Atheists. What consitutes a miracle

[barney]

Can there be such a thing as a Miracle.
What would constitute one.
How far would you go to explain one before you said "I'm jumping through hoops here, that is supernatural"

I'll start.
Asking God to show me a stuffed teddy as a sign , and twenty minuites later a Stuffed Teddy was thrown out of a pram, fifty yards from me.
I'd take that as 80% proof of a divine act.

[Muezzin]

I thought an atheist wouldn't believe in miracles on general principle?

[barney]

Even an Atheist would have to deal with a fiery cloud spitting lava decending on Washington followed by twenty squadrons of Angels all blowing trumpets etc etc.

I'm just wondering what was their minimum threshold. Question for agnostics too, and for theists, is the fiver they find on the street a miracle or coincidence. What would be a miracle for each person?

[snakelegs]

i don't believe in miracles. so if i stumbled on something that appeared to be one, i would think OMG i've crossed that thin line between sanity and insanity!

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Mikayeel]

interesting question!,

Altough i believe, that the most convincing of miracles; is not proof for someone who is predenying everything!

The miracle would add to his/her disbelieve?

who knows:) would love to read some comments

[barney]

i don't believe in miracles. so if i stumbled on something that appeared to be one, i would think OMG i've crossed that thin line between sanity and insanity!

Sure Snakes, but what if everyone else was witnessing it as well?

[snakelegs]

wow - i really don't know what i'd do then! freak out, i guess.

[barney]

wow - i really don't know what i'd do then! freak out, i guess.

ROFL!
Aye, so what about you getting angry at someone and saying "Oh f'gawdsake drop dead" and they do. Immediatly. On the spot.

Would a heart attack be enough for a miracle or would it have to be a flying Cow landing on them. Whats your threshold for a miracle?

[Pygoscelis]

I don't believe in miracles either.

I am however quite ready to admit I don't know something or can't explain something. Just because we can not explain something does not mean it was an act of God, much less an act of any specific God we name. It could be aliens, it could be a practical joke, it could be some big consipiracy, or it could simply be a coincidence. As Occam's Razor (sp?) says, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. God is the most complex explanation of all, so its higly unlikely, and whatever amazing inexplicable thing we observe can probably be explained by something else.

[snakelegs]

i think to qualify as a miracle it would have to be something outside the laws of nature.
i believe god works through nature - that many things are miracles and the fact that there are scientific explanations for them doesn't take away from that.
the last scenario you offered was too awful to even contemplate.

[Gator]

Tough question. The minimum threshold would be in the realm of I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it.

The teddy bear thing wouldn't do it for me. It would have to be more that just coincidence. A miracle would have to break the normal pattern of my experienced reality.

If I could suddenly fly in order to save someone, that would be a miracle.

Those are some quick thoughts.

[ranma1/2]

Can there be such a thing as a Miracle.
What would constitute one.
How far would you go to explain one before you said "I'm jumping through hoops here, that is supernatural"

I'll start.
Asking God to show me a stuffed teddy as a sign , and twenty minuites later a Stuffed Teddy was thrown out of a pram, fifty yards from me.
I'd take that as 80% proof of a divine act.

if perhaps everytime you asked for one that happened you might have a point. otherwise id see it as confirmation bias.

id say something that isnt likely to happen.

say, this women gets hit by a car (tragially ripped in half.) then this magical hand comes down through the clouds and heals her no scar perfectly healthy.

or perhaps, i wake up oneday and im blind (doctors verfiy it, yep those eyes are screwed son). i ask god to heal my eyes and the moment eye ask my eyes are healed completely ( no need for glasses either.)

[ranma1/2]

I thought an atheist wouldn't believe in miracles on general principle?

no not at all, we dont deny the existence of gods we just dont believe.

for most of us i imagine there has been no evidence that satisfies us and much contradictory evidence.

[Malaikah]

As Occam's Razor (sp?) says, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

And who said this blokes razor is correct in the first place?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

And who said this blokes razor is correct in the first place?

You haven't heard of Occam's Razor? Its usefulness has become so apparent to scientists and logicians over the centuries that it is often taken to be a standard maxim in those and other fields of study. It can be misused, but as a helpful principle of thinking it is widely accepted.

See here.

Regarding the original question of the thread, I think Pygoscelis has said pretty much would I would say as an answer.

Peace

[Gator]

Further thoughts...For a miracle that would move me to believe in a god it would have to first hand experience of god. So the miracle would have to include me directly interacting with or observing the miraculous actions of god.

So while the flying thing is definitely miraculous (an amazingly extraordinary event breaking normal bound of reality), it wouldn't actually make the threshold.

So if I saw a person falling from a building and a voice inside my head said "I'm god and I'm going to save that person" and at the same time the person began to float down like a feather and landed harmlessly. That would go a long way.

Thanks.

[barney]

Hmm, I wouldnt have to have it named as God.
Aliens wouyld be obviously Alien because they wouldnt have the flappy wings, robes and halos that we stick on them, they would have some transport method and act in a way inconsistant with scripture, assuming God has anything to do with scripture.

However, the fact that I've asked for a teddy and one appears within a certain time frame is in my book high evidence. If I saw one on the telly the next day, I'd rate that at 20%. If a teddy immediatly glided from the sky , glowing and talking passages from the Book of Mormon, thats 100% for me. I'd book my ticket to planet Kolob immediatly.
I would just have to check others had seen it as well so that Insanity was ruled out.
Glo said once that the message of a vison would have to be consistant with the message of God. I.E, dont beleive the voice that tells you to kill your son on an alter is god, because it's not what God would do.
Personally, I think the message dosnt matter. It could be "carve the ends out of Cedar wood and make them 2ft long and gilded in Gold" or "Stone the Adulteress with Stones", the main thing for me would be its a supernatural event, unexpalinable by science and visable or audible to many.

