Argument Against Miracles

[Stoic]

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.

Yes, if all of your cognitive abilities were completely wiped out, you could still live for a while, even without help.

But I don't think that means that you could do without your cognitive abilities.

[Stoic]

Good so we both agree that miracles are possible.

I would phrase it as "not impossible", but yes, it's good that we can agree on something.

(The reason I would not say miracles are possible is that that could easily be interpreted as "metaphysically possible", and I don't know if that's true.)

That is what I have been saying since the OP, so why have you been debating with me?

I keep debating with you because you keep saying things like "using inductive reasoning is circular", which is false.

His whole argument is based in inductive reasoning, and is circular and not justifiable.

See? There you go again.

In this debate it is you and Hume making the positive claim -

And you keep trashing inductive reasoning, even though you couldn't do without it.

and as we have seen, based on circular reasoning...

Funny how we can't even agree on what we've seen. But at least we can agree that miracles are not impossible.

[seer]

I would phrase it as "not impossible", but yes, it's good that we can agree on something.

(The reason I would not say miracles are possible is that that could easily be interpreted as "metaphysically possible", and I don't know if that's true.)

OK...

I keep debating with you because you keep saying things like "using inductive reasoning is circular", which is false.


See? There you go again.

It was not me, it was Hume, inferences or conclusions based on induction, is circular. "Hume, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify them"

And you keep trashing inductive reasoning, even though you couldn't do without it.

I said more than once that induction is useful. But it can not lead to hard conclusions. They are not logically justifiable.

[Stoic]

It was not me, it was Hume, inferences or conclusions based on induction, is circular. "Hume, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify them"

See if you can figure out the difference between the following two statements, because only one of them is true.

1) There is no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences.
2) Using inductive inferences without trying to justify them is circular reasoning.

I said more than once that induction is useful. But it can not lead to hard conclusions. They are not logically justifiable.

I'm not sure what you consider a "hard conclusion".

Is the claim that Jesus really existed a "hard conclusion"?

Is the claim that George Washington really existed a "hard conclusion"?

Is the claim that when I let go of a brick it will fall to the ground a "hard conclusion"?

[seer]

See if you can figure out the difference between the following two statements, because only one of them is true.

1) There is no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences.
2) Using inductive inferences without trying to justify them is circular reasoning.

So you agree there is no non-circular way to justify inferences gleened by induction? The conclusions are not logically valid?

[Stoic]

So you agree there is no non-circular way to justify inferences gleened by induction?

Yes. That's one of the points Hume is most famous for.

The conclusions are not logically valid?

You act like that's a big deal. No one is claiming that inductive inferences are logical conclusions. They are very different.

But that doesn't mean we don't all use (and trust) inductive inferences all the time.

But you can be inconsistent if you want to be.

[seer]

Yes. That's one of the points Hume is most famous for.


You act like that's a big deal. No one is claiming that inductive inferences are logical conclusions. They are very different.

But that doesn't mean we don't all use (and trust) inductive inferences all the time.

But you can be inconsistent if you want to be.

So Hume's conclusion, based on inductive arguments, that miracles are improbable, or that he has proof against miracles, is not logically valid. I think we agree again!

[Stoic]

So Hume's conclusion, based on inductive arguments, that miracles are improbable, or that he has proof against miracles, is not logically valid. I think we agree again!

It's inductively valid.

[seer]

It's inductively valid.

Yes, in a circular way... According to Hume... Why is the Bible the Word of God? Because the Bible says it is the Word of God! Works for me...

[Stoic]

Yes, in a circular way... According to Hume...

Nothing circular about it, according to Hume or otherwise.

Why is the Bible the Word of God? Because the Bible says it is the Word of God! Works for me...

Now that is circular.

[seer]

Nothing circular about it, according to Hume or otherwise.

Stoic, of course the inferences Hume is making from his inductive argument is circular - by his own definition.


"Hume, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify them"

His argument against miracles is inductive, therefore circular.

[Stoic]

Stoic, of course the inferences Hume is making from his inductive argument is circular - by his own definition.


"Hume, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify them"

His argument against miracles is inductive, therefore circular.

Again, we reach a point where I have to wonder whether your reading comprehension is really that bad, or you are just pretending not to understand.

Making inductive inferences is NOT the same as justifying inductive inferences.

You can make them without being guilty of circular reasoning. You cannot justify them without being guilty of circular reasoning.

In his argument, Hume makes them, but does not try to justify them.

If you cannot understand that, then there is no use continuing this discussion.

[seer]

You can make them without being guilty of circular reasoning. You cannot justify them without being guilty of circular reasoning.

And when I said, then it is not logically valid, you turned around and said it was inductively valid. What does valid even mean in that context? It makes you feel good? You agree with it? If there is no rational way to justify it then any conclusion is suspect.

1. The Bible claims to be the Word of God.
2. Therefore the Bible is probably the Word of God.

Inductively valid - correct?

[Stoic]

And when I said, then it is not logically valid, you turned around and said it was inductively valid. What does valid even mean in that context? It makes you feel good? You agree with it? If there is no rational way to justify it then any conclusion is suspect.

1. The Bible claims to be the Word of God.
2. Therefore the Bible is probably the Word of God.

Inductively valid - correct?

No, that's not even an inductive argument.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have used the term "inductively valid", even though I'm not the only one to have done so: https://study.com/academy/lesson/ind...S%20YOU%20KNOW.

More commonly, inductive arguments are categorized as strong or weak, and Hume's argument is pretty strong.

But before we go further, have you abandoned your claim that inductive reasoning is circular, or are you just going to bring it up again when you want to distract from something else?

[seer]

No, that's not even an inductive argument.

More commonly, inductive arguments are categorized as strong or weak, and Hume's argument is pretty strong.

But before we go further, have you abandoned your claim that inductive reasoning is circular, or are you just going to bring it up again when you want to distract from something else?

No, inferences from deductive argument are circular, either that or you give up all rational justification.

No matter the verbiage, this is Hume's argument at bottom.

1. Most people don't experience miracles.
2. Therefore miracles are improbable.

Or

1. Most people don't experience violations of natural laws.
2. Therefore violations of natural laws are improbable.

Really no different than my biblical argument as far as rational justification.