Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-12-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merzbow42

I still hold that it is possible to empirically deduce the existence of a supernatural God. Let's assume we observe a blatant violation of physical laws. There are two possible explanations for this violation:
1. Our understanding of the physical laws violated is incorrect, and so we have to come up with a set of new laws.
2. The laws violated still hold, and were temporarily suspended by a supernatural being who is unconstrained by the laws of our universe.
I would say that in many cases we can imagine, explanation 2 is MORE likely than explanation 1..

I don't think there is any precedent to regard explanation 2 as more likely, unless you are a fundie or some religious fanatic. For empirical reasons alone, explanation 1 would be considered as a priority, since all known previous unexplained phenomena were resolved by further investigation and observation, with no regard for explanation 2.

NatSciNarg · 07-12-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

I'm not really sure how your quotation helps your argument...
from Matt 22:5b [NIV]
"...But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Still, at least hell will keep you warm (which is much better than Cambridge in winter - I almost envy you!).

Matthew

NatSciNarg · 07-12-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

IRegarding "there was no rapid world-wide communication system", 'World Christian Trends' claims that there were approximately 800,000 Christians in 100 A.D., and it says that by 100 A.D., Christianity was widely dispersed over a sizeable geographic area, including Rome.

Hmmm. 800,000 Xtians by 100AD seems a little generous to me (based on Rodney Stark's model). Then again,

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

You are wrongly assuming that people would have embraced Jesus Christ on the level of some superstar Hollywood miracle worker or rock star. There was no such thing as Madison Avenue then, there was no rapid world-wide communication system, etc., etc. The scriptures provide explanations for why Christ was not overwhelmingly received... There was a purpose for Christ being rejected, humiliated, struck down, and killed.

if there was a purpose to 'Christ' being killed, why not make a little more public? Forgive my weak (biologist) pooh-like brain, but why only reveal the this supposed ultimate truth to a tiny percentage of the Roman Empire? And why only do it once? If GOD is behind this entire game, then why do it all in a system with no 'rapid world-wide communication', especially if one is only going to do it once? Frankly, I'd be embarressed to be in charge of GOD's PR division after this one...

Matthew

Johnny Skeptic · 07-12-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Regarding "there was no rapid world-wide communication system", 'World Christian Trends' claims that there were approximately 800,000 Christians in 100 A.D., and it says that by 100 A.D., Christianity was widely dispersed over a sizeable geographic area, including Rome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatSciNarg

Hmmm. 800,000 Xtians by 100AD seems a little generous to me (based on Rodney Stark's model). Then again,.......

Oh I think Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D., including the estimates of a lot of corroborative sources that he mentioned, is pretty close to the way it was. I was just stating my argument in terms that David from Texas would agree with.

If Jesus performed miracles in front of thousands of people in various locations (Matthew says the Jesus healed sick people thoughout Syria), Pilate would surely have known about it. The New Testament says that the Pharisees believed that Jesus performed miracles, and that the Pharisees were in frequent contact with Piliate. Pilate would surely have started an investigation, and if miracles occurred, he would have notified the Roman Emperor, and everything would have escalated from there to the point where historians from all over the Roman Empire and beyond would have mentioned it, and you can be sure that Christians would have preserved such records if they existed. What better evidence can there be for a Christian than the testimonies of skeptics?

Merzbow42 · 07-13-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I don't think there is any precedent to regard explanation 2 as more likely, unless you are a fundie or some religious fanatic. For empirical reasons alone, explanation 1 would be considered as a priority, since all known previous unexplained phenomena were resolved by further investigation and observation, with no regard for explanation 2.

True, but previous unexplained phenomena have not taken the form of a total localized mass violation of the known laws of physics (and/or the "laws" of probability) follow by a complete return to normality. And if this happened in the context of, say, a guy being brought back to life, I'll certainly buy the explanation that goddidit.

Alf · 07-13-2006, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

This is a black-and-white fallacy, presuming that either a natural law is perfectly reliable or completely unreliable, with no possibilities in between. If natural laws are mutable, but either are suspended rarely or are suspended under particular controlled circumstances, then natural laws are are still reliable enough for practical use.

"Miracles are impossible" is an empirical statement, and our ability to determine the truth of it depends on the available evidence, period. Deciding that miracles are practically impossible based on the current evidence is thoroughly valid. However, deciding a priori that miracles are impossible regardless of any available evidence is unacceptable.

I did not interpret Bart as saying that miracles are impossible. What he did say is that if a miracle occurred, a historian can never conclude that it did. This is a weakness of the method that historians use to establish what happened in the past but it is an intrinsic property of that same method.

Alf

Alf · 07-13-2006, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Indeed. I never argued otherwise. My point is that when we consider concrete examples of things that are considered supernatural, we are considering things that could be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled if they were to exist. This means that your idea that the supernatural and the empirical are mutually exclusive is simply wrong.

It also shows that the idea of existence of supernatural is a contradiction. If it exists it is natural - i.e. have much the same properties as anything else we would consider natural - and if it does not exist it does not exist. Consequently, the "supernatural" as supernatural never exists.

Therefore we can rule out a priori that the supernatural exists.

Alf

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-13-2006, 06:36 AM

Miracles are impossible by definition. They are anything which violates the physical laws of the universe. Physical laws cannot be violated or they wouldn't be laws. If miracles weren't impossible, they wouldn't be miracles. The probablility that a miracle has occurred is always zero.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-13-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C. Smith

To put it another way, if doubting a miracle entails doubting the existence of God, then those who believe that God exists can never doubt any miracle. All miracles suddenly become not only possible but indeed probable.

This is a tautology. It really only boils down to a statement that those who do not believe miracles are impossible do not believe miracles are impossible. ("It's not impossible if you believe a wizard did it.")

Sven · 07-13-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Miracles are impossible by definition. They are anything which violates the physical laws of the universe. Physical laws cannot be violated or they wouldn't be laws. If miracles weren't impossible, they wouldn't be miracles. The probablility that a miracle has occurred is always zero.

I already told you in another thread that this stance is shaky - because we don't know the "physical laws" of the universe yet, only approximations to them. It's possible (though) not likely that something which would be considered a miracle according to our current knowledge of the laws would not be a miracle if we knew the actual physical laws.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2006, 06:36 AM	#108
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Miracles are impossible by definition. They are anything which violates the physical laws of the universe. Physical laws cannot be violated or they wouldn't be laws. If miracles weren't impossible, they wouldn't be miracles. The probablility that a miracle has occurred is always zero.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.