Disproving the Bible

[Baqal]

@SteveII
-1. If God exists, miracles exist
2. God Exists
3. Therefore miracles exist.
If you try to make a point in an inescapable fallacy of circular reasoning, you will not get far.

[SteveII]

Blackout--Regarding #2 God Exists, I was pointing out that using miracles as an argument that science has disproven the Bible is not a good argument, because I could posit that God exists.

Regarding the actual premise, the existence of God seems more plausible that the negative.

There is not scientific evidence that the human mind can stand in causal relationship to a natural event. Complete randomness would not be immune to the laws of nature.

[Minimalist]

A miracle is an event that cannot occur naturally.

And therefore only happens in the imaginations of gullible fools.

[SteveII]

Fidel--A logically sound Christian worlview must be open to where the science leads. If we have evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old, then that is that. I was pointing out that the literal 6-day view is not the only one. Let me add that disproving the 6-day interpretation in no way disproves the existence of God nor other biblical claims.

While you might only desire facts, beliefs are not irrelevant. Philosophy and science go hand in hand.

You are right to say that science is not concerned with disproving the Bible. That would be a philosophical statement which science, by definition, cannot make. However, many people (including the first post in this thread) seem to think it does and has.

---

@SteveII
-1. If God exists, miracles exist
2. God Exists
3. Therefore miracles exist.
If you try to make a point in an inescapable fallacy of circular reasoning, you will not get far.

If you read the context, you will see that I was pointing out that miracles are not a good argument to disprove the Bible. You would have to disprove the existence of God (or at least show that it is less likely than the negation) to disprove the existence of miracles, which then can be used as an argument against the Bible.

[Baqal]

@SteveII
-If you read the context, you will see that I was pointing out that miracles are not a good argument to disprove the Bible. You would have to disprove the existence of God (or at least show that it is less likely than the negation) to disprove the existence of miracles, which then can be used as an argument against the Bible.
Do you realize that miracles can exist even without an intervention of any divinity?

[SteveII]

@SteveII
-If you read the context, you will see that I was pointing out that miracles are not a good argument to disprove the Bible. You would have to disprove the existence of God (or at least show that it is less likely than the negation) to disprove the existence of miracles, which then can be used as an argument against the Bible.
Do you realize that miracles can exist even without an intervention of any divinity?

Then your definition of miracles is not the same as mine. Please explain.

[Dystopia]

Blackout--Regarding #2 God Exists, I was pointing out that using miracles as an argument that science has disproven the Bible is not a good argument, because I could posit that God exists.

Regarding the actual premise, the existence of God seems more plausible that the negative.

There is not scientific evidence that the human mind can stand in causal relationship to a natural event. Complete randomness would not be immune to the laws of nature.

Again the Post Hoc fallacy, if the universe is random or not we do not know, however assuming it as god that created the first causal relationship is fallacious

[Baqal]

@SteveII
-Then your definition of miracles is not the same as mine. Please explain
Gladly. Under my definition, miracles are a rare phenomena that people apply to the intervention of something supernatural (in most cases, a god). The reason for why I think miracles don't need to be necessarily applied to a divinity is because none have been observed by researchers. Why? Because the people that believe in the miracle will call the analysis done by these researchers blasphemy. That is why I'm skeptical about it. Are they really up to protect a miracle from violation, or are they preventing scientists to discover that their miracle is a fraud?

[Dystopia]

@SteveII
-Then your definition of miracles is not the same as mine. Please explain
Gladly. Under my definition, miracles are a rare phenomena that people apply to the intervention of something supernatural (in most cases, a god). The reason for why I think miracles don't need to be necessarily applied to a divinity is because none has been observed by researchers. Why? Because the people that believe in the miracle will call the analysis done by these researchers blasphemy. That is why I'm skeptical about it. Are they really up to protect a miracle from violation, or are they preventing scientists to discover that their miracle is a fraud?

We describe something as a miracle when we can't explain it. Let's go back in time and imagine earth 200 or 300 years ago - Something that is today perfectly explained and most common citizens understand, was at that time a mystery, there was no explanation, so people attributed the cause to god and miracles, the example I usually give was when in the middle ages people think it was god's intervention when someone got better from a fever. Science has been progressively explaining events that we didn't know how to explain previously and will positively continue to do so the more progress mankind makes, and with this advancement, less events will be considered miracles.

When something like a 'miracle' happens two possible hypothesis are possible in my view:
1 - Either there is no current explanation but there will be one in the future
2 - There is really not an explanation. In this case, we could use the god argument, however even this conclusion can be dismissed, a miracle could happen out of randomness or out of the power of human mind, it could happen by any factor and not necessarily god. This is what annoys me with a lot of theists, when they hear about a miracle or non explained event they automatically label it as 'god's work' precociously without considering there could be possible explanations for the phenomenon.

I'm not saying a miracle without any explanation is impossible, but most likely it wasn't caused by god, it would make more sense to me to believe they were caused by the universe's laws or out of complete randomness since these cases are rare and isolated, therefore they don't prove anything.

[Baqal]

@Blackout
-This is what annoys me with a lot of theists, when they hear about a miracle or non explained event they automatically label it as 'god's work' precociously without considering there could be possible explanations for the phenomenon.
Theists tend to do this very often - use something they can't explain as evidence for what they can't explain without mentioning magic.