(October 17, 2018 at 10:34 am)OakTree500 Wrote:(October 17, 2018 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote: 1) Saying that miracles are not an accepted fact is question begging. What kind of miracle-seeking experiment would make any logical sense? The very definition of a miracle has in it the a) inability to predict and b) the all-important feature that you can only see the effect--never the cause--something that throws a monkey wrench in experiments. I never said I would not look for counter-evidence=straw man.
You can't win this debate. You would have to prove my worldview wrong.
Well, no. You're the one claiming it's true, so you have to prove that it's correct. As always, that's the burden of proof.
The problem is with "Miracles", in the billions [or thousands if that's your belief] of years that the earth has been in existence, and all these supposed miracles that have happened, why has it never happened to a scientist?
You supposed god knows that atheists are questioning it, why not perform a miracle and turn all our science books into bibles in front of our very eyes? Better yet, why not just physically appear in the sky right now, and tell us it's real?
You say "oh well you can't predict a miracle etc etc" well that's bull shit I say. You're only "proof" they EVER happened is in the NT and OT. Without that, you have nothing, other than the word of crazy people who say they've seen something that they haven't.
Steve, with said burden, you have to prove yourself right.
Your having a problem with logic here.
I said (and you responded to): " I am saying that given that I believe in the supernatural (for other reasons) and given the background information that such events do not happen with any regularity, it is reasonable to infer that miracle x after prayer y may be supernatural. "
I am making an inference to the best explanation. I have not made an deductive argument (far from it). I don't have to prove anything because my probabilistic conclusion comes from my probabilistic premises. You have to prove my premises are impossible or logical incoherent to win. Albeit unintentional, you have assumed the burden of proof.
"Crazy people"? There you go assuming your conclusion again. Question beggar!