[kirk]

Medically speaking, there have been many cases of people who appear to be dead, who are not dead. There is a word for this but I forget!

As a result, in ancient times, people thought various dead people have miraculously been brought back to life. They were not. Instead, they only appeared to be dead.

Medicine is well aware of this issue and as a result there has no such occurrences for over 100 years.

My definition of a miracle would be for a person who has been dead for more than a month to be brought back to life.

k

[tetsujin]

Hmm, I wouldnt have to have it named as God.
Aliens wouyld be obviously Alien because they wouldnt have the flappy wings, robes and halos that we stick on them, they would have some transport method and act in a way inconsistant with scripture, assuming God has anything to do with scripture.

However, the fact that I've asked for a teddy and one appears within a certain time frame is in my book high evidence. If I saw one on the telly the next day, I'd rate that at 20%. If a teddy immediatly glided from the sky , glowing and talking passages from the Book of Mormon, thats 100% for me. I'd book my ticket to planet Kolob immediatly.
I would just have to check others had seen it as well so that Insanity was ruled out.
Glo said once that the message of a vison would have to be consistant with the message of God. I.E, dont beleive the voice that tells you to kill your son on an alter is god, because it's not what God would do.
Personally, I think the message dosnt matter. It could be "carve the ends out of Cedar wood and make them 2ft long and gilded in Gold" or "Stone the Adulteress with Stones", the main thing for me would be its a supernatural event, unexpalinable by science and visable or audible to many.

In the words of Albert Einstein, "the miraculous thing about the universe is that there are no miracles".

What you want is a suspension of the natural order and process so that something inexplicable can occur.

What you actually said is in effect, "I cannot explain it, therefore there is no explanation, so god did it"

Arguments from ignorance, i.e. "I do not know, therefore...", are in and of themselves useless because once you claim to not know then you must forgo the ability to lay positive claims to truth.

I do not know how wormholes are created, I do not for a moment use my ignorance of an event which can be measured and evaluated naturally, to assert divine authority, nor can I use it, if it happen to be a singularity, to extrapolate vague theories which cannot be tested in order to establish positive claims about anything else.

In short, if you don't know then just admit it and try to find out, if you think you can't do it yourself, that still means you just have to admit you don't know.


Also, please refrain from using percentages for some statistical calculation you cannot possibly make.


All the very best,

Faysal

[tetsujin]

To answer the question....

If I happen to die and find myself in heaven or hell, then I suppose that would be a miracle.

I really can't think of anything, then again nothing I've heard from the religious types amounts to more than anecdotal evidence.

It's really hard to say.

Do we know, for a fact, of any miracle that occurred? I've yet to see a serious claim.

[Azy]

For me the day Britney Spears stops appearing in the papers.

Seriously though it's a tricky one, in the past believed in miracles because of some then unknown mechanism that we have explained since. So weird things might happen but be decidedly normal to us in the future.

[ranma1/2]

Medically speaking, there have been many cases of people who appear to be dead, who are not dead. There is a word for this but I forget!

As a result, in ancient times, people thought various dead people have miraculously been brought back to life. They were not. Instead, they only appeared to be dead.
....

i think the term is mostly dead.

http://www.youtube.com/v/6GrYNaaYSjs&hl=en

[Pygoscelis]

I love that movie.

[barney]

In the words of Albert Einstein, "the miraculous thing about the universe is that there are no miracles".

What you want is a suspension of the natural order and process so that something inexplicable can occur.

Thats why I would need the positive link with my request. If a Teddy just materilayzed from nowhere in front of my eyes, I would be all totally like, "OMGOMG!" and start thinking things like, Insanity, Optical illusion, too much beer, or even Alien technology conducting random soft-toy generation.

If I had asked God for the Teddy and It appeared, even 40 foot away or if the miracle was accompanied by it claiming to be from God. That lends weight to it being so.

[wth1257]

Can there be such a thing as a Miracle.
What would constitute one.
How far would you go to explain one before you said "I'm jumping through hoops here, that is supernatural"

I'll start.
Asking God to show me a stuffed teddy as a sign , and twenty minuites later a Stuffed Teddy was thrown out of a pram, fifty yards from me.
I'd take that as 80% proof of a divine act.

Not exactly an atheist but my response would run something like this.

Metaphysically the concept of a miricle, for me, is easy to define, generally it would be seen as a supernatural force somehow interacting with the causally closed world/universe.

The problem is not so much metaphysical, unless you are Hume perhapse:X, as Epistemic. Without a total and complete knoledge of the universe, in total, it is impossable to gadge which seeming intervention of the laws of nature represent a genuin mirical as opposed to an, however unlikely, event in nature.

I beleive Muhammed is said to have been frightened by an eclipse of the moon, to him and many at the time, this would certianly meet their criteria of a miricle, and inexplicable exception to the laws of nature who's only, apparent, explination, is supernatural intervention, now any schoolchild could explain this seemingly inexplicable event. Today were I to, God forbid, be diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, and tomorrow it disappeared many would lable that a miricle, but with our incomplete knoledge of cancer, hum physiology and genetics, and the laws of nature in general we have no was of knowing if it was a mirical, of simply a rare physiological trai I possess.

[wth1257]

Thats why I would need the positive link with my request. If a Teddy just materilayzed from nowhere in front of my eyes, I would be all totally like, "OMGOMG!" and start thinking things like, Insanity, Optical illusion, too much beer, or even Alien technology conducting random soft-toy generation.

If I had asked God for the Teddy and It appeared, even 40 foot away or if the miracle was accompanied by it claiming to be from God. That lends weight to it being so.

