Stoic has dealt your inconsistencies

I don't and neither do you.

I can come to a conclusion premised on the lack of fossil or any other material evidence of either unicorns or pixies.

Really - what?

You believe a three day old corpse got up and walked around. You believe in supernatural entities that have some sort of control of this planet [and indeed the universe].

From my perspective that is not far removed from pixies and celestial teapots.

[Machinist]

I can come to a conclusion premised on the lack of fossil or any other material evidence of either unicorns or pixies.

That's a safe assumption, but are you making an inductive inference?

[seer]

Which branch of logic are you applying? However, I think Stoic has dealt your inconsistencies

Err, no he didn't. See my reply and counter it if you can. And I am speaking of classic laws of logic as Machinist referenced. Or if you will Aristotelian logic...

I can come to a conclusion premised on the lack of fossil or any other material evidence of either unicorns or pixies.

That is not evidence, it is an assumption. Do you or we have the fossil evidence of every creature that ever existed?

You believe a three day old corpse got up and walked around. You believe in supernatural entities that have some sort of control of this planet [and indeed the universe].

From my perspective that is not far removed from pixies and celestial teapots.

Why is the concept of the supernatural irrational? Be specific please.