Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[littleendian]

The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful expressions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.

I hold it as an axiom, so yes, to me that principle is true by definition.

So why do you put your faith in it? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth? No. You cannot. It is a philosophical assumption, not scientific. Neither can anyone prove that reason and logic is not a valid means of knowing truth. I favor both science and reason/logic instead of just one.

Yes, everything takes some kind of trust, that e.g. tomorrow the world will still be here. However there are reasonable faith assumptions (the world will be here tomorrow) and there are unreasonable ones (after I die I go to heaven but only if I continue to resist fucking my wifes girlfriend). It is much more reasonable to assume that the downside of fucking your wifes girlfriend is here in this world, tangible and real. And no, I don't endorse it

Neither can anyone prove scientifically that God does not act in this world. You cannot put that in a test tube either.

Famous quote for you: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Atheists/Agnostics don't need to prove jack.

[Foxaèr]

Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth?

Yes, it is the only truth we have. Anything that cannot be verified by science has either yet to be verified or is a make believe concept created by man for appeasement of his mind in regards to the unknown. There is little doubt in my mind that a deity will never be proven by science to exist.

[Tonus]

I get the impression that you use the word "physical" as a substitute for "reality" and "metaphysical" as a substitute for "fantasy." It makes one seem as plausible as the other when you put it that way, but it doesn't change that you're comparing reality to fantasy.

metaphysical - of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses.

That just reinforces my impression. How do we define that which we cannot even perceive?

[downbeatplumb]

That just reinforces my impression. How do we define that which we cannot even perceive?

Unproven covers it I think.

[Mister Agenda]

That is why the Sacrament of Reconciliation was instituted by Jesus. Jesus knows we will continue to sin because the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.


Any discussion should define terms so we are talking about the same thing. Our definitions disagree. My definition is the one we are discussing.
Miracles usually occur through prayer to God or asking a holy person's intercession to God.


OK


At least we understand our differences.

This definition of metaphysics was in response to someone who thought it meant fantasy.


Our definitions disagree. That the event happened begs the question of how it could occur when it is beyond human power to cause it. My point is that if you eliminate the assumption that the one reporting the miracle is a lying insane person, (hence circular reasoning) then you have to acknowledge that there is a power greater than yourself that caused it. I'm applying the law of causality, I.e., everything has a cause except the uncaused cause being who caused the chain of events known as creation to begin.

I can predict that you will respond with one of the tenets of the religion of Scientism: All truth can be explained by science; if not currently explained, it has faith that all will be explained some time in the future. This is why I was defining metaphysical. Science is limited to explaining the physical realm. One must use reason and logic to explore metaphysical issues. Scientism requires faith. I do not have faith in Scientism to explain God or why He causes miracles. I have come to the conclusion that the cause of events that happen as a result of prayer are caused by God.

See one of my previous posts where I give a critique of David Hume's position on miracles where I said Hume's "argument equates quantity of evidence and probability. It says, in effect, that we should always believe what is most probable) in the sense of "enjoying the highest odds". But this is silly. On the these grounds a dice player should not believe the dice show three sides on the first roll, since the odds against it are 1,635,013,559,600 to 1. What Hume seems to overlook is that wise people base their beliefs on facts, not simply on odds. Sometimes the "odds' against an event are high (based on past observations), but the evidence for the event is otherwise very good. (based on current observation or reliable testimony.) Hume's argument confuses quantity of evidence with the quality of evidence. Evidence should be weighed, not added."

I agree that the odds of miraculous healings and Jesus' Resurrection are beyond statistical probability. However, that is not the method I use to evaluate acts of God, which is my definition of a miracle.

The probability of dice which have already been rolled showing the sides that they did is 100%. Odds are important before the fact, not after, they are for predictions. The odds of getting a particular Bridge hand are billions to one, if you guess the correct hand in advance that's impressive, afterwards it's just an observation. I doubt Hume misunderstood odds in the fashion that you imagine.

[Ryantology]

You are using a much narrower definition of reality than I am. There is more than what meets the eye.

There is certainly more than meets the eye. What you have to demonstrate the existence of the specific 'more' you seem certain exists.

As a Christian, you imply that you have exclusive access to the truth. Appealing to the unknown only serves to undermine the claim you're attempting to defend.

[Mister Agenda]

But you are digressing from the topic of miracles. So let's get back to that. How could Jesus, if He were merely human, rise from the dead? When a Roman soldier thrust a lance through His heart, there is no way He could not be thoroughly dead. There were 500 eyewitnesses that saw Him alive after He rose. (1 Corinthians 15) There has to be something super-human to explain this, because humans cannot do this on their own power.

In the account, it's the side of Jesus that is pierced, not his heart. One good sign that it wasn't his heart is that it didn't kill him immediately.

