Please critique this argument against miracles

[Paul2]

The argument below is my personal work, although it obviously is informed by everything I've read and heard on the subject.

Please critique it, I'm going to present this argument in a very few number of days.

Thanks!
===========
We have very, very strong knowledge in natural law about how atoms are put together, how atoms combine to make molocules, and how molocules work that says that you can't walk on liquid water; and we know how molocules work to make living cells, which tells us that cells can't be reconsituted past a certain point when someone dies, so someone can't be raised from the dead.

If you want to claim that someone walked on water, or was raised from the dead, you have to have so much evidence of such good quality that it overwhelms the evidence from natural law that we already have about how atoms, molocules, and cells work. That is an enormous amount and quality of evidence to overcome, but it is potentially possible.

One argument for miracles is that if we add the existence of the Christian god to what we already know, then we have some support for miracles, in a similar way that we have support in natural law against miracles, and this reduces or the impact of natural law on how much evidence we need to overwhelm it.

We are now, then, considering whether we can wind up showing that the Christian god exists and that miracles happen. But we have to show each of them independently of the other in this way:

First, let's decide which one we start with to prove: Is the goal to prove that miracles happen or that the Christian god exists?

Let's start with saying that the Christian god exists, therefore miracles can happen. This means you can’t use miracles to help prove that god exists because you're going to use god's existence to show that miracles happen. That’s assuming what you’re trying to prove, and is circular argument. You'll have to show that god exists without reference to miracles, and then use that fact, if you're successful, to show that miracles happen.

The other option is to try to show that miracles happen - particularly the resurrection - and therfore the Christian god exists. This means you can’t use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen - that would be circular, too.

It also means that you can’t add god's existence to what we already know, which means that the immense weight of natural law against miracles stands very high.

In brief, if you go "God exists, therefore miracles happen" then miracles are not available as evidence for God.

If you go "miracles happen, therefore God exists" then God is not available as evidence for miracles (God is not part of what we already know).

The second option is relatively non-controversial, because if we don't know that God exists, then any proof of miracles has an extremely high bar to overcome. I'm not aware of any miracle claim that has.

The first option - The Christian god exists, therefore miracles can happen - is more complicated to work through.

Without miracles on the table, we have to exclude the resurrection and all other miracles in the Bible and all other miracles throughout history and the current day.

Several arguments have been offered to show the existence of the Christian god without reference to miracles

Briefly,

Cosmological - There is a personal being with agency and power that created the universe.

Design - The universe and life had to be created by a personal being with agency and power.

Soul - Humans have some sort of essence that continues after death.

Morality - Morals are objective and are grounded in a god.

They all have their own individual problems that I don't have time to discuss right now. But the one problem they all share is that they don't achieve their goal; they don't show that the Christian god exists, merely that some kind of transcendent personal being with agency and power exists. And there's nothing in those 4 arguments that even addresses performing miracles, much less makes it likely.

Even disregarding the individual problems they have, these attempts to demonstrate that the Christian god exists and that miracles happen has failed.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't know. The problem with the idea of miracles and evidence is that any evidence would necessarily be materialistic. But the whole idea behind miracles is a suspension of materialistic laws. So how could there be evidence? And considering most of the God definitions I've heard makes the existence of God being a miracle in itself. I don't see how you can prove either.

 

[Paul2]

I don't know. The problem with the idea of miracles and evidence is that any evidence would necessarily be materialistic. But the whole idea behind miracles is a suspension of materialistic laws. So how could there be evidence?

There would be evidence of natural laws not happening. Like someone dead - and I mean dead like doornail - and then coming back to life.

 

[acbytesla]

There would be evidence of natural laws not happening. Like someone dead - and I mean dead like doornail - and then coming back to life.

That wouldn't prove a miracle or God. How would you dismiss the idea that the person wasn't dead? That you just had a misapprehension?

 

[theprestige]

The way I see it, they're not called miracles because they comport with natural law as we understand it.

 

[stanfr]

That wouldn't prove a miracle or God. How would you dismiss the idea that the person wasn't dead? That you just had a misapprehension?

Dead is pretty much dead, brain death can be medically determined and is all the time.

 

[Olmstead]

Something, something, quantum mechanics.

Grossly misunderstood science aside, the supernatural is essentially paradoxical. If something happens, it is plainly part of nature, even if you have to attach a divine uncertainty principle to the end of your physics equation.

 

[acbytesla]

Dead is pretty much dead, brain death can be medically determined and is all the time.

Yes it is. And they do all the time. And yet people have been declared dead and later somehow come back to life. Is it more reasonable to believe a miracle happened? Or that somehow the doctors got it wrong?

The problem is you have to demonstrate all the possible factors. And even if you prove that the equipment used to determine the person was dead were functional. And the doctors were competent. It is at best, a mystery you can't explain. Not that the laws of physics and chemistry were broken. Or that a magical invisible undetectable man in the sky made it happen.

 

[stanfr]

Something, something, quantum mechanics.

Grossly misunderstood science aside, the supernatural is essentially paradoxical. If something happens, it is plainly part of nature, even if you have to attach a divine uncertainty principle to the end of your physics equation.

Disagree. If so, you would have to throw out all words and their commonly understood meanings. If you wake up tomorrow in some alien bed in the Andromeda galaxy, you would need a natural explanation for what happened. If there is no explanation, it is not "part of nature." If your uncertainty principle is "divine"--it is not part of nature. Semantics matter.

 

[stanfr]

Yes it is. And they do all the time. And yet people have been declared dead and later somehow come back to life. Is it more reasonable to believe a miracle happened? Or that somehow the doctors got it wrong?

No, after brain death I am not aware of anyone somehow coming back to life. That is why I specifically said brain death, which is a much stricter standard.

The problem is you have to demonstrate all the possible factors. And even if you prove that the equipment used to determine the person was dead were functional. And the doctors were competent. It is at best, a mystery you can't explain. Not that the laws of physics and chemistry were broken. Or that a magical invisible undetectable man in the sky made it happen.

I have sympathy for your response, and obviously I am not saying there have been any exceptions ever shown. But my point is that *if* they were conclusively shown, then the laws of physics or chemistry were broken. At that point, we haven't even come remotely close to anything about an "undetectable man in the sky" which to me at least, would be a very tiny range of the possibile explanations at that point. I would even place an undetectable trainwoman above that one

 

[acbytesla]

Disagree. If so, you would have to throw out all words and their commonly understood meanings. If you wake up tomorrow in some alien bed in the Andromeda galaxy, you would need a natural explanation for what happened. If there is no explanation, it is not "part of nature." If your uncertainty principle is "divine"--it is not part of nature. Semantics matter.

No, I disagree. You just don't know. Let's say it was 2000 years ago. You left your home in Norway years ago. You are now Africa. And i flew you home on my airplane. And tomorrow you awoke in your home in Norway. Are me and my modern plane a miracle? Or is it something you just don't understand?

 

[Olmstead]

Disagree. If so, you would have to throw out all words and their commonly understood meanings. If you wake up tomorrow in some alien bed in the Andromeda galaxy, you would need a natural explanation for what happened. If there is no explanation, it is not "part of nature." If your uncertainty principle is "divine"--it is not part of nature. Semantics matter.

The natural explanation in the context of this thread is that God did it, literally. If God exists and can affect reality, then God is part of nature, predictably or not.

If you're saying that the divine is somehow outside of nature in a way that makes no logical sense, then that's part of the very paradox I'm talking about. It's a thing that cannot exist by definition.

 

[acbytesla]

No, after brain death I am not aware of anyone somehow coming back to life. That is why I specifically said brain death, which is a much stricter standard.

I have sympathy for your response, and obviously I am not saying there have been any exceptions ever shown. But my point is that *if* they were conclusively shown, then the laws of physics or chemistry were broken. At that point, we haven't even come remotely close to anything about an "undetectable man in the sky" which to me at least, would be a very tiny range of the possibile explanations at that point. I would even place an undetectable trainwoman above that one

Yes, few exceptions are ever shown! But isn't that why you declare it a miracle?

Feel sorry for me if you want. I don't.

What you might describe as a miracle, I describe as the yet to be explained. Lightning isn't the spears of Zeus. Thunder isn't Thor's hammer.

I don't know why someone I thought was dead yesterday is alive today. That is a gap in my present understanding. Explaining it as magic seems to be a desperate attempt at holding on to ignorance. I'm sure there is a reason. But the miracle answer is unsatisfactory for me. It explains nothing.

Like Newton when his equations for the orbits of the planets were not quite correct and he explained it as God's mystery. As opposed to working out the math he was fully capable of solving. Only to see Laplace solve the problem. And when Napoleon pointed out that unlike Newton, LaPlace never pointed to God. LaPlace's response was that he was not in need of that hypothesis.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

If believers are your audience, I don't think the argument will carry much weight. It's a point of pride for many that they don't allow logic to undermine their beliefs.

To put it another way, believers don't believe in miracles because of the evidence, they believe because believing is a testament of faith.

 

[stanfr]

The natural explanation in the context of this thread is that God did it, literally. If God exists and can affect reality, then God is part of nature, predictably or not.

If you're saying that the divine is somehow outside of nature in a way that makes no logical sense, then that's part of the very paradox I'm talking about. It's a thing that cannot exist by definition.

Strictly speaking, nature does not even include manmade objects. Supernatural by its very definition is supposed to be something outside the realm of materialistic elements, something that need not obey the laws of physics. If you are saying that is illogical, well I'll grant you that, the very idea of a God is illogical. But the OP doesn't presuppose the God hypothesis--it offers a choice between 1) God did it or 2) miracles exist (independent of God). So I am talking about the second proposition.

 

[stanfr]

No, I disagree. You just don't know. Let's say it was 2000 years ago. You left your home in Norway years ago. You are now Africa. And i flew you home on my airplane. And tomorrow you awoke in your home in Norway. Are me and my modern plane a miracle? Or is it something you just don't understand?

Your hypothetical makes zero sense to me but as it is worded I still say you are wrong. If I know the physics behind air travel, then there is nothing supernatural about you flying me in a plane, it only takes a few hours. In my hypothetical, the laws of physics are clearly broken, by our understanding of them. One could argue that maybe some day we will discover our understanding of physical laws is entirely wrong, and that's a fine (but somewhat crazy) argument. But if you are going to throw everything into the natural realm, even "anything that violates the laws of physics as we understand them" then the word has little meaning. You might as well throw out "natural" and just call it "everything" Maybe call it 'God"--why not, then 'God' is then clearly part of nature. But that's not how anyone argues these terms.

 

[Paul2]

That wouldn't prove a miracle or God. How would you dismiss the idea that the person wasn't dead? That you just had a misapprehension?

The question was whether someone coming back to life was a violation of natural law, and it would be. Can't take time right now to get into whether it's a miracle by god.

 

[Paul2]

If believers are your audience, I don't think the argument will carry much weight. It's a point of pride for many that they don't allow logic to undermine their beliefs.

To put it another way, believers don't believe in miracles because of the evidence, they believe because believing is a testament of faith.

My audience is a complex issue. The context is not one in which faith is going to mean much at all. I'd rather not get into any more detail, although I'm happy to report back here if anyone wants a report after my presentation.

 

[stanfr]

Yes, few exceptions are ever shown! But isn't that why you declare it a miracle?

Feel sorry for me if you want. I don't.

What you might describe as a miracle, I describe as the yet to be explained. Lightning isn't the spears of Zeus. Thunder isn't Thor's hammer.

I don't know why someone I thought was dead yesterday is alive today. That is a gap in my present understanding. Explaining it as magic seems to be a desperate attempt at holding on to ignorance. I'm sure there is a reason. But the miracle answer is unsatisfactory for me. It explains nothing.

Like Newton when his equations for the orbits of the planets were not quite correct and he explained it as God's mystery. As opposed to working out the math he was fully capable of solving. Only to see Laplace solve the problem. And when Napoleon pointed out that unlike Newton, LaPlace never pointed to God. LaPlace's response was that he was not in need of that hypothesis.

I have zero disagreement with anything you just said--it summarizes my own worldview quite nicely. But I am talking about the argument presented in the OP, which presumably is geared towards the assumption that the supernatural exists. That is why I am saying that definitions matter. If you define supernatural as "anything that defies the current understanding of physical laws" then what we would call miracles would qualify. But If you say those things are by necessity 'natural' and that we simply don't have a full understanding of the physical laws--that is fine, and I completely agree! But that is not the audience the argument here is geared towards. I guess maybe that exposes a 'flaw' in the argument since apparently we are seeing it somewhat differently.

 

[acbytesla]

The question was whether someone coming back to life was a violation of natural law, and it would be. Can't take time right now to get into whether it's a miracle by god.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a miracle if that happened. Only that it would be impossible to prove. Science relies on methodological naturalism. It can not explore, prove or disprove the supernatural or that this isn't natural.