Atheists will NEVER overcome this obstacle

[Athanasius90]

Just par for the course among the new-atheists here.

True, but I do care about seriously examining the case for/against miracles. Most people don't realise their aversions are rooted in Hume, to which there are good, robust modern responses.

Many just feel as if they cannot happen, period. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of that reasoning.

[boseador]

Humes arguments are weaksauce.


See Humes Abject Failure by John Earman. It's incredibly sophomoric to lump all purported miracles in the same box simply because they're miraculous. The whole point is to sift out which ones are genuine and which aren't, which requires careful scrutiny. Not Hume style slogans.

You are confusing arguments, as usual. It is obvious that I was referring to Hume's reductio of the premise that x miracles were witnessed by y sincere people, etc. not the argument about the probability of such miraculous events happening.

See A Defense of Hume on Miracles by Robert Fogelin. It is a refutation of Earman's abject failure.

All this ignoring the modern formulations of Hume's arguments.

[awphukwhy]

Easy, the bible is the only evidence that that Yahweh even existed, but the existence of many religious books and scriptures debunk any chance the bible is completely valid. If Yahweh is real then how can Allah not be real or Chaos or Odin or Amaterasu?

[MangoPort]

Ah, alright. No argument. Just someone resorting to sarcasm because their slogan fell apart under scrutiny.

I believe in God but I find myself continually defending atheists because people like you have so little understanding.

There is nothing wrong with atheist logic.

They just simply don't have faith.

There's nothing wrong with them.

[SwagSoSick]

lol

[Harbinger]

I believe in God but I find myself continually defending atheists because people like you have so little understanding.

There is nothing wrong with atheist logic.

They just simply don't have faith.

There's nothing wrong with them.

As rabid a theist as he is now, he was just as rabid as an atheist just a few years ago.

[GreatOldOne]

Hume was already destroyed by Paley. No need to consult modern philosophers over this.

Did you learn that from your Sunday school teacher?

[Athanasius90]

I believe in God but I find myself continually defending atheists because people like you have so little understanding.

There is nothing wrong with atheist logic.

They just simply don't have faith.

There's nothing wrong with them.

Where did I say there was something wrong with atheists?

All I did was point out that the teethtroll was resorting to sarcasm because he likely had nothing of interest to say.

[MuscleXtreme]

Where did I say there was something wrong with atheists?

All I did was point out that the teethtroll was resorting to sarcasm because he likely had nothing of interest to say.

I think the issue is that when their world view gets challenged, and they are forced to logically consider whether their point of view is correct, they become scared and have to resort to sarcasm or some other reaction in order to bring some mental comfort to themselves.

[Canadian2point0]

I think the issue is that when their world view gets challenged, and they are forced to logically consider whether their point of view is correct, they become scared and have to resort to sarcasm or some other reaction in order to bring some mental comfort to themselves.

What do you mean by "they"? Are you lumping atheists or anyone not following a ideology into one group?

[GreatOldOne]

I think the issue is that when their world view gets challenged...

Let me stop you right there. There's no challenge being presented.

You can't use philosophy to turn a myth into a miracle which is what you're interested in doing to make yourself feel better about unreasonable religious practices.

True, but I do care about seriously examining the case for/against miracles.

That doesn't appear to be true. You seem to be interested in scientism but only when you want to declare a miracle.

It's an interesting rhetorical approach for trolling purposes. But that is about it.

[ODBM]

I think the issue is that when their world view gets challenged, and they are forced to logically consider whether their point of view is correct, they become scared and have to resort to sarcasm or some other reaction in order to bring some mental comfort to themselves.

Actually it's because honest and objective discussion doesn't work with you and several other users here. When you - you - outright ignore questions, observations and entire posts just to maintain your position, the motivation to continue engaging in a meaningful exchange really drains right out.

[TrettinR]

True, but I do care about seriously examining the case for/against miracles. Most people don't realise their aversions are rooted in Hume, to which there are good, robust modern responses.

Many just feel as if they cannot happen, period. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of that reasoning.

Then maybe you won't mind answering my questions from page 8:

How do you decide what miracles are possible and which ones aren't? Are there any miracles in the bible that you don't believe happened? How do you decide if a miracle actually occurred now, and if you determine something is a miracle how do you determine the cause? Because different people give different things credit.

[Spartan5364]

If Yahweh is real then how can Allah not be real or Chaos or Odin or Amaterasu?

What kind of question is that?
If Yahweh is real then Allah or Odin cannot be real.

[GreatOldOne]

What kind of question is that?
If Yahweh is real then Allah or Odin cannot be real.

There's no logical contradiction between Yahweh, Allah, Odin, Amaterasu, and Chaos unless you put it there.

None of them are logically required for existence. They are representations.

[guyver79]

True, but I do care about seriously examining the case for/against miracles. Most people don't realise their aversions are rooted in Hume, to which there are good, robust modern responses.

Many just feel as if they cannot happen, period. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of that reasoning.

Dat der standard model + a pinch of the ol' Occam's razor.

I can't think of a single so called "miracle" that couldn't have a perfectly rational natural explanation.

[Weightaholic]

No, I do not. It is a provable claim by draining Loch.

It's an invisible magic monster.

We call that monster "Jesus".

[Athanasius90]

Dat der standard model + a pinch of the ol' Occam's razor.


I can't think of a single so called "miracle" that couldn't have a perfectly rational natural explanation.

How does the standard model come into this?

