ex-preacher

Odd isn't that every Christian denomination claims to have the Holy Spirit guiding it into all truth, yet they disagree with each other on virtually every point of doctrine. Could it be they're all bluffing?

Malaclypse the Younger

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

You are dropping the important qualifier:

"Humean skepticism concludes that it is impossible to have a coherent and useful definition of knowledge and also be able to describe what the word "miracle" means."

I am summarizing the conclusion of another philosopher by way of illustration, to show an example of a system of skepticism that does not conclude (as you asserted) the impossibility of miracles from the presupposition of atheism. Bonus points if you can figure out to what other philosopher I was referring.

It would be more productive if you were to address my actual words, especially in the context in which they were written, rather than simply impose an arbitrary meaning on them and address that fictious meaning.

If one can't define (and thus understand) something, what does it mean to claim it exists or does not exist?

That I explicitly qualified the statement as deriving from another's line of thought might be a little bit of a clue.

I never adopted it in the first place, except in your own imagination.

I conceive an ethical duty (not to mention considerable personal satisfaction) in rebutting errors, fallacies, and absurdities.

More to the point: Why speak them in the first place?

brighid

[QUOTE]In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin.[QUOTE]


And a few centuries later women would be burned alive for being accussed of similar practices!

Brighid

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Oh I see. It's true because some group said it was? Isn't this the exact same claim most skeptics raise against fundamentalists??


And here we have it in it's finest form: The first sign of true theological exhaustion...The Great Blind Assertion.

Mala, logical absurdities are what you must SHOW...not simply DECLARE.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,
Simply answering the yes or no question would quickly alleviate any need for interpolation.


A truly unbiased thinker would not seem so afraid to answer such a simple question.

Thoughts and comments welcome,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jayhawker Soule

Then perhaps you'd be so kind as to answer the question I posed above.

Malaclypse the Younger

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Again, this is a bizarre nonsequitur. Perhaps its difficult for you to use the scroll bars to examine previous messages. Remember, my statements are in context (e.g. in response to your own specific claims).

Go back and read the referenced comments in the context in which they originally appear. Again, please respond to what the comments actually say.

You really must follow the simple technique of responding to the meaning of my comments as they actually appear if we are to have an actual discussion.

Well, I have shown that your latest comments are bizarre nonsequiturs and your earlier comments are a false misstatement of the actual position of many skeptics and atheists--including those whose works have been published for almost three centuries, and which you are apparently unaware of their existence, even by reputation.

Unfortunately, in order to discuss the deeper issues, it is necessary for us first to create a discussion, where we are actually interacting. This task has so far proven difficult due to your difficult of responding to what is actually said.

By the way, no bonus points: I was referring to David Hume. Sorry. Next contestant?

Generally speaking, when a large number of posts have intervened, it is useful to restate the question.

Malaclypse the Younger

On the Definition of "Miracle" and Evidence for the Supernatural.

A miracle is often defined as "an event contrary to the laws of nature" and is thus evidence for the supernatural. Under this definition, if it were known for a miracle to occur, it would indeed provide evidence for the supernatural. If the supernatural were true, then miracles would happen; contrawise, if supernaturalism were false then miracles would not happen. We thus have the necessary implications (h->e and ~h->~e) to construct a valid evidential argument.

However the definition of miracle above is actually incoherent, because it assumes that we can know the laws of nature a priori. However, this is not the case. The skeptic presupposes that the laws of nature are "known" (to the degree that they are known) dependent upon the events that we observe. Since the skeptic does not know the laws of nature a priori, (nor does she know them completely a posteriori from a partial set of observations) she cannot classify any phenonmenon as "miraculous" under that definition.

The skeptic wishes to construct a definition of "knowledge" that allows her to claim to be able to know the laws of nature from the events she observes (if the reader is uncomfortable with the metaphysical implications of this definition of knowledge, he may substitute the term "rational belief" or something else more personally amenable).

To construct such a system of knowledge, the skeptic must make some assumptions. The most basic assumption is that the laws of nature must account for all observed phenomena, however apparently bizarre or surprising.

The adoption of this assumption seems absolutely necessary; if this assumption is discarded, then she can prove any and all statements are "true knowledge" of natural law merely by arbitrarily excluding certain phenomena as "miraculous", and her system is thus explosive and useless.

Thus this definition of knowledge excludes miracles a priori--it doesn't say that surprising or difficult to understand phenomena cannot happen, it merely says that the skeptic is committed to proposing laws of nature that explain all phenomena, however surprising.

"Miracles" (and by extension the "supernatural") are excluded by the skeptic a priori because they are incoherent, relying on their definition of a contradiction of the skeptical presuppositions that 1) the laws of nature are not known a priori and 2) the laws of nature, by definition, account for all observed phenomena.

Is this (partial) definition of knowledge "true"? It is difficult or impossible to say. The skeptic merely personally privileges this definition (usually on the basis of its pragmatic value). But she is ontologically open minded in that she is committed to explaining all actual phenomena. She is metaphysically open minded to evaluating alternative metaphysical systems on the basis of pragmatic value.

It is critical to note that the definiteness of the skeptical definition of knowledge is not evidence of close-mindedness and such claims are trivially unproductive; everyone must (or actually does) create some definite metaphysical system merely to begin have a discussion. What is important is that the skeptic has a methodology for changing her own ontological and metaphysical beliefs.

Also, at some level, all minds/brains are themselves definite, especially with regard to pragmatic value. Again, singling out the skeptic for criticism on this basis is trivially unproductive.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

ReasonableDoubt,
Absolutely. If X routinely exhibits the attributes of God I have reason to believe that X is God...no matter how X is phrased. (too rah loo, cosmic-ant-sperm, blue orbital rhino, etc)


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Malaclypse
HAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

That is DAMN funny.
Define the term in such a way it can't exist!
Brilliant! There is no limit to how low the skeptical intellect will grovel to protect it's way of life.


I can't believe you can still remain an atheist after reading such tripe. You have far more faith than I'll EVER have.

Let's cut to the chase Malaclypse:
RIGHT NOW if your dad or mom died of heart attack, was pronounced dead by medical professionals, was swept off to the cemetary, remained entombed for several days THEN were brought back to life in full form...you would damn well start believing in God.

If you didn't you'd be an idiot.


This is what most atheists (not necessarily you) are LOATH to admit. Because it makes them agnostics. It makes them admit either they aren't sure.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

PS-My main objection to your (skepticm's) definition of miracle is that it simply does not account for the seat-of-the-pants, wow factor.

If something completely bizarre happens you, DARN IT you shouldn't be suprise because you simply don't 'know the laws of nature'.


WOW.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas