Page 51 of 76 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 756

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #501
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,131
    Rep Power
    10
    Lump, you just seriously argued: A claim that magic is real is evidence that magic is real.

    No, it isn’t. Anecdotes are NOT evidence that the content/subject of the anecdote is real; they are only evidence that someone had an experience that they could not explain.

    How many times must that be pointed out to you?

    Likewise:

    Virtually all our historical record comes from biased witnesses.
    That’s right. Which is why no historian—or educated individual—should ever think that the “historical record” constitutes incontrovertible evidence of actual events being faithfully or in any way accurately depicted.

    You are destroying your OWN position, not ours.

  2. Top | #502
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,768
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,268
    Rep Power
    73
    You are destroying your OWN position, not ours.
    He really thinks he's holding History hostage. If we want to keep the textbooks that he thinks are based on nothing more than someone's memoirs, we have to accept the magic memoirs as historical, or else treat the accepted history the same.
    He just doesn't understand that we already do....

  3. Top | #503
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    7,473
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,513
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    despite your theory that it defies "the laws of nature"




    It defies common experience for anyone to be able to play piano suddenly without having had any lessons or training. There are a few known cases of this, so we know it can happen. But it cannot be explained. Everyone else CANNOT do this.
    Suddenly you’re incredulous?

    That baby did something remarkable, but not supernatural. There was a piano in the house, so one can assume he heard someone playing it. His mother said he had a toy with that tune on it.

    So he may not have had formal lessons or training, but any 11 month old kids is learning OODLES of things every day. Like how to walk. Learning scores of vocabulary words every day. They learn by listening. They experiment. This is not trivial.

    So he was remarkable - very! But not supernatural.

  4. Top | #504
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46

    regarding post 495

    atrib,

    Looking for clarity

    Here is my take………

    You asked for some “Christian” to express why miracles are possible/reasonable?

    I thought the answer was in the question……I answered…If the Christian God exists then miracles are possible and reasonable.

    And you agreed.

    But still proclaimed that naturalistic explanations trump supernatural explanations. I agreed in most cases but it seemed like you wanted to put me to the test regarding supernatural vs natural explanations. So I chose the resurrection argument (RA) to open the discussion.

    You said that the better explanation was that people make things up.

    Now to you the debate was over.

    I tried to (1) show you the error in your reasoning. It was too global and eliminates too much, including your own reasoning. And (2) asked you to be more specific to my argument by which non-supernatural fact was made up and why? You still have done that you just keep telling me I need to defend not assume. DEFEND WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC PROBLEM? I can’t defend until I know which one and why?

    You then went all over the map. Now we are here……….
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    So stay with me here…..if miracles are possible then I need provide and argument to delineated the resurrection from fantasy. Hence my argument that the resurrection was a miracle, because given those four facts you cannot have a better natural explanation unless you beg the question that all explanations must be natural.

    Since…….
    Then you have turned this back around the 180 degrees and think I’m trying to argue that the resurrection proves God’s existence. That I’m not doing with the argument I gave you. More later.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    First, I don't particularly care if the explanation relies on supernatural premises. What I do deeply care about is that the premises be supported by appropriate evidence. You are allowed to submit supernatural explanations as long as you can support them with an appropriate level of evidence.

    Second, there is no evidence to establish either of the following propositions:

    1. A god exists.
    2. About 2,000 years ago, the corpse of a man named Jesus was resurrected and then levitated into the atmosphere, seemingly under its own power.

    In other words, based on the available evidence, neither of the following arguments can be demonstrated to be true:

    1. A god exists, therefore it performed the seemingly miraculous events described in the Bible.
    2. Seemingly miraculous events occurred as described in the Bible, therefore god exists.

    Moreover, for argument (1), even if you could demonstrate that a god exists, it would still not necessarily follow that this god intervened in our affairs in the manner described in the Bible regarding the Jesus resurrection story.

    And for argument (2), even if you could demonstrate that the miraculous events described in the Bible actually happened (i.e. the laws of the universe were broken or overpowered), it would still not follow that these events could be attributed to Biblegod's intervention.
    Parsed….

    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    First, I don't particularly care if the explanation relies on supernatural premises. What I do deeply care about is that the premises be supported by appropriate evidence.
    First, you say that, but then deny the context of the supernatural altogether.

    Second, none of my four simple facts/premises are supernatural.
    He died
    The tomb was empty
    The disciple SAID they saw him resurrected
    Their lives were changed.

