Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Argument Against Miracles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Is it possible that he had in mind a different meaning for "proof" than you are using?
    Ok, so you agree that is not proof as you or I would use it?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
      They have been established by the fact that we've never seen them violated.
      Who has never seen them violated? I believe I have and have post that event here.


      Basically, we have reason to have much more confidence in the inviolability of the laws of nature than in the accuracy of any testimony.
      Again, he is assuming that based on deductive reasoning and his own preferences. How do you or he know that the laws of nature are inviolable?

      How so?
      How do you know that the past always resembled the present without begging the question? Do we have such comprehensive knowledge of the universe and its laws? Or even our own human past?
      Last edited by seer; 12-03-2022, 05:46 AM.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post

        Ok, so you agree that is not proof as you or I would use it?
        It's not proof as you and I would use it, but I think Hume is using it something like this:

        ​​​​​​3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity


        Here are a few examples, but there are a lot more:

        "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event."

        "And as the evidence, derived from witnesses and human testimony, is founded on past experience, so it varies with the experience, and is regarded either as a proof or a probability, according as the conjunction between any particular kind of report and any kind of object has been found to be constant or variable."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Who has never seen them violated? I believe I have and have post that event here.
          Well, if you are certain that you couldn't be mistaken, then Hume's argument may not mean much to you.

          Again, he is assuming that based on deductive reasoning and his own preferences. How do you or he know that the laws of nature are inviolable?
          Actually, it's inductive reasoning, and we know that they are inviolable as well as we know anything from experience. I believe that is what this phrase means: "as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."

          How do you know that the past always resembled the present without begging the question? Do we have such comprehensive knowledge of the universe and its laws? Or even our own human past?
          Again, how would assuming that the past always resembled the present be begging the question?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
            Actually, it's inductive reasoning, and we know that they are inviolable as well as we know anything from experience. I believe that is what this phrase means: "as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."


            So basically Hume rules out miracles a priori. He accepts human experience when it comes to the uniformity of nature but excludes human experience of miracles. It seems to me that his position is essentially unfalsifiable.


            Again, how would assuming that the past always resembled the present be begging the question?
            Because you are assuming what you intent to prove. Just ask, how do you know the past resembles the present?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              So basically Hume rules out miracles a priori.
              It's not 'a priori' if it's based on experience.

              He accepts human experience when it comes to the uniformity of nature but excludes human experience of miracles.
              He accepts human experience in both cases. But out experience with the reliability of witnesses loses out to our experience with the reliability of physical laws.

              It seems to me that his position is essentially unfalsifiable.
              Unlikely to be falsified is not the same as unfalsifiable.

              Because you are assuming what you intent to prove.
              No one is trying to prove that the past resembles the present.

              Just ask, how do you know the past resembles the present?
              We don't really know it, but rather assume it. (Though a probabilistic argument can be made that the past should be unintelligible if it were significantly different from the present.)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                It's not 'a priori' if it's based on experience.


                He accepts human experience in both cases. But out experience with the reliability of witnesses loses out to our experience with the reliability of physical laws.
                Right, and that is an a priori exclusion, when he decides what evidence is admissible or not, accepted or not. And Stoic ALL our experience of the laws of nature rely, at bottom, on our eyewitness testimonies, and witness.


                Unlikely to be falsified is not the same as unfalsifiable.
                Distinction without a difference? In other words what evidence would Hume accept for the miraculous? I doubt there would be any...


                No one is trying to prove that the past resembles the present.
                Then the whole argument of the past experience pointing to the reliability of physical laws fails.


                We don't really know it, but rather assume it. (Though a probabilistic argument can be made that the past should be unintelligible if it were significantly different from the present.)
                So the entire argument rests on unknowable assumptions.

                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Right, and that is an a priori exclusion, when he decides what evidence is admissible or not, accepted or not.
                  You can always argue that there is some other evidence that should be admissible and accepted. I'll be surprised if you can come up with something that he didn't deal with.

                  And Stoic ALL our experience of the laws of nature rely, at bottom, on our eyewitness testimonies, and witness.
                  And personal experience. As I said, if you are certain that you have witnessed a violation of the laws of nature, and were not mistaken or deceived, then Hume's argument won't have much force for you. But I haven't witnessed any such thing, and your claim to have done so has no force for me, whereas Hume's argument does.

                  Distinction without a difference? In other words what evidence would Hume accept for the miraculous? I doubt there would be any...
                  Probably not as long as miracles are violations of the laws of nature, and no one can show that the laws of nature can be violated.

