• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Please critique this argument against miracles

acbytesla said:
Who said God doesn't exist? Not once have I made such a claim. I REJECT the god claims that have been proposed.
Click to expand...
Come off it! You have never once entertained the idea that a god of any sort exists. Like all atheists, you believe that there are no gods.
 
stanfr said:
You reversed the statements. I have no quibble with the rock solid idea that you can't prove a negative. This is about falsifying--disproving--a negative. If God reveals himself --your own words "There would be evidence"--then that statement "God does not exist" would be disproven.
Click to expand...
it would be disproven enough for my satisfaction. On that I agree. Still I said it wouldn't be conclusive.
stanfr said:
Of course it's problematic. But I mildly disagree with your
conclusion--because *all* statements of fact or evidence are arguable.
Click to expand...
Maybe I have a bad memory, but I don't recall saying this.
stanfr said:
, as this forum and every other human discourse proves. Someone will always claim that the Yahweh creature who appears and starts throwing galaxies around like frisbees, bends time and space, makes Donald Trump a likable guy--is not really God, but some other force or entity. Who cares? If it is able to do all the godlike things that centuries of humanity have largely agreed are things that are godlike, that is good enough for me and most other sane people. Call it God, Alien, or whatever you want.
Click to expand...
It's not me that came up with the idea that seemingly impossible acts by an advanced alien would be indistinguishable from magic or a God. Arthur C Clarke came up with it. His third law states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It has been expanded on to suggest a deity and an alien with advanced technology is also indistinguishable from one another.

I'd also add, each religion has different traits for what they consider divine.
 
psionl0 said:
Come off it! You have never once entertained the idea that a god of any sort exists. Like all atheists, you believe that there are no gods.
Click to expand...
You don't know crap about me. So stop saying you do. I was raised in a very religious family. I went to church every Sunday for almost two decades. I went to Bible Camp for four consecutive summers as a teenager. So I damn well considered it.

You are also dead ass wrong when you lump all atheists together. We are individuals. Just like theists. Our beliefs are as varied as any individual.

But you are right about one thing though.

Speaking for myself AND only myself. I absolutely don't believe there are gods. In 6 decades, I have yet to be presented with any, credible evidence for one's existence. Zip, zero, zilch. Why is it I can prove the existence of the Samsung Galaxy tablet I'm using but not what theists insist is the most important belief?

Like it or not, there is a difference between disbelief and making a claim. The first is the rejection of a claim. The second requires evidence.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
Of course it's problematic. But I mildly disagree with your conclusion--because *all* statements of fact or evidence are arguable, as this forum and every other human discourse proves. Someone will always claim that the Yahweh creature who appears and starts throwing galaxies around like frisbees, bends time and space, makes Donald Trump a likable guy--is not really God, but some other force or entity. Who cares? If it is able to do all the godlike things that centuries of humanity have largely agreed are things that are godlike, that is good enough for me and most other sane people. Call it God, Alien, or whatever you want.
Click to expand...
I don't remember Yahweh ever throwing galaxy frisbies ...

Also, as ridiculous as it is, unquestioning belief based on nothing but power has real, and by real I of course mean totally fictional, implications. Like, what if this "God" is simply the Devil, and your belief is fueling the amount of children that get eviscerated on his Nether Plane of Evil?

I'm not sure whether it's logic, but such contemplations suggest that the very concept of God is nonsense; and I'm firmly of the opinion that even your incredibly powerful entity cannot be God, because God is a paradox that cannot exist.
 
acbytesla said:
Why is it I can prove the existence of the Samsung Galaxy tablet I'm using
Click to expand...
Go ahead--prove it! and you'd better be prepared to show its full chain of custody so we can rule out a cheap U.S.-made knock-off! ;)
 
Olmstead said:
I don't remember Yahweh ever throwing galaxy frisbies ...

Also, as ridiculous as it is, unquestioning belief based on nothing but power has real, and by real I of course mean totally fictional, implications. Like, what if this "God" is simply the Devil, and your belief is fueling the amount of children that get eviscerated on his Nether Plane of Evil?