And yet modern quantum theory suggusts that causality is utterly different from what we previously conceived and that perhapse human conscisiousness can even affect the world, perviosuly anathama in science we see that the universe is infinitly more complex then previously dreamed. Your example would, undoubtedly(almost) be, in Newtonian Mechanics, a miricle, yet not so much now, untill we have a complete accounting of the physical laws of the universe we simply will not know.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I beleive Muhammed is said to have been frightened by an eclipse of the moon.

He also use to feel fear when he use to see grey clouds which usually resemble rain because he recalled a moment (which can be found in the Quran) of similar clouds which bore violent winds of destruction for the nations of Aad and Thamud (two nations of former prophets).




Miracles arent necessary to believe in God. And i honestly believe this with all my heart. It is enough to reflect and ponder, there were believers before the message of Muhammad, there were believers before the message of Isa (jesus) and there were believers before the message of Musa (moses) (peace be upon them all, alaihissalaatu wassalaam). Even without miracles it is possible to conceive an all-mighty being which started it all and watches over it all...



But as for what constitutes a miracle... i would say it is the response to a call which is impossible to answer.

for example healing the sick and blind. Splitting the sea... we can also say... a miracle is something only possible by God.


By this definition (a miracle is only possible by God) we can even say everyday birth are miracles... because life has to start from somewhere....

[jd7]

If 2 million years time from now, life is never discovered anywhere but on Earth, would you consider life on Earth a miracle?

JD7

[jd7]

An additional thought:

Is there a supernatural or are things attributed to the supernatural natural occurrences that we don’t yet fully understand? The reported sightings of ghosts/spirits would be an example.

JD7

[Azy]

Do you think 2 million years would be enough to sufficiently develop the technology for scanning/travelling to the billions of stars in each of the roughly hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe?

I don't think anyone has a verifiable claim to a ghost sighting unless we're to believe that spirits only visit ghost enthusiasts while they stay in remote, deserted stately homes.

[Woodrow]

Perhaps, my reasoning is faulty? I can not perceive anything that is not a miracle.

I am seeing the question as being more of asking "What event would constitute proof of Divine Intervention by a Supreme Diety?"

None would and none is needed.


A person needs only to search for reasons to accept the existance of Allaah(swt), after that all else falls into place.

[jd7]

Azy, considering the progress made over the last 1000 years, it seems that 2 million years from now ought to be a long enough time.

Reports of ghost sightings have been many and varied. I am rather surprised that you would dismiss all 100% of them so quickly.

What exactly are you basing that dismissal on?

I am assuming your dismissal is something scientific and that you will explain and defend it (considering the nature of the thread).

JD7

[ranma1/2]

If 2 million years time from now, life is never discovered anywhere but on Earth, would you consider life on Earth a miracle?

JD7

no not particularly (wed be lucky to exists that long with out blowing ourselves up or hte plantet.), now if life is discovered elswewhere what would you do?

[ranma1/2]

Azy, considering the progress made over the last 1000 years, it seems that 2 million years from now ought to be a long enough time.

Reports of ghost sightings have been many and varied. I am rather surprised that you would dismiss all 100% of them so quickly.

What exactly are you basing that dismissal on?

I am assuming your dismissal is something scientific and that you will explain and defend it (considering the nature of the thread).

JD7

Many and varied is key there. Not to mention not one verified.

[Pygoscelis]

If 2 million years time from now, life is never discovered anywhere but on Earth, would you consider life on Earth a miracle?

No. Why would you think it was?

[tetsujin]

Perhaps, my reasoning is faulty? I can not perceive anything that is not a miracle.

An example would be lovely.

Please bear in mind my first post on page 2.

I am seeing the question as being more of asking "What event would constitute proof of Divine Intervention by a Supreme Diety?"

None would and none is needed.

Proof? Even if one could grant the existence of miracles, it would be evidence in an argument for the existence of a deity, and then you certainly have all your work cut out for you in determining which deity it is. Whether it be loving, caring, willful, dictatorial or otherwise. You still wouldn't know. But again, that's not even the question.

A person needs only to search for reasons to accept the existance of Allaah(swt), after that all else falls into place.

That is indeed faulty reasoning.

Francis Collins described the appearance of a frozen waterfall as affirmation for his belief in the trinity.

Were I still a Muslim I would laugh at him for association he made to what I have always concluded was a false god. My Jewish friends, and Buddhist friend would likewise be skeptical, or at the very least find affirmation for their own beliefs if they came across the same phenomenon.

Humans are already predisposed to finding patterns and seeking associations were they may not necessarily exist. Preachers do it, imams do it, Zionists do it, free masons and gamblers do it (and only the later seem to be getting psychiatric assistance on occasion), it's an innate compulsion we learn to discard through the application of critical thinking that can only come from discarding all of our "intentions" and predispositions when we examine ourselves and the world.

Stop looking for affirmations of the answers you want to hear and ask yourself, what does the data really say?


All the best wishes,

Faysal

[Islam-Sikhism]

I don't believe in miracles either.

I am however quite ready to admit I don't know something or can't explain something. Just because we can not explain something does not mean it was an act of God, much less an act of any specific God we name. It could be aliens, it could be a practical joke, it could be some big consipiracy, or it could simply be a coincidence. As Occam's Razor (sp?) says, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. God is the most complex explanation of all, so its higly unlikely, and whatever amazing inexplicable thing we observe can probably be explained by something else.

Asalaamu 'alaikum

We would contest the above Dawkinian-esk premise of God being the most complex explanation. Our intention here is not to get into a debate; but only to voice an alternative point to this oft-quoted atheistic argument.

