Gawen

*whisperin*...I knew that...but he may not have.

Paul Brand

I'm lost.


Can laws exist without logic? It seems to me that logic is prior to nature.

I don't quite follow how squared circles are even a hypothetical possibility.


A few responses. 1) is that I'm not positing that by agreeing to be a servant to a master, you give up free will entirely. I consider it reasonable to think that the submission to God is an ongoing choice rather than a one time choice. 2)If you cannot choose to limit your options, then that itself is a limit on free will.

No, I scarcely read the thread, and I remember someone bringing it up. Apparently it was Charlie. I was speaking off the top of my head. I'm sorry I offended you. I still haven't read the entire thread, so I will abstain from further comment for now.

Paul Brand

I guess my odds aren't that good.

Paul Brand

I guess miracles are not the domain of science then. Natural properties that exist outside this universe, are a domain of science (e.g. there are other possible universes with different sets of physical constants). But, I still wouldn't put much faith in science in being able to test miracles.

Suppose you are correct. The implication is that there is a lot of evil in the world. Not that miracles don't happen, though perhaps a healthy skepticism is appropriate.

Ignoring the sucesses of science, you may have a point, unless of course this universe is all a result of some cosmic trickster, but I don't see much reason to believe that is true. I suppose you are better off not believing in miracles then.

That seems to be a slippery slope style of argument. If so, that's not a very rational style of argument. Perhaps it is more likely that I missed certain premises in your logic.

I don't understand why one miracle would cause you to lose all faith in your senses. I don't think it is logical for you to say that.

I offered a definition of miracle that differs from your implied definition, so let's be careful not to equivocate. I posit that nothing happens in violation of the laws of nature.

Using Bayesian probabilities, if the prior probability of a miracle is 0, then the posterior probability of a miracle must also be 0, no matter what other evidence is provided. Thus, I think Hume might be begging the question. But, perhaps he does think the Pr(miracle)>0. Either way I agree with his logic. His logic informs us to be skeptical of miraculous claims, but it doesn't in itself discount the possibility of miracles.

There may be more possibilities than that, but I think what you are saying is thoughtful. I tend to believe that conditions are a bit different between then and now, but maybe not entirely different. This topic is still something I'm sorting through, and have no firm opinion on.

Biff the unclean

Logic is a human construct that uses human understanding of the laws of nature

Your God is supposed to be the creator of the universe. He’s supposed to be the one who set the laws of nature in place. For instance He’s the one who thought it would be fun if everything fell DOWN. He could have decided that everything would fall north, or nothing would fall at all. He started from scratch with a clean slate. Had he decided that circles could be squared then they would be.
You haven’t given too much thought to what it means to be the Creator od EVERYTHING, have you?

Right, not your will be done but His will be done. That means your freewill has gone down the toilet. You agree to have a master then you are discarding your freewill.
You give away your will to be ruled by another then your will is gone if you did it with a smile or not.
Nowhere in the bible does God approve of freewill. Gaining Freewill was the original sin.

Gawen

Paul,
The question is can miracles be established except by miracles? To believe in miracles would be to reject the principle of the uniformity of experience, upon which laws of nature are based. If any god that sits outside of nature and can somehow reach into our nature, it would be to reject a fundamental assumption of all science, that the laws of nature are inviolate. Even if the god in question is within our nature, it (miracle) should be readily realised and measured through scientific means.

Other than that, a miracle cannot be believed without abandoning a basic principle of empirical knowledge: that like things under like circumstances produce like results.

Of course there is another constant, another product of uniform experience which should not be forgotten. And that is the tendency of people at all times in all ages to desire wondrous events, to be deluded about them, to fabricate, create, embellish, enhance, and come to believe in the absolute truth of the creations of their own passions and heated imaginations.

Do I mean that miracles cannot occur? No. It means, however, that when a miracle is reported the probability will always be greater that the person doing the reporting is mistaken, deluded or a fraud than that the miracle really occurred. To believe in a miracle is not an act of reason but of faith.

Gawen

Still thinking about this Paul.

The effect of testimony depends on the intelligence and integrity of the witness and the intelligence of he who hears it. Such people, with the best intentions, honestly bear false witness. They have been imposed upon by appearances, and are victims of delusion and illusion.

Jesus for example, is reported to have fed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fishes, and again 4,000 with seven loaves and a few small fishes. He walked on the water, calmed the seas, raised three persons from the dead and performed other miracles contrary to natural laws. Jesus assured his disciples that they too would be able to perform miracles. These wondrous acts were depended upon by him and his Disciples by the authors to convince the people that he was the expected Messiah.

Reading the Gospels, Jesus set great store by these marvels that no one is able to do today. Ministers cannot cast out devils, move mountains, wither fig trees, raise the dead and they are affected by deadly drinks and snakes the same as anyone else. Jesus (or the authors) had a primitive idea of the value of such magic. Either they sought to deceive the gullible, or, as is more likely, over-credulous. It is important to remember that Jesus stressed the value of enchantment and advised his successors and believers to conjure in his name.

If the miraculous had not been connected with the name of Jesus, do you personally think it is probable that he never would have been heard of? His ethical teachings alone would not have won for him the exalted position that has come from the stories of his miraculous birth, life and ascension. In other words, his fame rests upon the supernatural side of his life.

Paul Brand

I think logic exists regardless of our understanding of it. Logic is discovered, not invented.

I followed you until you suggested squared circles. I can see how other physical parameters can exist in a self-consistent universe, but squared circles suggests a contradictory universe, which cannot exist, and cannot be created.
That's your premise, not mine.

You don't have to do his will. Not discarding it, limiting it, and freely so. There is value in free will. There is value in limited free will.

He commands us to love each other, which isn't possible without the ability to choose between love and any alternatives. Love and free will cannot be separated.

I don't agree with your interpretation.

Paul Brand

The laws of nature interact. For example, it's very difficult for me to predict what you will do next, even though you are part of nature. Normally, I would expect this post to go through, but who knows whether the IS people are going to decide to shut down my computer just before I send. Is this part of the uniformity of experience you talk about?

Nature isn't necessarily readily realized. There are many examples of infrequent events. And there are many things about this universe which are beyond the grasp of science. And as I said before, even on our own planet, it is very difficult to test what a person will do in such and such a circumstance. Science deals with principles of repeatability and falsifiability, but personal agents are too complex to put into a test tube. And if we are too complex, surely God is all the more complex. We cannot adequately control the environment, and even if we could, God could respond differently each time.

Again, I think science is too limited in being able to apply these principles to persons.

I don't think I would go as far as calling that a constant. Throughout time, there have been deluded people, but not everyone is delusional, and the proportion of deluded people varies by time, culture, geography, DNA etc.

I think I agree in what you are saying, but we may disagree with the degree of importance of what you are saying.

Paul Brand

That's an important consideration.

I agree that miracles were an important part of establishing the credibility of Jesus and his message.

Or at least, I'm not aware of such things happening. I'm not sure I agree with all your choices of words, but I see where you are coming from.

I would say that his fame is contingent on the miracles, but I think it is also contingent on the [perceived?] soundness of his teachings. There are other claims of miracle workers, but Jesus stands out amongst them.