Arguments Against Miracles

[rationalnick]

Hello, I'm new to this forum, and I was spurred into joining to obtain knowledge with regards to debates about various aspects of religion. I was recently at a talk entitled "Are Miracles Believable?" where I assumed there would be a discussion about the veracity of miracles. However, it turned out to be a group of people confirming amongst themselves, using scientific "evidence" that the miracles depicted in the Bible were not only self-evidently true, but also distinct in their proof of god's existence.

I emailed him after the talk to ask him about what his arguments were for his presumption that the miracles depicted in the Bible actually happened, and that if he didn't have certain extra-Biblical or scientific evidence, why he was using scientific evidence (stating that the law of thermodynamics allows for an "open system" universe that god can manipulate without violating the laws of nature) to formulate his assertions. Here is what he sent me, and I was wondering if those who are more eloquent and learned on the subject could provide arguments that I could use in return:

"The thrust of my talk was to suggest that miracles cannot be a priori ruled out as somehow unscientific or violating the laws of nature. What that means is that one cannot dismiss a document as unhistorical simply on the basis of whether it contains accounts of miracles. Rather it would be deemed reliable or unreliable on the basis of other criteria for deeming whether a document is reliable, i.e. how close is it in time to the events it records, how reliable is it concerning things we can check.
Thus, for example, Luke is writing within the lifetime of people who were contemporary with the events he records and would have had access to them. Also, Luke on issues that can be checked, e.g. details of geography, governance, proper titles for officials, has been found to be very reliable. So a principle for evaluating his reports of miracles would be that if he is reliable on details that can be checked he is probably reliable on details that cannot be checked.

There is also the fact that if contemporary accounts of miracle turn out to be reliable, this provides some degree of evidence for thinking old accounts such as those found in the New Testament are reliable.
As regards mythic accounts such as Poseidon, there is no historical detail or setting and certainly no appeal to eye-witness testimony. As regards Mohammed's vision, it is intrinsically harder to make the case, since we have only his report, whereas in the case of a physical miracle, there is the possibility of abundant eye witness testimony."

Thanks in advance for any advice that is given to assist me in furthering this discussion with him.

Nick

[Phil]

Hello, I'm new to this forum, and I was spurred into joining to obtain knowledge with regards to debates about various aspects of religion. I was recently at a talk entitled "Are Miracles Believable?" where I assumed there would be a discussion about the veracity of miracles. However, it turned out to be a group of people confirming amongst themselves, using scientific "evidence" that the miracles depicted in the Bible were not only self-evidently true, but also distinct in their proof of god's existence.

I emailed him after the talk to ask him about what his arguments were for his presumption that the miracles depicted in the Bible actually happened, and that if he didn't have certain extra-Biblical or scientific evidence, why he was using scientific evidence (stating that the law of thermodynamics allows for an "open system" universe that god can manipulate without violating the laws of nature) to formulate his assertions. Here is what he sent me, and I was wondering if those who are more eloquent and learned on the subject could provide arguments that I could use in return:

"The thrust of my talk was to suggest that miracles cannot be a priori ruled out as somehow unscientific or violating the laws of nature. What that means is that one cannot dismiss a document as unhistorical simply on the basis of whether it contains accounts of miracles. Rather it would be deemed reliable or unreliable on the basis of other criteria for deeming whether a document is reliable, i.e. how close is it in time to the events it records, how reliable is it concerning things we can check.
Thus, for example, Luke is writing within the lifetime of people who were contemporary with the events he records and would have had access to them. Also, Luke on issues that can be checked, e.g. details of geography, governance, proper titles for officials, has been found to be very reliable. So a principle for evaluating his reports of miracles would be that if he is reliable on details that can be checked he is probably reliable on details that cannot be checked.

There is also the fact that if contemporary accounts of miracle turn out to be reliable, this provides some degree of evidence for thinking old accounts such as those found in the New Testament are reliable.
As regards mythic accounts such as Poseidon, there is no historical detail or setting and certainly no appeal to eye-witness testimony. As regards Mohammed's vision, it is intrinsically harder to make the case, since we have only his report, whereas in the case of a physical miracle, there is the possibility of abundant eye witness testimony."

Thanks in advance for any advice that is given to assist me in furthering this discussion with him.

Nick

Where was the talk and who was the speaker? And what was the evidence that Luke's gospel was reliable? And more importantly, why did you buy into the bullshit that the bible is reliable?

[rationalnick]

His name was Robert Larmer, in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He is a professor of philosophy with regards to religion. He didn't mention anything about Luke's gospel in the talk, he just sprung it on me in the email. I didn't say I bought into the bullshit, I was simply asking him what his position was regarding how he came to believing in the reliability of the bible. I think it's important to understand where religious people are getting their convictions from, especially if they are using science to back up claims in the bible without putting the text itself under the same kind of scrutiny.

[Cyberman]

Any attempts to shoehorn a scientific framework into the biblical miracles are futile at best and ridiculous at worst. On the one hand, people like this speaker and his followers are desperate to 'prove' that miracles are not a violation of matural and scientific principles, yet at the same time they allow their god to violate those very principles any time it's convenient. They want to have it both ways. The really sad part of all this mental masturbation is that it's all done with the aim of making these people feel less self conscious and silly for believing in fairy tale magic.

[Phil]

His name was Robert Larmer, in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He is a professor of philosophy with regards to religion. He didn't mention anything about Luke's gospel in the talk, he just sprung it on me in the email. I didn't say I bought into the bullshit, I was simply asking him what his position was regarding how he came to believing in the reliability of the bible. I think it's important to understand where religious people are getting their convictions from, especially if they are using science to back up claims in the bible without putting the text itself under the same kind of scrutiny.

Doesn't really matter where religious people get their convictions from. If they think they can back their shit with science, they don't understand science. No if ands or buts about it. Anyway, in my experience, religious people tend to believe for no reason other than they want to believe.

edit: Why would you expect a philosophy professor to even understand anything about the scientific veracity of miracles?

[mediamogul]

Hello, I'm new to this forum, and I was spurred into joining to obtain knowledge with regards to debates about various aspects of religion. I was recently at a talk entitled "Are Miracles Believable?" where I assumed there would be a discussion about the veracity of miracles. However, it turned out to be a group of people confirming amongst themselves, using scientific "evidence" that the miracles depicted in the Bible were not only self-evidently true, but also distinct in their proof of god's existence.

I emailed him after the talk to ask him about what his arguments were for his presumption that the miracles depicted in the Bible actually happened, and that if he didn't have certain extra-Biblical or scientific evidence, why he was using scientific evidence (stating that the law of thermodynamics allows for an "open system" universe that god can manipulate without violating the laws of nature) to formulate his assertions. Here is what he sent me, and I was wondering if those who are more eloquent and learned on the subject could provide arguments that I could use in return:

"The thrust of my talk was to suggest that miracles cannot be a priori ruled out as somehow unscientific or violating the laws of nature. What that means is that one cannot dismiss a document as unhistorical simply on the basis of whether it contains accounts of miracles. Rather it would be deemed reliable or unreliable on the basis of other criteria for deeming whether a document is reliable, i.e. how close is it in time to the events it records, how reliable is it concerning things we can check.
Thus, for example, Luke is writing within the lifetime of people who were contemporary with the events he records and would have had access to them. Also, Luke on issues that can be checked, e.g. details of geography, governance, proper titles for officials, has been found to be very reliable. So a principle for evaluating his reports of miracles would be that if he is reliable on details that can be checked he is probably reliable on details that cannot be checked.

There is also the fact that if contemporary accounts of miracle turn out to be reliable, this provides some degree of evidence for thinking old accounts such as those found in the New Testament are reliable.
As regards mythic accounts such as Poseidon, there is no historical detail or setting and certainly no appeal to eye-witness testimony. As regards Mohammed's vision, it is intrinsically harder to make the case, since we have only his report, whereas in the case of a physical miracle, there is the possibility of abundant eye witness testimony."

Thanks in advance for any advice that is given to assist me in furthering this discussion with him.

Nick

The logical fallacy he is commiting here is called bootstrapping. It essentially means using the evidence for one of his claims (lukes supposed historical accuracy) to prove another unrelated claim (that the miracles written are true). None of this actually proves anything. Simply because the person who wrote the gospel wrote a bit of history into it doesn't mean that the events happened. Charle Dickens wrote some historical fact into Oliver Twist doesn't mean that it is a factual account of someones life.

[rationalnick]

Yes, I find it rather ominous that they seem to think that, because the bible contains historical, geographical, governmental truths sprinkled throughout the text, that it constitues the reliability of the source? Is that not some kind of non sequitur? I mean, it seems to me that any work of fiction could contain facts and even accounts of real people, but that doesn't automatically make it reasonable to say that the rest is true by default.

Also, I agree about their shoehorning of science into their argument. I was extremely put off when he mentioned that the law of the conservation of energy only applied to a "closed system" universe and that since god was outside of that universe, that he could produce miracles without violating the law. I also kind of inserted the idea of Occam's razor and he somehow reinterpreted it in a way that was made to fit with his views. I really don't know how he managed to "logic" his way out of that...

[Christian]

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.

[Nine]

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.

So instead of helping the sinful your god then decides fuck em? Sounds like a lovely guy..

[Phil]

So instead of helping the sinful your god then decides fuck em? Sounds like a lovely guy..

Why not? He fucked Mary and the poor girl didn't even have an orgasm.