    Which one is supernatural?
    Which one is made up and why do you think that?


    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Second, there is no evidence to establish either of the following propositions:

    1. A god exists.
    2. About 2,000 years ago, the corpse of a man named Jesus was resurrected and then levitated into the atmosphere, seemingly under its own power.
    That’s it right there. I’m not trying to establish the reasonableness of God/supernatural existence. That was given in your context that the supernatural did not matter. If I were trying to establish the reasonableness of God/supernatural existence I would not present the (RA). I would first journey into the sciences of cosmology and physics to address the reasonableness of God’s existence.

    But I was trying to provide the best explanation for my four (non-supernatural) facts/premises …your mocking (2) so to speak.

    So you are confusing the two.

    Which one do you want?
    Number (1)
    OR
    Number (2) given number (1)?
    The latter being where I thought we were.

    Now a different (1) and (2)
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    In other words, based on the available evidence, neither of the following arguments can be demonstrated to be true:

    1. A god exists, therefore it performed the seemingly miraculous events described in the Bible.
    2. Seemingly miraculous events occurred as described in the Bible, therefore god exists.
    I’m for sure not trying to argue (2) because that is backwards. (1) Is where I thought we were granted God exists. Now if you were not granting the reasonableness of God’s existence then I would not have offered the RA.

    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Moreover, for argument (1), even if you could demonstrate that a god exists, it would still not necessarily follow that this god intervened in our affairs in the manner described in the Bible regarding the Jesus resurrection story.
    For clarification. I presented an abductive argument. Deductive and inductive arguments require the conclusion to necessarily follow. I’m clearly arguing for the best explanation. Meaning what is the most reasonable explanation provided the context that it is reasonable God exists.
    Therefore…..
    In order for you to defeat the RA, you need to provide a better explanation and defend it. You originally presented that “people make things up”. I addressed the self-defeating nature of that, which you did not address. And I also asked you for specifically which of my four non-supernatural premises were made up and why? That you did not address either. Other than I provided no argument for their truth. To which again, I replied in the same manner of reasoning, which one is not true and why? How can I address your concern if you do not specifically state what it is?

    All you did to that end, was complain that a discussion directed to the motivation of the four non-supernatural facts would be pointless. To which I pointed out that your counter was precisely founded on motivation, thus you were undermining your own natural explanation. And it stayed right there.

    Your counter has been shown, as stated, to be self-defeating. Your counter explanation is based on motivation but you proclaim any discussion on motivation here is pointless. And finally, you are, for some inexplicable reason, unwilling or unable to tell me which of my four non-supernatural facts is made up and why?

    You and I have been here before. Your counter explanation does not defeat the RA simply b/c you presented it. I presented the several defeaters of your counter and you need to address those.

    But this is more important................from above.....

    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Second, there is no evidence to establish either of the following propositions:

    1. A god exists.
    2. About 2,000 years ago, the corpse of a man named Jesus was resurrected and then levitated into the atmosphere, seemingly under its own power.
    Which one do you want?
    Number (1)
    OR
    Number (2) given number (1)?
    The latter being where I thought we were.

  5. Top | #505
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,131
    Rep Power
    10
    Remez, you have never once presented any "defeaters" to anyone's argument. You think that you have, but you have not. The reason you think that you have is that you seem to be under the impression that all you have to do is call something a "defeater" and it therefore defeats an argument.

    To defeat an argument, you must actually show how the argument fails. Saying it fails, does not show how it fails.

    ETA: I'll demonstrate on one of your arguments:

    Meaning what is the most reasonable explanation provided the context that it is reasonable God exists.
    You just said: given the conclusion that it is "reasonable" that magic is real, it is therefore reasonable that magic is real.

    It is not possible that you cannot see what's wrong with that statement. You have assumed a conclusion that cannot be assumed in order to assert another conclusion based off of the assumed-to-be-true conclusion.

    You would NEVER stand for any such sophistry in regard to any other condition in your life. You are ONLY accepting such unacceptable tortures of logic because you think it justifies your belief that magic is real.

    It doesn't. No matter how many times you try to re-word it or torture language and logic, it will never, ever, ever be reasonable that magic is real.

    You are literally trying to argue that it's reasonable for you to believe in Santa Clause given the "context" that it's reasonable that Santa Claus exists. That's simply asinine.

    Stop it.

  6. Top | #506
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    7,473
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,513
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    You asked for some “Christian” to express why miracles are possible/reasonable?