DEFINITION OF COMPLEXITY

Complexity is that property of a model which makes it difficult to formulate its overall behaviour in a given language, even when given reasonably complete information about its atomic components and their inter-relations. [1]

Alvin Platinga disagrees with Dawkins’ proposition that God as the designer “would have to be enormously complex, and the more complex something is, the less probable it is: ‘However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.’”:

The basic idea is that anything that knows and can do what God knows and can do would have to be incredibly complex. In particular, anything that can create or design something must be at least as complex as the thing it can design or create. Putting it another way, Dawkins says a designer must contain at least as much information as what it creates or designs, and information is inversely related to probability. Therefore, he thinks, God would have to be monumentally complex, hence astronomically improbable; thus it is almost certain that God does not exist.

First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like… according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex. More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable. So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort. [2]

Richard Swinburne argues ‘The Simplicity of Theism’ in chapter 5 of his book The Existence of God:

Theism postulates God as a person with intentions, beliefs, and basic powers, but ones of a very simple kind, so simple that it postulated the simplest kind of person that there could be.
To start with, theism postulates a God who is just one person, not many. To postulate one substance is to make a very simple postulation. He is infinitely powerful, omnipotent. This is a simpler hypothesis than the hypothesis that there is a God who has such-and-such limited power (for example, the power to rearrange matter, but not the power to create it)… A finite limitation cries out for an explanation of why there is just that particular limit, in a way that limitlessness does not. As I noted in Chapter 3, scientists have always preferred hypotheses of infinite velocity to hypotheses of very large finite velocity, when both were equally compatible with the data. And they have always preferred hypotheses that some particle had zero mass to hypotheses that it had some very small mass, when both were equally compatible with the data. There is neatness about zero and infinity that particular finite numbers lack. Yet a person with zero powers would not be a person at all. So in postulating a person with infinite power the theist is postulating a person with the simplest kind of power possible.

A substance who is essentially omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly free is necessarily a terminus of complete explanation. For, if some state of affairs E is explained as brought about by God in virtue of his powers and beliefs and intentions to bring about E, how can the action be further explained?
The hypothesis of theism postulates not merely the simplest starting point of a personal explanation there could be (simpler than many gods or weak gods), but the simplest starting point of explanation for the existence of the universe… A scientific explanation, will have to postulate as a starting point of explanation a substance or substances that caused or still cause the universe and its characteristics. To postulate many or extended such substances (an always existing universe; or an extended volume of matter-energy from which, uncaused by God, all began) is to postulate more entities than theism. The simplest scientific starting point would be an unextended point. This, however, would have to have some finite amount or other of power or liability to exercise it (since what it will create would not be constrained by rational considerations), and so it would not possess the simplicity of infinity. [3] (pg. 97-8; 106)

As for the Islamic concept of God and in relation to the Trinitarian doctrine, which in our view goes beyond complexity and straight into the realms of the absurd and impossible, it is known that Allaah is understood by way of the language with no difficulties whatsoever. Hence, He is the simplest explanation. We would not have any troubles in accepting the above quoted excerpts from these two Christian philosophers in rebutting the aforementioned Dawkinian argument, although we would have a huge problem with these Christians attempting to justify their explanations with the absurdity that is Trinitarianism.

Wa salaam


http://geocities.com/islam_sikhism/

[Abdul Fattah]

Greetings,


You haven't heard of Occam's Razor? Its usefulness has become so apparent to scientists and logicians over the centuries that it is often taken to be a standard maxim in those and other fields of study. It can be misused, but as a helpful principle of thinking it is widely accepted.

See here.

Regarding the original question of the thread, I think Pygoscelis has said pretty much would I would say as an answer.

Peace

I do agree that ockhams razor can be very helpful and useful. However there are situations were ockhams razor is no longer applicable. Especially when dealing with whole world views (like religious vs. atheistic) it's practically impossible to weigh of one view against the other. The person who weighs will undoubtedly be biased by his personal paradigm to asses which explanation is "simplest". For me personal, the explenation: "it's a miracle" is a much simpler explanation as opposed to saying: "it's coincidence"! But I do understand why atheist or agnostics would disagree with me on that.

In general you could say a theist already believes in God and doesn't believe in luck, so explaining an unexpected event as miracles is the explanation that expands his/her paradigm the least. Whereas on the other hand an atheist would generally not believe in God but do believe in luck, so for him/her explaining it as luck is the most simple expansion of the paradigm. In the end it all comes down to personal belief again, and we can only agree to disagree. There is no logical "proof" that favors one p.o.v. over the other.

[Pygoscelis]

Asalaamu 'alaikum

We would contest the above Dawkinian-esk premise of God being the most complex explanation.

Fair enough... but your explanation that follows is so wrapped up in semantic gymnastics it is hard to even understand what the authors are trying to convey nevermind debate it. But lets try...

The basic idea is that anything that knows and can do what God knows and can do would have to be incredibly complex. In particular, anything that can create or design something must be at least as complex as the thing it can design or create.

This is already mistating things. This is one argument one could make, but it isn't the only one that leads to the conclusion that God is the most complex (and unlikely and fantastic) explanation for things.

First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like… according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.

And this doesn't even address the "dawkanian" (whatever that is) position put forward above. It just says "classic theology says the position is wrong, so its wrong".

According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

This is a good example of semantic gymnastics. Interpret away the problem. Define "parts" as physical and then declare god isn't physical therefore god can't have parts and therefore god isn't complex (according to this one particular definition and therefore according to any definition lol).

But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists

And here again we are defining our way to victory. If we accept that God is a necesary being... then I suppose we have to agree its pretty darn likely God exists. But why would we accept that premise?

So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God

Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines;Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.

Because he doesn't. The assertion was made by the author that God is necessary, not by Dawkins. And it is an irrational assertion. What makes it worse is that "attributes of God" are not defined by the author.

So in postulating a person with infinite power the theist is postulating a person with the simplest kind of power possible.

This is irrational.

A scientific explanation, will have to postulate as a starting point of explanation a substance or substances that caused or still cause the universe and its characteristics. To postulate many or extended such substances (an always existing universe; or an extended volume of matter-energy from which, uncaused by God, all began) is to postulate more entities than theism.

I'm sorry, but saying "god done it with his magic powers" does NOT make it simpler than to actually explain how those magic powers work. It just makes one more ignorant.

What is most amazing about this "refutation" is that it first mistates Dawkins (and tries to equate this one argument by Dawkins as the only one there is), and then it doesn't even address the "Dawkins" position it puts forward. This is not a refutation at all.

[Islam-Sikhism]

Hey Pygoscelis,

We don't usually delve into forum dialogues due to the majority facile responses that are posted as so-called responses; but, in this case, we'll make an exception, just this once, by taking your response as a demonstration of what we mean.

From the outset you state:

Fair enough... but your explanation that follows is so wrapped up in semantic gymnastics it is hard to even understand what the authors are trying to convey nevermind debate it. But lets try...

Well, we can do nothing except try.

This is already mistating things. This is one argument one could make, but it isn't the only one that leads to the conclusion that God is the most complex (and unlikely and fantastic) explanation for things.

How can things be mistated when they haven't been said? The authors haven't said this is the only argument; and yet, this is the only argument that needs to be addressed. As for the existence of any other arguments; then these have no bearing on the one being responded to... so what's your point?

First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like… according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.

And this doesn't even address the "dawkanian" (whatever that is) position put forward above. It just says "classic theology says the position is wrong, so its wrong".

What the authors are pointing to is Dawkin's strawman argument, in that he presupposes God to be more complicated than what He designs based on faulty premises. The argument is of God; what the author has shown is that Dawkin's argument, as with many of his nonsensical arguments related to God, involves a theological concept that is not the classical concept of theology of that religion. Hence, it being a fallacious argument.

According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

This is a good example of semantic gymnastics. Interpret away the problem. Define "parts" as physical and then declare god isn't physical therefore god can't have parts and therefore god isn't complex (according to this one particular definition and therefore according to any definition lol).

Alas, coming from one who it seems doesn't seem to know very much about fallacies and argumentation.
Once more: the asserter of the argument is Dawkins who has concocted his own idea of god and then proceeded to refute it. And it is pretty obvious for the critical minded that the authors aren't speaking for all definitions of God.

But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists

And here again we are defining our way to victory. If we accept that God is a necesary being... then I suppose we have to agree its pretty darn likely God exists. But why would we accept that premise?

This is the problem we stated above. Pay attention: not defining terms is actually a fallacy known as the freshman fallacy. People lose arguments, and thus debates, due to the failure in defining terms.
Dawkin's warped book The God Delusion has been castigated the world over as being so poor precisely because of the many strawman arguments he brings. Of course, for blind-following atheists, it's a winner.
Moreover, pay attention to the conditional statement 'if' used by the author and you might realise how poor your response is... well that's our hope anyway.

So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God

Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these linesawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.

Because he doesn't. The assertion was made by the author that God is necessary, not by Dawkins. And it is an irrational assertion. What makes it worse is that "attributes of God" are not defined by the author.

You haven't shown how it is irrational. Just asserting something for the sake of doesn't prove it now does it?
What the author has done is ask Dawkins to argue his point, which is perfectly valid in argumentation and debate; just as we've asked you to argue why it's irrational (not that you'll be getting a second chance any time soon).

So in postulating a person with infinite power the theist is postulating a person with the simplest kind of power possible.

This is irrational.

*Yawn*

A scientific explanation, will have to postulate as a starting point of explanation a substance or substances that caused or still cause the universe and its characteristics. To postulate many or extended such substances (an always existing universe; or an extended volume of matter-energy from which, uncaused by God, all began) is to postulate more entities than theism.

I'm sorry, but saying "god done it with his magic powers" does NOT make it simpler than to actually explain how those magic powers work. It just makes one more ignorant.

What is most amazing about this "refutation" is that it first mistates Dawkins (and tries to equate this one argument by Dawkins as the only one there is), and then it doesn't even address the "Dawkins" position it puts forward. This is not a refutation at all.

We're sorry too for getting into this debate, if one can call it that.
The explanation put forward by the author is now premised on HIS definition of God, an area in which Dawkins made the big booboo to begin with. Hence, the author is now putting forth a counter argument to Dawkin's assertion, which again is perfectly normal thing to do.
You may disagree with it, but you cannot disagree based on the skewed premises used by Dawkin's for his argument, otherwise you too will end up committing the strawman fallacy.
Of course, the argument is directed at Dawkins. Let's see if he will ever respond by firstly being humble enough to acknowledge his mistake (fat chance from someone so brash, conceted and arrogant), then readdressing his audience.

Anyway, this is our final response since, to be absolutely frank, we have bigger fish to fry and time as they say is a premium.

All the best Pygoscelis

Wa salaam to our brothers and sisters

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Does the above post actually respond to any of Pygoscelis' points in a meaningful way?

It's amazing what passes for philosophical discussion in some minds.

Peace

[Woodrow]

An example would be lovely.

Please bear in mind my first post on page 2.

Neither you nor I can be free from personal bias and personal beliefs. My examples would be meaningless to you and your explanations would be meaningless to me. Never the less I see all things as a miracle, even the symmetry of a water molecule. I know there is a physiological explanation as to the polarity of water molecules, but to me the explanation is simply the means used to achieve it, not the reason for it. It's being as it is is the miracle.