[GreatOldOne]

Nope, Paley rebutted Hume on the subject of miracles at length in his Evidences of Christianity

I'm aware of Paley lol. I was curious how you became aware of Paley and thought it might be WLC since reading some of his articles.

Most of their beotching at each other is about design and how ridiculous or completely reasonable that is (in my opinion).

Was not impressed by his talk on miracles either. This is why clergymen aren't usually (if ever) good philosophers. They don't love knowledge they love Jesus.

Paley's idea of God itself is not what you would recognize as Christian. He's a watchmaker...even Jesus would be God fiddling with the gears. You observing that would be God fiddling with some other gears. That's Allah dude.

You might be interested in these two:
Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (Paley)
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Hume)

If you don't settle the design issue you can't go onto miracles. There's literally nothing to talk about.

[GreatOldOne]

Paley's "Evidences of Christianity" was published years before "Natural Theology" and focuses more on a rebuttal of Hume's miracle claims. He was also required reading for over a century at Cambridge so I guess they found something to talk about.

Did they stop making him required reading? What about Hume?

I have to admit I lol everytime I read that title, "Evidences of Christianity".

Strong everything.

[GreatOldOne]

Yes. Although he still comes up in philosophy of religion courses.

Uh huh.

Not yet.

Uh huh.

[im2small]

The problem with atheists is they try to define faith using human logic/constraints. Ever hear the story of the blind man and the elephant?

[ElrondHubbard]

The problem with atheists is they try to define faith using human logic/constraints. Ever hear the story of the blind man and the elephant?

How is that a problem? Otherwise, you can define faith any way you dang please, and never have to make a lick of sense.

Oh, OK, I see how that can be an advantage.

[GreatOldOne]

The problem with atheists is they try to define faith using human logic/constraints. Ever hear the story of the blind man and the elephant?

No...that would be the Christians who define the limits of naturalism as whatever verifies the miracle proving God.

[im2small]

How is that a problem? Otherwise, you can define faith any way you dang please, and never have to make a lick of sense.

Oh, OK, I see how that can be an advantage.

It's a problem because the rules and limitations put on the universe and life in general are confined to human understanding. We are not the supreme beings. Or maybe we are. But there is a possibility we aren't, and humanity as a whole is too damn full of itself to admit that. Just because the scientists on planet Earth, year 2015 cannot explain God, doesn't mean God somehow doesn't exist.

Atheists always bring up the point "Well, who created God?" So if you don't believe in God, you think we got here by what, The Big Bang Theory? Ok then what created that? What was before that? Your logic is just as flawed.

[SteadyWayfarer]

It's a problem because the rules and limitations put on the universe and life in general are confined to human understanding. We are not the supreme beings. Or maybe we are. But there is a possibility we aren't, and humanity as a whole is too damn full of itself to admit that. Just because the scientists on planet Earth, year 2015 cannot explain God, doesn't mean God somehow doesn't exist.

Atheists always bring up the point "Well, who created God?" So if you don't believe in God, you think we got here by what, The Big Bang Theory? Ok then what created that? What was before that? Your logic is just as flawed.

Yeah but there is no reason or evidence supporting a belief in God, and just because we dont yet know the origin life, that doesn't make the idea of a religious God any more likely. At least atheists are willing to say they dont know, while religious people, even with all the evidence pointing against them, will always claim they have all the answers because their ancient book with unknown authors says so.

[Athanasius90]

Yeah but there is no reason or evidence supporting a belief in God, and just because we dont yet know the origin life, that doesn't make the idea of a religious God any more likely. At least atheists are willing to say they dont know, while religious people, even with all the evidence pointing against them, will always claim they have all the answers because their ancient book with unknown authors says so.

I for one am rather tired of this canard/trope/slogan. I think some new material might be in order--maybe something that actually represents the opponents position properly?

[GreatOldOne]

Yeah but there is no reason or evidence supporting a belief in God, and just because we dont yet know the origin life, that doesn't make the idea of a religious God any more likely. At least atheists are willing to say they dont know, while religious people, even with all the evidence pointing against them, will always claim they have all the answers because their ancient book with unknown authors says so.

You are correct when this thinking is applied to the invisible person prayed to by the idol worshiping Christians and their ilk.

Cthulhu on the other hand is completely different.

[guyver79]

How does the standard model come into this?

The underlying principles of the laws of physics are understood.

So either they can be suspended or violated telepathically at will by supernatural deities in order to punish or to teach some sort of moral lesson.

Or.......

Using Occam's razor no laws are violated and they're just a bunch of made up Jewish folk stories.

As you and MX have already spent most of this thread trying to show how agnostic you are then you must go with the latter.

In the absence of better knowledge 2000+ years ago it's no wonder such nonsense was believed, you on the other hand have no excuse for your naivety.

[TrettinR]

Just because the scientists on planet Earth, year 2015 cannot explain God, doesn't mean God somehow doesn't exist.

Sure.

So if you don't believe in God, you think we got here by what, The Big Bang Theory? Ok then what created that? What was before that? Your logic is just as flawed.

I don't know. Nobody really knows. Pretending to know otherwise is being dishonest.

I for one am rather tired of this canard/trope/slogan. I think some new material might be in order--maybe something that actually represents the opponents position properly?

while religious people will claim they have the answers because their ancient book with unknown authors says so AND because of ad hoc reasoning, often referred to as the KCA.

Edited for you Athan. Better?