Who were the witnesses? Why didn't any of them write down an account that survived? I could write that my cousin was abducted by aliens and 5,000 people saw it, that doesn't mean 5,000 people did; it only means I claimed they did. No superhuman explanation is needed, because tale-telling and exaggeration aren't superhuman abilities.

[Faith No More]

The biggest failure Christians have when trying to discern the validity of the resurrection is to take the eyewitness testimony as infallible. Take the C.S. Lewis quote in which he says that Jesus was either "Liar, lunatic, or lord." How about misquoted, misunderstood, or completely fabricated?

[Zarith]

The problem with allowing supernatural explanations is that you still have to have a way to pick and choose WHICH supernatural explanation. Once you open the miracle door, who is to say that it was this miracle instead of that miracle that really happened? If we are allowed to break rules like "bodies don't come back to life", who is to say it's this rule that gets broken instead of some other rule?

Arif Ahmed pretty much destroys this whole way of thinking in 14 minutes, and in a way that doesn't even require contesting authenticity of the gospel accounts or historicity of Jesus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IakyR7ResSo

[BettyG]

The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful expressions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.

I hold it as an axiom, so yes, to me that principle is true by definition.

So why do you put your faith in it? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth? No. You cannot. It is a philosophical assumption, not scientific. Neither can anyone prove that reason and logic is not a valid means of knowing truth. I favor both science and reason/logic instead of just one.

Yes, everything takes some kind of trust, that e.g. tomorrow the world will still be here. However there are reasonable faith assumptions (the world will be here tomorrow) and there are unreasonable ones (after I die I go to heaven but only if I continue to resist fucking my wifes girlfriend). It is much more reasonable to assume that the downside of fucking your wifes girlfriend is here in this world, tangible and real. And no, I don't endorse it

Neither can anyone prove scientifically that God does not act in this world. You cannot put that in a test tube either.

Famous quote for you: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Atheists/Agnostics don't need to prove jack.

If you believe that empirical verifiability is the only way to know truth, why are you using logic to convince me that I am wrong? Ergo, you apparently do not totally hold empirical verifiability as an axiom. This whole thread is a logical debate, not a scientific experiment.
I love science. I work in medical research. I read lab experiments all day long. I just know its limits. The scientific method has to be logical and reasonable or the experiments won't prove anything other than the design of the experiment was wrong.

I haven't gotten around to discussing reasons why Christianity is logical. I am trying to stick to the topic.
I am also a skeptic that assumes that events have natural causes unless proven otherwise. When studying a miracle, I also rule out the possibility of fraud or lunacy. C.S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, said that Jesus is either a liar, lunatic or Lord. He demonstrated why the Lord option was the most reasonable. He used to be an atheist until the evidence demonstrated otherwise. (I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt). You cannot assume Jesus was a liar or lunatic unless you examine the evidence.

One cannot be skeptical of everything. In addition to evidence and logic, you have to trust those who have the proper authority. If that were not true, then there would be not point in going to school or reading books. You seem to trust David Hume like a god. Can you see the flaws in his logic?

The consequences of sin are both here and hereafter. I have that insight on experience and good authority. If you were open to why Jesus is a good authority, I would explain it. However, I sense it would be wasted effort. So I'd like to continue discussing how we can know what is true. I believe it is through science, evidence, AND logic.

---

metaphysical - of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses.

That just reinforces my impression. How do we define that which we cannot even perceive?

Aren't you basing your questions on Rene Descartes' philosophy? He said the only thing real is what our senses perceive. By claiming that only material things exist, atheism renders itself a self-refuting proposition. Ironically, because the atheist denies the existence of anything that is not reducible to material substances, he cannot use ideas, reason, or appeals to logic and remain consistent with his claim. To be consistent, an atheist claim that atheism (or anything else, for that matter) is true, because to assert that he knows something is true necessitates self-awareness, as well as an awareness of ideas that are independent of the self. It would also mean that he is aware that other minds exist.

This is a sample of the flaws in his logic. There is a lot more to it.

---

Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth?

Yes, it is the only truth we have. Anything that cannot be verified by science has either yet to be verified or is a make believe concept created by man for appeasement of his mind in regards to the unknown. There is little doubt in my mind that a deity will never be proven by science to exist.

See my post below about flaws in Descartes' philosophy.

---

The biggest failure Christians have when trying to discern the validity of the resurrection is to take the eyewitness testimony as infallible. Take the C.S. Lewis quote in which he says that Jesus was either "Liar, lunatic, or lord." How about misquoted, misunderstood, or completely fabricated?

The reliability of the Bible is a whole different topic. Perhaps we can have a thread on that later. I don't have time for it right now. You all are keeping me occupied responding to this thread. So it has to be a lick and a promise for awhile.