Proof? Even if one could grant the existence of miracles, it would be evidence in an argument for the existence of a deity, and then you certainly have all your work cut out for you in determining which deity it is. Whether it be loving, caring, willful, dictatorial or otherwise. You still wouldn't know. But again, that's not even the question.

Agreed

That is indeed faulty reasoning.

Francis Collins described the appearance of a frozen waterfall as affirmation for his belief in the trinity.

It all depends on a persons perspective. I tend to believe that the thinking that all things are not the work of Allaah(swt) is faulty reasoning.

Were I still a Muslim I would laugh at him for association he made to what I have always concluded was a false god. My Jewish friends, and Buddhist friend would likewise be skeptical, or at the very least find affirmation for their own beliefs if they came across the same phenomenon.

Can't dispute that. Only you know your reasons for your conclusions. I am certain your experiences have tended to support your reasons.

Humans are already predisposed to finding patterns and seeking associations were they may not necessarily exist. Preachers do it, imams do it, Zionists do it, free masons and gamblers do it (and only the later seem to be getting psychiatric assistance on occasion), it's an innate compulsion we learn to discard through the application of critical thinking that can only come from discarding all of our "intentions" and predispositions when we examine ourselves and the world.

A good question to find an answer to is "Why are humans so predisposed?"

Stop looking for affirmations of the answers you want to hear and ask yourself, what does the data really say?

It took me 65 years to come to the conclusion that the empiracal data supported Islam. Prior to that I was more interested in only the empiracal conclusions and it was after finding that the data I was exposed to supported the existance of Allaah(swt) did I realise that the world has many data bases, all looking from different views.

All the best wishes,

Faysal

Thank You and the same to you. I apologise for taking so long to get back to this, the past month has been a busy one for me.

[tetsujin]

Neither you nor I can be free from personal bias and personal beliefs. My examples would be meaningless to you and your explanations would be meaningless to me. Never the less I see all things as a miracle, even the symmetry of a water molecule. I know there is a physiological explanation as to the polarity of water molecules, but to me the explanation is simply the means used to achieve it, not the reason for it. It's being as it is is the miracle.

I wouldn't insult you by implying you had no means of rational discourse independent of your personal or professional affiliations. Are you really stating that we are born into this world with preconceived notions about how one should view the world and any contradictory phenomena is dismissed as meaningless?

What does it mean to say that the symmetry of a water molecule is a miracle? What obstacles does one face when combining one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms? Would it be any less miraculous if the molecule was not symmetrical? Is a purpose to the symmetry of the water molecule?

Such Anthropological arguments simply come down to, "If things were different, things would be different." Someone somewhere else in the world is probably stating that the prevalence of asymmetric inorganic molecules is a miracle.

When you begin using the word miracle for the existence of every single conceivable object in the known universe you have simply applied the term in a manner which is the precise opposite of what it represents in any meaningful sense.

My shoelaces are a miracle, my bicycle is a miracle, my grilled spicy chicken burger, with no lettuce, extra pickles, and cheese, on a sesame seed bun is a miracle. It's one thing to feel a sense of awe and wonder and be amazed by the world around you, it's quite another to call it a miracle. I too sometimes watch the grass grow or stay up late to watch the sunrise, it's beautiful, and even more so when I think of how lucky I am to be alive. There's nothing miraculous about it, unless you want to redefine the word itself.

It all depends on a persons perspective. I tend to believe that the thinking that all things are not the work of Allaah(swt) is faulty reasoning.

It's your choice to believe that. I won't deny you the right. If you think perspective plays a part in determining the truth then you are claiming that moral relativism is plays a greater role than god in this world. You might want to think about that. If make the claim that something exists, then claim that you can't prove it to me unless I assume the premises that you are trying to prove, then you've got yourself a problem.

Only you know your reasons for your conclusions. I am certain your experiences have tended to support your reasons.

I'm not sure where you are going with that.

A good question to find an answer to is "Why are humans so predisposed?"

Good question indeed. Why are they gullible, bad with statistics, bad at lateral and abstract reasoning. Why are our eyes built inside out so that the light and color receptors point towards our brains and that everything you see travels past the nerves and tissue to get to the sensory cells. Brilliant design. God's design included a miraculous blind spot in both eyes, but in his/her infinite wisdom we have two eyes that constantly make corrections.

Does the quran have an answer for flaws, or in religious terms "intricate complications", in our design?

It took me 65 years to come to the conclusion that the empiracal data supported Islam.

I'm interested. Send me a few links? Maybe a report?

Thank You and the same to you. I apologise for taking so long to get back to this, the past month has been a busy one for me.

No worries mate, we all have stuff to do.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[silkworm]

The example is very simple, Holy Qur'an with 30 chapters and 114 Surah constitute a big thick book, which ofcourse is in Arabic language. The miracle is "it is being memorized" and the Islamic world has hundreds of thousands of "huffaz' who have memorized Holy Qur'an from A to Z.

How many people can actually have memorized Christian or Jewish Bible from cver to cover???

Thousands and thousands of pigeons live in and around Holy Ka'abah, but amazingly no bird droppings are ever found.

[Muezzin]

no not at all, we dont deny the existence of gods we just dont believe.

So... in practice... even if something completely out of the blue happened, something scientifically inexplicable, something so completely, bizzarely fortunate that it must be a miracle, you'd still not believe it was a miracle?

Kind of sounds like my initial observation was correct.

Unless you're thinking more along the lines of 'to the primitive mind, sufficiently advanced technology would be indisitinguishable from magic' - i.e. that there is always a logical, non-supernatural explanation, even though we might yet lack the means to perceive it.

for most of us i imagine there has been no evidence that satisfies us and much contradictory evidence.