    I thought the answer was in the question……I answered…If the Christian God exists then miracles are possible and reasonable.

    And you agreed.
    You said, “if we assume a god exists, then miracles are reasonable”
    And you are surprised that someone can say, “yeah, if we assume that, then I’d agree. But since we don’t assume that, you have proved nothing.”

    You can’t assume there’s a god in order to claim miracles are reasonable.


    This is not college logic. My six year-old would see through this if I had a six year-old!
    (My former 6 year-olds are now in their late teens and would laugh at this evasion)

  7. Top | #507
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,794
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,770
    Rep Power
    62
    ^^^

    It is a really bad circular argument...

    All the miraculous claims prove that god is real. The miraculous claims are true and reasonable because god can do such things.


    Substitute Superman for god and the idiocy becomes obvious even to Remez but then he just switchs to special pleading.

  8. Top | #508
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    880
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    atrib,

    Looking for clarity

    Here is my take………

    You asked for some “Christian” to express why miracles are possible/reasonable?

    I thought the answer was in the question……I answered…If the Christian God exists then miracles are possible and reasonable.

    And you agreed.
    This is insane.
    I am NOT debating the proposition : "If a supernatural creator god exists, then it would be reasonable to believe that he could perform miracles".
    Neither am I debating the proposition : "Christians believe in God, and therefore it is reasonable for them to believe Biblegod could perform miracles".

    I concede that both of these propositions are likely true.

    The proposition I am trying to debate is as follows: "Is there sufficient evidence for an unbiased, reasonable person to believe that the Jesus resurrection story is likely to be true".

    That is, could an unbiased person who does not already believe in god be convinced that the Jesus resurrection story is likely to be true based on the weight of the available evidence?

    I was under the impression that you were willing to discuss this third proposition. But I could be wrong, since I clearly have no idea where you are trying to go.


    But still proclaimed that naturalistic explanations trump supernatural explanations. I agreed in most cases but it seemed like you wanted to put me to the test regarding supernatural vs natural explanations. So I chose the resurrection argument (RA) to open the discussion.

    You said that the better explanation was that people make things up.
    Correct. Because we have an enormous volume of very high quality evidence that humans make up stories like this. And we have an enormous volume of very high quality evidence that corpses do not rise up from the dead and fly off into space under their own power. Therefore, the probability that the Jesus resurrection story is made up is much higher than the probability that the event occurred as described. Therefore, it would be reasonable to treat the Jesus resurrection story as likely untrue.

    Which part of my reasoning is in error?



    Second, none of my four simple facts/premises are supernatural.
    He died
    The tomb was empty
    The disciple SAID they saw him resurrected
    Their lives were changed.

    Which one is supernatural?
    The part highlighted in the BOLD RED color.

    Which one is made up and why do you think that?
    I think the entire resurrection story is a fabrication. I don't think any of these events ever occurred. Because the story involves elements (resurrection of a human corpse) that go against the laws of nature, and because we know humans make up stories like this.

    But you are still missing the point. Even if we could conclusively establish that all the elements of the story (the four "facts") were factual, it would still not be sufficient to overcome the mountains of evidence that speak against the resurrection.

    EDIT:
    For context, I wanted to add that this story-line of Jesus being killed and resurrected just so God could spread his message to all of humanity, and so he could forgive humans for their transgressions and grant them an eternal afterlife is completely irrational. If Biblegod exists, he could choose to do all of these things in a manner that was clear, consistent and not subject to any interpretive error. That he chooses to remain silent and unseen speaks volumes about his existence, and about the veracity of Biblical claims.
    Last edited by atrib; 07-07-2019 at 09:56 PM.

  9. Top | #509
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    880
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    All of what we know of Alexander comes from sources 400 years or later than his life.
    I find this hard to believe. What are your sources for this assertion?

  10. Top | #510
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    880
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Too many blatant logical fallacies. You really need to study logic. Your rants are entirely based on special pleading, assuming the conclusion, circular reasoning, etc. These have been pointed out to you (in specific detail) several times by several posters but you appear to be completely incapable of self examination, I assume because of your complete ignorance of logic.
    No, but you see, he has done all the work. He has studied cosmology and math and concluded that Biblegod created the universe. He has studied the historicity of the Bible, even though he doesn't appear to understand how evidence and credence works, and concluded that Jesus's corpse was indeed resurrected and flown off into space. Why can't you just take his word for it?

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •