Arguments Against Miracles

[mediamogul]

Thanks to everyone for giving tips and examples that I used in my email to refute Mr. Larmer's arguments. Here is what he says in reply:

A crucial difference between say Luke and Dickens, is that Dickens makes no claim to be giving a historical account, whereas Luke does. It seems a fair principle of evaluating sources which claim to be historical that if they are reliable on the facts that we can check, they have a greater claim to be reliable on the facts that we cannot. As regards your claim that people in the first century were so gullible that they would believe almost anything, I think it is mistaken. For example, Joseph is not portrayed as readily accepting Mary's story.

He is just nitpicking about the particular example which is primarily being used to demonstrate the principle that just because part of the story is fact doesn't mean the rest can't be fiction. The bootstrapping argument still has not been addressed. Evidence that the gospel got time, place, and even possibly some events right is NOT by association evidence that the supposed miracles occurred. If he had taken an intro philosophy course or studied logic he would understand the fallacy he is resorting to here is not sound. We need direct evidence that the laws of nature were contravened. This argument does NOT constitute evidence. Can you imagine, if this "method" was applied to a multitude of texts claiming supernatural events to be facts, what it would "prove". Virtually anything claimed to be truth in a text that contained some historically valid facts could be "proven" by this. It's utter nonsense.

There are many well-verified accounts of modern day 'miracles', i.e. events plausibly seen as the result of supernatural intervention. If you want to do some reading on the issue, Craig Keener's very recent book would be a good place to start. I also have collected some case studies. As to questions concerning the historical reliability of the gospel records, you might wish to look at Craig Blomberg's book on that topic.

False. They are all subjective arguments from personal experience. He most likely would discredit those supposed miracles which purport to validate other religions even though they are based on the same "experiences". This is not evidence. Are alien abduction stories accepted as scientific evidence of alien life? What about any of the million pseudo-sciences that claim first hand experience of any million ridiculous things?

Finally, what I directly argued, is that if God exists he can produce miracles without violating the laws of nature. Whether or not this has in fact happened cannot be pronounced on a priori, but one cannot dismiss miracles as antecedently improbable on the basis that they would violate the laws of nature. I do in fact believe in God and the occurrence of miracles, but my argument for distinguishing between the two forms of the Principle of Conservation of Energy and for affirming that miracles need not violate the laws of nature does not depend on making the claim that God does in fact exist.

So if once again god is an unneccessary hypothesis why has he reverted to explaining miracles based on his existence? Occams Razor prevails and positing "god did it" is multiplying entities beyond neccessity. Second of all if a "miracle" obeys the law of nature it is not defined as a miracle. He is neccessarily arguing for the existence of god. Christians are always trying to say that they aren't arguing for god's existence and that all the "evidence" just happens to point that direction. This is how they feign being scientific.

[Minimalist]

He is just nitpicking about the particular example which is primarily being used to demonstrate the principle that just because part of the story is fact doesn't mean the rest can't be fiction.

He probably does not realize that works both ways. For example, there is a "Jerusalem" but the rest of the bible is bullshit.

[Faith No More]

A crucial difference between say Luke and Dickens, is that Dickens makes no claim to be giving a historical account, whereas Luke does.

So we have to take Luke as serious historical material because Luke says so? Methinks this guys is peddling stupid.

[Godscreated]

I believe that miracles were common during the biblical time. Well, that's what my Pastor told me. Miracles do still happen, but not so often. Could be men is so sinful now that miracles now only happen to the righteous.

Wait. As opposed to the time when men were so sinful god drowned the entire earth? According to the bible stories men were plenty "sinful" back then too. The reason accounts of miracles are less common now is because we understand how the world actually works so don't misinterpret natural phenomena and also people aren't as gullible and superstitious. Well most.

What miracles was God doing during Noah's time.

---

Also, I was disturbed by his rationalization about the laws of thermodynamics... He made the argument that the law states that in any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. This is the law that states that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, he somehow made the logical jump to assume that the universe is not a closed system, and that, therefore, god can interfere and manipulate various elements of the universe without violating any of the natural laws because he is outside of the system. This to me makes no sense, but how you you create a cogent argument that shows to a person who believes this that it just isn't a rational argument?

God is outside his creation, He does interact within it, miracles are by definition unnatural. God being creator does not have to obey the laws that man places on this universe. What God does is not magic, it is for all intent and purpose manipulating his creation in any way He desires. Let's say for arguments sake that you entertain the thought God created the universe, how would He have done it, please be reasonable and leave out things like a magic wand.

[KichigaiNeko]

Still can't quite give up the fairy stories G-C??

How's the furniture going?? Need your god there??

[Godscreated]

Still can't quite give up the fairy stories G-C??

How's the furniture going?? Need your god there??

He does help me in my work and I'm thankful. Building a tool storage cabinet at this time, helps me practice hand cut dovetails they can be a challenge. How about yourself building anything?

[Zen Badger]

Still can't quite give up the fairy stories G-C??

How's the furniture going?? Need your god there??

He does help me in my work and I'm thankful. Building a tool storage cabinet at this time, helps me practice hand cut dovetails they can be a challenge. How about yourself building anything?

No GC, it is ALL you.

Do not disrespect yourself by giving credit where it is not due.

[KichigaiNeko]

Still can't quite give up the fairy stories G-C??

How's the furniture going?? Need your god there??

He does help me in my work and I'm thankful. Building a tool storage cabinet at this time, helps me practice hand cut dovetails they can be a challenge. How about yourself building anything?

Why do you have such a low opinion of your own capabilities G-C. Your deity has NOTHING to do with your ability to make fine furniture. Dove-tail joints are ALWAYS a hassle...as far I am to understand them (father was a carpenter)

Building for me involves plants and trees and understanding biomass (bacteria/ fungi/ viruses) so I am quite content to "build" my garden. Currently working with finishes - Clear gloss v Water base glue (PVA) for decorative purposes.

You are much more clever than your deity G-C...it really does NOT deserve any credit.

[Phil]

God is outside his creation, He does interact within it, miracles are by definition unnatural. God being creator does not have to obey the laws that man places on this universe. What God does is not magic, it is for all intent and purpose manipulating his creation in any way He desires. Let's say for arguments sake that you entertain the thought God created the universe, how would He have done it, please be reasonable and leave out things like a magic wand.

Ok, let's for a second immerse ourself in your world (oooh, look at all the pretty colors). God is outside time and space so it's not correct to ask for evidence as there can be none but then comes his interactions with it so science can find evidence. Will science finally provide evidence for god since his interactions can be tested for? Wait a sec, the drug is wearing off so I'm back in reality now. God's effects, the ones Christians have been claiming for 2000 years, have been tested for by science and guess what stupidschild? Your god doesn't exist.

---

father was a carpenter

So was mine and he really was from Nazareth.




























Pennsylvania....stop your damn snickering.

[NoMoreFaith]

God is outside his creation, He does interact within it, miracles are by definition unnatural. God being creator does not have to obey the laws that man places on this universe.

Speaking in terms of the ontological argument. If all things observed have a cause, and God is the first cause.
Interacting with his creation without adherence to the natural laws, would be repeated instances of the universe doing things which have no observable empirical causation.

His own interference refutes the ontological argument, and negates his existence in that argument. I find that amusing, but I'm easily amused.