I don't think any evidence will satisfy certain people. Certain people are as fervent in their nonbelief as certain other people are in their belief.

But hey, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.

[tetsujin]

The example is very simple, Holy Qur'an with 30 chapters and 114 Surah constitute a big thick book, which ofcourse is in Arabic language. The miracle is "it is being memorized" and the Islamic world has hundreds of thousands of "huffaz' who have memorized Holy Qur'an from A to Z.

How many people can actually have memorized Christian or Jewish Bible from cver to cover???

Thousands and thousands of pigeons live in and around Holy Ka'abah, but amazingly no bird droppings are ever found.

Yes, along with anyone who can memorize all of their favourite songs, dance routines, names and specifications of cars, athletes, celebrities, doctors who can spot the symptoms of hundreds of different diseases.....


It's a "miracle" seen if there is anyone or anything in which you have an interest.

[Ayoub]

I think atheists believe 'miracles' to be something unexplainable by science, for example hot fiery clouds spewing lava onto the earth with demons protruding out of the ground.

[tetsujin]

I think atheists believe 'miracles' to be something unexplainable by science, for example hot fiery clouds spewing lava onto the earth with demons protruding out of the ground.

I think we call them volcanoes. As for demons, if you take the ancient views then they always seemed to be natural and intermediate between god and mortal. Whether ruling over us, aiding us, for good or for evil; but for personal incredulity, no one could produce an iota of evidence for demons.


"Fear of things invisible is the natural seed of that which every one in himself calleth religion." ~ Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)

[Ayoub]

Lol, I said fiery clouds, not volcanoes (or the clouds of smoke that come out of them). And yes, if demons sprouting out of the ground can not be explained, they're a miracle, no?

[Muezzin]

Lol, I said fiery clouds, not volcanoes (or the clouds of smoke that come out of them). And yes, if demons sprouting out of the ground can not be explained, they're a miracle, no?

The only non-supernatarual explanation for such an event is alien invasion.

Or maybe a nuclear blast, but calling horribly mutilated people 'demons' would be a bit distasteful.

[tetsujin]

Lol, I said fiery clouds, not volcanoes (or the clouds of smoke that come out of them). And yes, if demons sprouting out of the ground can not be explained, they're a miracle, no?

If? Maybe. Has it happened?

[Abdul Fattah]

hi everyone
I think it's interesting to bring up again that there is disagreement about the definition of a miracle.

If by miracle you mean "act of God" then according to Islam, every single thing that has and ever will happen is a miracle. From apples falling from threes to water changing into wine. The only difference is that some of these acts of God are quite common, whereas others are not.

If by miracle you mean something that defies our current knowledge of science, then that's kind of a pipe dream. Because I assume that no matter what happens out of the ordinary, scientists will always be able to come up with an alternative explenation if they really want to. So when they do come up with a "scientific" explenation, does that strip the event from it's supernatural status? Yes. But does it strip the event from being an act of God? No, not at all.

[ranma1/2]

so if everything is a miracle then whats so special about miracles.
or rather if everything is a miracle then nothing is.

its a miracle that baby got ranover....
its a miracle i got robbed...
its a mircale that i have zits......

so if those are miracles whats sogreat about them?

[------]

:salamext:

^ Do u even know what define a miracle? Stop changing the topic.

[ranma1/2]

?? whatcha talking about willis?

Perhaps you can give us your def of a miracle Serene.

But with the everything is a miracle def given Abdul I find miracles to be very unimpressive.

[------]

:salamext:

^ Hence, this is why ur banned.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:salamext:

^ Hence, this is why ur banned.

People who don't believe in miracles don't get automatically banned, do they?

LI forum is a bit more grown-up than that, surely?

Peace

[------]

I meant taking the mick outta Islaam, he did that a lot. Therefore he got banned.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I meant taking the mick outta Islaam, he did that a lot. Therefore he got banned.

The cull of atheists continues. Oh well.

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

Well I hope he didn't really got banned for that cause it seems like a genuine sincere question. To answer it, Ranma didn't quite understand what I meant. What I was saying was that when you have the definition "act of God" then according to Islam everything is a miracle. Then ranma replied, but not everything seems like a miracle (like a baby dying). However this reply isn't really accurate. He says if everything is a miracle according to definition (B), then doesn't that pose a problem with events like a baby dying, which obviously doesn't fall under definition (A). Well I think that it goes without saying that both definitions of a miracle are not compatible. Either you semantically prefer definition (A) in which case the word will have a totally different meaning to you; or you hold definition (B). You cant start of with one definition, and then go on to say that all miracles under that definition are flawed because they do not follow the other definition.

Now to answer the question even more in depth with an example; consider a man hitting a child with his car because he was speeding. The man cannot accelerate the car without God wanting it. When the brain sends a signal trough the body towards the foot to press on the gas pedal, your body relies on the forces of physics. If you believe like I do that the forces of physics are the habitual act of God, then in a way you could say that god makes his foot press the gas pedal in accordance to the driver's will. However this doesn't mean that God is responsible! God also gave this driver free will and common sense. What we reached here is a combination of two philosophical questions, the problem of evil and the problem of predestination vs. free will.

It's a little bit of topic, but for those who do need a reply on those two questions that pose here:

The riddle of Epicurus a.k.a. the argument from evil.
There exist many variations and spins on this but the original riddle goes like this:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The weakness obviously lies in slippery slope deduction on the second premise. It completely leaves out the possibility that there might be a deeper underlying motive for an able God not want to ban evil without him being considered malevolent. The problem is freedom of Choice. Much evil comes from mankind's free will. If you believe -like I do- that life is a test; then God would defeat his own purpose by preventing evil! Stopping evil would prevent free will. Of course, not all evil of the world can be traced back to human choices. But when we consider those evils mankind has no hand in, then the "evilness" is relative. We can often imagine alternative motives, without resorting to judging our creator as malevolent. Death for example, gets a whole new perspective if seen as a transition rather then an end. And then finally a third type of evil, in general all sorts of hardships and suffering that don't serve a direct purpose can also gain a new perspective if seen in the context of life being a test. There's a huge difference between a poor man who doesn't steal and a rich man who doesn't steal. From that perspective one could consider being poor as a blessing rather then a curse.

Free will vs. predestination
* Free will vs. fate
When people think about fate or destiny being inevitable; they usually assume it is inevitable despite of our choices rather then because of our choices. To illustrate this with an example. Say a person sits at a diner, deciding whether he'd have coffee or tea. Lets say hypothetically that if he'll take the tea, he'll get sleepy and get run over by a car when exiting the diner as opposed to when he takes coffee which will make him jumpy enough to avoid being hit. When you add fate into the picture, many people will be inclined to think that if the person is destined to be run over, then he will inevitable be run over despite his choice of coffee or tea. In that view, any personal choice can be rendered as irrelevant, and free will is a pipe dream. However there is an alternative view. One could say that the person is destined to be run over because he chooses to have tea. In that view, destiny doesn't deny choice. But rather our choice creates a destiny. Of course some might say that this is a play on words and that in this view, destiny and fate loose there value. But that argument is strictly semantical. Perhaps the value I propose is contradictory to contemporary semantics, but can we honestly claim to know what the semantical value was of a word more then a millennium ago? If anything it seems to make more sense that the value of the word has been simplified over the ages because people had trouble understanding it. If we cannot prove the opposite, then this alternative view should at least be kept into consideration.
* Free will vs. predestination
Predestination ties in very closely to fate and destiny. However, it is a very specific form of destiny and fate. The prefix "pre" stresses that this destiny is already set prior to it happening, and perhaps also known prior to it happening. Again, there's a big semantical problem here that I explain in the page dedicated to time. the word "already" is nonsensical in that sentence because it is a word derived from a presentists point of view. If we include layers of time into this objection, we find that the statement becomes: "At the time1 that I haven't made a choice yet1 the future1 is already2 determined." So it isn't really "already" decided in the sense that we have no saying in it, since that already refers to secondary layer of time. It is already2 decided because an observer outside of time1 would see which course of action we will1 take. That has no bearing on the causality of this time. And it certainly doesn't mean our window of opportunity to choose has passed. The reason the future is set is because our choices are know. In other words, our choices are included into the determination, so the determination does not negate us having a choice.
* Free will vs. causal determinism
The problem that physical causality has with free will; is that it suggests our will is not free at all. If you view the brain as a biological machine which responds to electrical impulses and chemical balances of hormones, then the end result -your choice- can be predicted by the laws of nature. This somehow strips the concept of person input and freedom. This used to be one of the reasons why I considered myself atheistic in the past. As I reconsidered these arguments later in life however, I came to the conclusion that no proof nor indication can be found in the fields of neuro-psychology that confirms this view. First of all we need to consider what causality actually is. As I illustrated here science still has no clue of what causality actually is. We only examine the events that are correlated, not the correlation itself. And on this page I've shown how our views on time could fundamentally change our concept of causality. So just because the results are causal, is not enough to conclude that they aren't our personal, free wills. Furthermore our current knowledge on the human mind is way to limited. There is definitely still more then enough room for interpreting the mind as free. Right now we have no idea how the brain stores memories, how we make decisions, and so on. All we have researched so far is that there is a certain correlation between certain area's of the brain and certain thoughts. We've established this by monitoring brain activity during certain thoughts the test subject has. But the interpretation given to the results are very biased. Many assume that since the area is correlated, that must mean that activity in that area causes or triggers a certain thought. And what about the influence of electrons in our brains? It has been suggested that chaos theory apply to our brain. Chaos theory is the theory that a very small process -in this case the behavior of an electron- can have a determinant influence on the outcome of a much larger event. This is sometimes also called the butterfly effect. How does this affect causality? Well, we don't know yet how causal the behavior of electrons actually is! Is their behavior strictly random, or is there an underlying cause for it? Of course I grant that us humans do experience basic, instinctive impulses and desires that drive us. And because of those impulses we actually have a lot less freedom than some wish to think. However, we can deny these urges by choice! Take fasting for example. Denying ones basic urges to eat for a full day. We have yet to understand how such a choice works on a neuro-psychological level. And that is what true freedom of choice means. That is why someone who choses to ignore his lusts and urges, and instead choses to follow religion acquires the greatest degree of freedom one can have. Because what you do then is ignore your causal body, and follow your spiritual soul. In other words, the choice boils down to this: be a slave of your urges, and needs, or be a slave of God.
* Free will vs. omniscience of God
The argument goes, if our creator is omniscient; he knew exactly what we would eventually do. He thus created some of us despite knowing very well they 'd fail. Or even more convincing, he made us in such a specific manner and environment that we would inevitably fail. This isn't actually an argument against free will, but rather an argument against the responsibility of our free will. As I illustrated before, predestination does not negate free will and personal input. The argument here isn't that we were created without a choice. The argument here is that we were created with choice despite that our creator knew some of us would end up making the wrong choice! This is very twisted. If predestination doesn't negate free will, it shouldn't negate responsibility either. Just because God knew in advance, doesn't mean it isn't our choice and our responsibility. This is in fact the other side of the free-will-coin. Free will comes hand in hand with responsibility, and trying to push responsibility to our creator, is in a way rejecting free will, not denying it. The argument is not saying "I don't have it", but rather saying: "I don't want it".