                  Then the whole argument of the past experience pointing to the reliability of physical laws fails.
                  All arguments are based on assumptions. This doesn't cause the argument to fail if we all share in the same assumptions.

                  So the entire argument rests on unknowable assumptions.
                  Which we all share.

                  You can decide that you are only going to allow that assumption when it leads to conclusions that you like. But that's what I referred to as being inconsistent.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                    And personal experience. As I said, if you are certain that you have witnessed a violation of the laws of nature, and were not mistaken or deceived, then Hume's argument won't have much force for you. But I haven't witnessed any such thing, and your claim to have done so has no force for me, whereas Hume's argument does.
                    That is the point isn't it. No matter how sincere or honest the man's (or men's) witness it will not be accepted. Yet we could equally be deceived or mistaken by our conclusions concerning the uniformity of nature.

                    Probably not as long as miracles are violations of the laws of nature, and no one can show that the laws of nature can be violated.
                    And there is no evidence that the laws of nature are consistently immutable. Our infinite and limited knowledge can not make that leap.

                    All arguments are based on assumptions. This doesn't cause the argument to fail if we all share in the same assumptions.

                    You can decide that you are only going to allow that assumption when it leads to conclusions that you like. But that's what I referred to as being inconsistent.
                    What exact assumption have I made in this thread? And I would add that you and Hume are allowing only the assumptions that support your conclusions.

                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • That should have been Our finite and limited knowledge can not make that leap.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        That is the point isn't it. No matter how sincere or honest the man's (or men's) witness it will not be accepted. Yet we could equally be deceived or mistaken by our conclusions concerning the uniformity of nature.
                        Not equally. There are far more data points with regard to the uniformity of nature than for the sincerity and honesty (not to mention inerrancy) of any witness.

                        And there is no evidence that the laws of nature are consistently immutable. Our infinite and limited knowledge can not make that leap.
                        Not with certainty. Again, it's a probabilistic argument.

                        What exact assumption have I made in this thread?
                        We all assume that the past resembles the present, always. That includes you, even in this thread, except when it leads to a conclusion you don't like. Then you want to carve an exception.

                        For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion.


                        And I would add that you and Hume are allowing only the assumptions that support your conclusions.
                        What assumptions have we disallowed? I don't recall you bringing any up.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                          Not equally. There are far more data points with regard to the uniformity of nature than for the sincerity and honesty (not to mention inerrancy) of any witness.
                          But that does not exclude the possibility.

                          Not with certainty. Again, it's a probabilistic argument.
                          So is me hitting the Lottery...So you make probabilistic argument based on the assumption of uniformity. Again: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.

                          We all assume that the past resembles the present, always. That includes you, even in this thread, except when it leads to a conclusion you don't like. Then you want to carve an exception.
                          But I am not suggesting a conclusion, you and Hume are.



                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            But that does not exclude the possibility.
                            No one is excluding the possibility.

                            So is me hitting the Lottery...So you make probabilistic argument based on the assumption of uniformity.
                            Yep. If someone claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, I will dismiss the claim based on the same assumption.

                            Again: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.
                            Right. Hume knew there was no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences. That's why he didn't try to justify them.

                            (Though personally, I think the absolute inability to do without them counts as justification.)

                            But I am not suggesting a conclusion, you and Hume are.
                            If you make any argument about what happened 2000 years ago (or yesterday, for that matter), you are assuming that the past resembles the present. And you accept that assumption in every argument that anyone else makes, unless they draw a conclusion that you really don't like.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                              Right. Hume knew there was no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences. That's why he didn't try to justify them.

                              (Though personally, I think the absolute inability to do without them counts as justification.)


                              Just skimming through here, but this line stood out to me.

                              I think it's a very valid point.

                              Although, can we say that humans are absolutely unable to do without them?

                              I posit that it is very possible to do and live without inductive inferencing.

                              You may not live long, but I think it's possible.


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                                No one is excluding the possibility.
                                Good so we both agree that miracles are possible.

                                Right. Hume knew there was no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences. That's why he didn't try to justify them.
                                That is what I have been saying since the OP, so why have you been debating with me? His whole argument is based in inductive reasoning, and is circular and not justifiable.

                                If you make any argument about what happened 2000 years ago (or yesterday, for that matter), you are assuming that the past resembles the present. And you accept that assumption in every argument that anyone else makes, unless they draw a conclusion that you really don't like.
                                In this debate it is you and Hume making the positive claim - and as we have seen, based on circular reasoning...

                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X