I'm not sure whether it's logic, but such contemplations suggest that the very concept of God is nonsense; and I'm firmly of the opinion that even your incredibly powerful entity cannot be God, because God is a paradox that cannot exist.
Click to expand...
Perhaps...I'm just not super into deep dive philosophical experiments of whether reality is real or whether Donald Trump is a lizard overlord.
I prefer to live in a world of testable facts and beliefs. So when I talk about 'power' as a basis of evidence, I'm presupposing that the power is testable--it has to meet certain criteria of reliability. Long story short, when I first joined this forum I thought that if I found Bigfoot out in the woods, I would end up 'believing' in Bigfoot. Fast forward 25 years or so, now I would not accept my experience as adequate proof to rest my belief on--I would require more tangible evidence, like taking the body back to be analyzed. But--I still would accept the proof as adequate if it met my standards of proof. I am *not* gonna be dogmatic about the existence or nonexistence of something based on far-fetched notions of what 'might' be possible. Like "it's not really Bigfoot, it is an alien disguised as Bigfoot!" That's why I mentioned standards of proof to @Prestige. Something like the idea of a 'God' is not provable in the way a mathematic proof is used.
 
stanfr said:
Perhaps...I'm just not super into deep dive philosophical experiments of whether reality is real or whether Donald Trump is a lizard overlord.
I prefer to live in a world of testable facts and beliefs. So when I talk about 'power' as a basis of evidence, I'm presupposing that the power is testable--it has to meet certain criteria of reliability. Long story short, when I first joined this forum I thought that if I found Bigfoot out in the woods, I would end up 'believing' in Bigfoot. Fast forward 25 years or so, now I would not accept my experience as adequate proof to rest my belief on--I would require more tangible evidence, like taking the body back to be analyzed. But--I still would accept the proof as adequate if it met my standards of proof. I am *not* gonna be dogmatic about the existence or nonexistence of something based on far-fetched notions of what 'might' be possible. Like "it's not really Bigfoot, it is an alien disguised as Bigfoot!" That's why I mentioned standards of proof to @Prestige. Something like the idea of a 'God' is not provable in the way a mathematic proof is used.
Click to expand...
My point is that Bigfoot makes sense: undiscovered bipedal ape-like creature with unexpected levels of intelligence.

God simply doesn't make sense, not even in theory. If a seemingly all-powerful creature tells you it is God, the rational thing to do is to ask it some pointed questions. And if they are good questions, "God" won't be able to answer them, because the nonsensical cannot be explained. I'd suggest starting with "What is God?"

And when you're done, it's time to start worrying about the clearly deceptive God-like creature, and the fact that it now knows that you know.
 
Olmstead said:
My point is that Bigfoot makes sense: undiscovered bipedal ape-like creature with unexpected levels of intelligence.

God simply doesn't make sense, not even in theory. If a seemingly all-powerful creature tells you it is God, the rational thing to do is to ask it some pointed questions. And if they are good questions, "God" won't be able to answer them, because the nonsensical cannot be explained. I'd suggest starting with "What is God?"

And when you're done, it's time to start worrying about the clearly deceptive God-like creature, and the fact that it now knows that you know.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...true, I don't deny the conundrum you mention. But ironically, using Bigfoot as an analogy to God, Bigfoot makes more sense as a metaphysical claim than it does as a claim of some undiscovered primate. The overwhelming *lack* of evidence of such a creature basically proves that creature does not exist. In the same way that the overwhelming lack of evidence of the God of the Bible essentially proves it does not exist. *If* Bigfoot existed, it (more likely) would exist as a shape-shifting alien, a spiritual being incabable of being caught or studied. At least then it would not be falsified by the lack of tangible evidence. Same principle applies to the God hypothesis. Equally non-sensical, but if you are gonna talk nonsense, at least make it logically consistent with your absurd premise. ;)
 
acbytesla said:
You don't know crap about me. So stop saying you do. I was raised in a very religious family. I went to church every Sunday for almost two decades. I went to Bible Camp for four consecutive summers as a teenager. So I damn well considered it.

You are also dead ass wrong when you lump all atheists together. We are individuals. Just like theists. Our beliefs are as varied as any individual.

But you are right about one thing though.

Speaking for myself AND only myself. I absolutely don't believe there are gods. In 6 decades, I have yet to be presented with any, credible evidence nor reason for one's existence. Zip, zero, zilch. Why is it I can prove the existence of the Samsung Galaxy tablet I'm using but not what theists insist is the most important belief?

Like it or not, there is a difference between disbelief and making a claim. The first is the rejection of a claim. The second requires evidence.
Click to expand...
You are right of course, the highlighted is my additional reason for rejecting gods.
 
acbytesla said:
Like it or not, there is a difference between disbelief and making a claim. The first is the rejection of a claim. The second requires evidence.
Click to expand...
Sugar coat it if you like but the fact remains that there are two mutually exclusive options: Either no gods exist or (at least 1) god exists. If it is your personal belief that one of these options is true (and you don't have to believe that either option is true) then you don't need to provide evidence. If it is your claim that one of these options is true then you do.
 
stanfr said:
Hmmm...true, I don't deny the conundrum you mention. But ironically, using Bigfoot as an analogy to God, Bigfoot makes more sense as a metaphysical claim than it does as a claim of some undiscovered primate. The overwhelming *lack* of evidence of such a creature basically proves that creature does not exist. In the same way that the overwhelming lack of evidence of the God of the Bible essentially proves it does not exist. *If* Bigfoot existed, it (more likely) would exist as a shape-shifting alien, a spiritual being incabable of being caught or studied. At least then it would not be falsified by the lack of tangible evidence. Same principle applies to the God hypothesis. Equally non-sensical, but if you are gonna talk nonsense, at least make it logically consistent with your absurd premise. ;)
Click to expand...
I wasn't really concerned with realism. It's rather that God doesn't work conceptually. It isn't possible to provide a satisfactory definition of God, while defining Bigfoot is incredibly easy.
 
psionl0 said:
Sugar coat it if you like but the fact remains that there are two mutually exclusive options: Either no gods exist or (at least 1) god exists. If it is your personal belief that one of these options is true (and you don't have to believe that either option is true) then you don't need to provide evidence. If it is your claim that one of these options is true then you do.
Click to expand...
At risk of beating a very dead horse--No! If your *claim* is that gods do not exist, you need not provide evidence. it is not your burden of proof, regardless of the forum you are in. In a legal forum, you are not required to provide evidence of innocence. In a scientific forum, you are not required to provide evidence of the null hypothesis. That is how it works.
 
stanfr said:
At risk of beating a very dead horse--No! If your *claim* is that gods do not exist, you need not provide evidence. it is not your burden of proof, regardless of the forum you are in. In a legal forum, you are not required to provide evidence of innocence. In a scientific forum, you are not required to provide evidence of the null hypothesis. That is how it works.
Click to expand...
Assuming that you are correct, neither one of these options is the "null hypothesis".

Consider the claims "No circle has a circumference that is less than its diameter" and "at least one circle has a circumference that is less than its diameter". Which one of these is the "null hypothesis"?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Sugar coat it if you like but the fact remains that there are two mutually exclusive options: Either no gods exist or (at least 1) god exists. If it is your personal belief that one of these options is true (and you don't have to believe that either option is true) then you don't need to provide evidence. If it is your claim that one of these options is true then you do.
Click to expand...
I'm not sugar coating a damn thing. I'll risk repeating myself. Especially since repetition is a great way to learn. Maybe it will help you.

I agree with you entirely that the two positions are mutually exclusive. Just like in every murder trial. The defendant either committed the murder or he didn't. No other option. But defendants don't have to prove they are innocent. The prosecution must prove they are guilty. Philosophy demands that only positive claims assume that burden.

Here's what AI says:
In general, the burden of proof falls on those making positive claims because it's more difficult to prove something doesn't exist than to prove something does. Positive claims, which assert the existence or occurrence of something, can be supported by evidence. Negative claims, asserting the non-existence of something, are often impossible to definitively prove because proving a negative requires demonstrating that something is absent from all possible locations and times, which is often an impossible task.

If I said there is no god, I would be making a positive claim. I'm not. I'm rejecting the god claims I've been presented. Because not a single theist has ever presented to me a valid and sound argument for god. Feel free provide some good evidence for your god. Leave me no choice. My bet is any argument you might present won't be very good. But it's not your fault. You're almighty failed miserably in giving you anything to work with.

But if you insist, I'd be happy to present the many, many reasons why the Christian god is BS. Care for me go into that litany of absurdities? I would be happy to oblige
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Assuming that you are correct, neither one of these options is the "null hypothesis".

Consider the claims "No circle has a circumference that is less than its diameter" and "at least one circle has a circumference that is less than its diameter". Which one of these is the "null hypothesis"?
Click to expand...
That's a false analogy, because you are claiming attributes of something that is presupposed to exist. The correct 'null hypoithesis' is "No circle exists" Given that we can provide an example of a circle, that hypothesis is falsified. However, in the confines of your example, the first statement is the null hypothesis. The second is a positive claim.
 
acbytesla said:
If I said there is no god, I would be making a positive claim.
Click to expand...
Not to muck this up further, but perhaps to clarify for @psionl0
Yes, the most defensible statement would be "There is no evidence for God--therefore I believe it does not exist"
However, while you might be making a "positive claim" with the quoted statement here, you do not have to defend it, because as I said previously, it is the null hypothesis. Just as "there are no invisible unicorns" is. If evidence for a God were then presented, evidence could be presented to refute or nullify that evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom