You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[SteveII]

So we agree that perhaps evidence can?

If evidence could, then science could, you need to make up your mind.  Is it more important to you to have a place to hide your non-existent miracles, or to -have- your non-existent miracles?

Science can tell us if an event was most likely naturally caused. It cannot provide information if an event was supernaturally caused. You still are asserting that supernatural caused events do not happen yet there is no logical or scientific reason they cannot. Even if there was never any reported supernatural events anywhere, you still can't make that claim. There are, so the case only gets stronger the more experience we have observing supernatural events.

[robvalue]

Nope.

You are not doing science, and you are employing the argument from ignorance.

[Expired]

And you're getting probability mixed up with possibility.

[Cyberman]

Since we haven't been presented with a single allegedly supernatural event despite calls for them, arguing about their probability is rather silly. In fact, all this tapdancing is starting to make me think there's nothing to see and our friend knows it.

[robvalue]

This is why I've started calling things consistent rather than possible. We don't know what is possible, except the things we've already demonstrated to happen. Something can be consistent with reality (it doesn't contradict it) but it still might not actually be possible. I think theists often confuse the two. They say if it's consistent, it is possible. Not necessarily.

This is a great video showing how people often misuse the word "possible", for those that haven't seen it.

http://youtu.be/LqNDrOxhZho

[robvalue]

Holy fuck, if I got a pound every time I pointed out the argument from ignorance, I'd never have to get off my ass.

[SteveII]

Nope.

You are not doing science, and you are employing the argument from ignorance.

No, an argument from ignorance is asserting something is true because it has not yet been proven false. Instead, I am using reason and probability theory to determine if an event likely had a natural cause or not. You simply want to assert in the beginning that there is no such thing as supernatural causes--because of your bias--not because of any affirmative proof that none exist.

[robvalue]

When did I say that? I'll wait.

And yes, it is the argument from ignorance. You're saying if we can't prove it's impossible, then it's possible. That doesn't follow.

[little_monkey]

I went through all this recently. I'll post the video again.

It's an equivocation between our scientific theories which model the "laws of nature" and the actual "laws of nature". Equivocations are bad.

Angry Atheist to the rescue:

I agree, we should not rule out any event a priori because our "laws of nature" are more descriptive than prescriptive. However, that does not rule out supernatural causes. Science cannot tell us if supernatural causes exist or not.

And what would prove that supernatural causes exist?

[SteveII]

Since we haven't been presented with a single allegedly supernatural event despite calls for them, arguing about their probability is rather silly. In fact, all this tapdancing is starting to make me think there's nothing to see and our friend knows it.

I did present a personal one earlier to illustrate the equation. If I bring up one from the NT, that will just start a spiral of stupid assertions about made up stories, conspiracy theories, iron age intelligence, Mark got this town wrong, therefore..., etc. I've heard the arguments against the NT events and do not find them convincing and I am not going to argue about them again (especially in this post). 

However, none of the objections you can bring up to the NT supernatural events changes the fact that they could have happened. And that has been my point all along. You can use reason and probability theory to weigh the likelihood of any event being caused by natural causes or not. It is not simply a question of could natural causes create event x. It is given all the factors--the degree of likelihood given the timing and context, what is more probably. 

The example I gave earlier. Man born crippled walks. While not probable, there may be natural causes that can make that happen. If a man claiming to be the Son of God, tells the guy his sins are forgiven and then, after being accused of blaspheme, said, what is easier to say to a many your sins are forgiven to to tell him to take up his bed and walk. You see, the timing and context increases the probability that this was a miracle.