Are miracles evidence of the existence of God?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A universe with diamond rain, black holes and pulsars wouldn't look any different if God existed. 
Boru

Really? Did God tell you that?

How is knowing what God wants or does any different to knowing what God doesn't do or want?



sorry, logic nazi.

The existence of God is an open question (God may or may not exist).

The existence of diamond rain, black holes and pulsars are not open questions (the phenomena exist). Therefore, the following statements are equally valid:

1. In a universe where God exists, diamond rain, black holes and pulsars would exist.
2. In a universe where God does not exist, diamond rain, black holes and pulsars would exist. 

We know these statements to be valid because the physical phenomena exist irrespective of whether God exists. Therefore, physical phenomena cannot be used as evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.

Put THAT in your logic pipe and smoke it.

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

First of all, define "miracle".

[Foxaèr]

an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

[The Valkyrie]

So, something that has never occurred.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think a lot of miracle claims have a commonality with conspiracy theories. People are more likely to look for extreme explanations for unusual events.

Sally recovers from a case of the flu and no one claims a miracle, because people recover from flu all the time. Sally’s cancer goes into remission and it’s a miracle, because remission isn’t particularly common.

Chuck Yeager breaks the sound barrier and generates no conspiracy theories (that I’m aware of), because people were used to aircraft getting faster and faster. Neil Armstrong sets foot on the moon and conspiracy theories abound because it was a unique, significant event.

Plenty of other examples.

Boru

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

"Are miracles evidence for the existance of (Insert your diety here)?"

No.


You're welcome. :thumbsup:


Cheers.

[The Valkyrie]

At work.

"Are miracles evidence for the existance of (Insert your diety here)?"

No.


You're welcome. :thumbsup:


Cheers.

Is a diety a thin god?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

First of all, define "miracle".

Bastardized mayo.

[ignoramus]

Really? Did God tell you that?

How is knowing what God wants or does any different to knowing what God doesn't do or want?



sorry, logic nazi.

The existence of God is an open question (God may or may not exist).

The existence of diamond rain, black holes and pulsars are not open questions (the phenomena exist). Therefore, the following statements are equally valid:

1. In a universe where God exists, diamond rain, black holes and pulsars would exist.
2. In a universe where God does not exist, diamond rain, black holes and pulsars would exist. 

We know these statements to be valid because the physical phenomena exist irrespective of whether God exists. Therefore, physical phenomena cannot be used as evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.

Put THAT in your logic pipe and smoke it.

Boru

Can we agree at least that we are living in only one type of universe? ie: no partial god universe? ie: either there is a god or there isn't.
If we agree to that then we can't possibly know what the "other" universe could ever be like. yes?
Therefore we can't make positive claims for both possibilities, only one, but we don't know which one. We may never know which one.

This reminds me a bit of Hume's "grue" thought experiment.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The existence of God is an open question (God may or may not exist).

The existence of diamond rain, black holes and pulsars are not open questions (the phenomena exist). Therefore, the following statements are equally valid:

1. In a universe where God exists, diamond rain, black holes and pulsars would exist.
2. In a universe where God does not exist, diamond rain, black holes and pulsars would exist. 

We know these statements to be valid because the physical phenomena exist irrespective of whether God exists. Therefore, physical phenomena cannot be used as evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.

Put THAT in your logic pipe and smoke it.

Boru

Can we agree at least that we are living in only one type of universe? ie: no partial god universe? ie: either there is a god or there isn't.
If we agree to that then we can't possibly know what the "other" universe could ever be like. yes?
Therefore we can't make positive claims for both possibilities, only one, but we don't know which one. We may never know which one.

This reminds me a bit of Hume's "grue" thought experiment.

I'll try again.

We live in a universe that has black holes in it.  This universe may or may not have a God.  Therefore, the universe we're in has black holes, whether or not God exists. This means it is senseless to point to black holes (or any other physical phenomena) and claim that they are evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.

On re-reading my earlier post, I realize I should have said 'this universe' instead of 'a universe' - that was sloppy of me. I didn't intend to drag other universes into the argument.

Boru