IF...

[atheist buddy]

I've had several theists make this argument:

I believe in talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births because IF God exists and he has the power to do anything then talking donkeys and virgin births can happen.

First of all, is anybody confused at all about the fact that when somebody says "If X is true then Y is true", then Y hasn't been demonstrated to be true until X has been demonstrated to be true?

In other words, if somebody says "If God exists then donkeys can talk", then the belief in the possibility of talking donkeys hasn't become reasonable until we have extablished the existence of God, indipendently of the talking donkey.

By analogy, imagine somebody said "If Jenny was at Steve's neighborhood yesterday at noon, then it's possible she could have been the murderer who killed Steve in his house yesterday at noon". It doesn't become reasonable to say that Jenny could possibly have killed Steve, until we have etablished that she was in his neighborhood at that time.

If we cannot establish that she was in his neighborhood, we cannot use the notion that she as in his neighborhood to establish she was the murderer. Similarly, if we cannot establish that god exists, we cannot use the notion that he exists to establish that talking donkeys could be possible.

Secondly, if somebody were able to establish that a God capable of making donkeys talk or getting virgins pregnant existed (nobody has in the last 10,000 years), then, by the argument above, he would have only succeded in making a case for talking donkeys and virgin births being possible. Not in demonstrating that they actually happened.

The Jenny/Steve analogy still applies. If you somehow demonstrate that Jenny was in Steve's neighborhood when he was killed, then you've only demonstrated that it's possible that she killed him, you have not demonstrated that she actually killed him. You still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that she killed him. And you still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that God actually caused a donkey to talk.

Lastly, think of the most outrageously absurd, patently impossible thing you can imagine. I dunno, that Bin Laden had the power to turn water into wine, or that Hitler resurrected German soldiers with the power of the Holy Spirit, or that Pontius Pilate was born of a Virgin. If a God who has the power to bend the laws of physics exists, then all of those things are possible, and no less so than the talking donkey or Jesus's virgin birth. An argument that demonstrates anything, actually demonstrates nothing.

Question for debate: Is there any merit to the theist argument I depicted above?

[Mithrae]

I don't think the Jenny/Steve analogy is quite correct the way you have stated it. What we are talking about here is that if X is true than Y COULD be possible.

No. Most Christians try to argue that if X is true then Y is PLAUSIBLE. Not just possible.

They BELIEVE that a donkey ACTUALLY TALKED based on this argument.

No, they believe that a donkey talked because the Bible says so. Simple as that. Presumably because Balaam must've told Moses about it somewhere along the line and Moses wrote it down in Numbers. That is their 'evidence' that a donkey talked.

"Because the bible says so" is an exceptionally obvious reason for conservative Christians to believe something in the first place, and it's now been further explained to you multiple times. However weak that biblical 'evidence' may be, even that is not as intellectually bankrupt as deliberately misrepresenting others' viewpoints, as you seem intent on doing

[atheist buddy]

Question for debate: Is there any merit to the theist argument I depicted above?

Yes, I think that perhaps there is.

I doubt that the theists you've been debating have presented this as a proof of talking donkeys, virgin births etc which should persuade you to believe in them. They most likely see it as a rebuttal of your view that there was no virgin birth because that's not how biology works.

A believer in the virgin birth isn't under the mistaken impression that sometimes that sort of thing just happens. They're as aware as you and me that it's impossible - it wouldn't really be worthy of note otherwise. That's the whole point of miracles.
If people regularly served lunch for 5000 using a few loaves and fishes it would make a really rubbish story.

The disagreement here isn't about what's possible and what isn't but about whether the normal rules are ever suspended. Pretty much by definition you can't offer empirical evidence against that. It would be a circular argument if you tried.

This isn't to say you have any good reason to believe in miracles. But demonstrating that they're impossible misses the point.

Well, I'm not trying to demonstrate that miracles are impossible.

I'm trying to argue that they are not plausible beliefs, and that the equally implausible belief that something implausible becomes plausible if we assume something else which is implausible.... does not make the original implausible belief plausible.

There is no good evidence that miracles happened, and there is no good evidence that God exists.

You cannot use something for which there is no evidence, as evidence for something else for which there also is no evidence.

[atheist buddy]

I don't think the Jenny/Steve analogy is quite correct the way you have stated it. What we are talking about here is that if X is true than Y COULD be possible.

No. Most Christians try to argue that if X is true then Y is PLAUSIBLE. Not just possible.

They BELIEVE that a donkey ACTUALLY TALKED based on this argument.

No, they believe that a donkey talked because the Bible says so. Simple as that. Presumably because Balaam must've told Moses about it somewhere along the line and Moses wrote it down in Numbers. That is their 'evidence' that a donkey talked.

"Because the bible says so" is an exceptionally obvious reason for conservative Christians to believe something in the first place, and it's now been further explained to you multiple times. However weak that biblical 'evidence' may be, even that is not as intellectually bankrupt as deliberately misrepresenting others' viewpoints, as you seem intent on doing

Mmm. I guess I was hallucinating when I thought I read multiple literalists justifying their beliefs using the argument I spelled out in my OP.

I could swear on my life that if I look at this post by a literalist, I see these very words to this day: "The way I see it is, if there is a God who created the universe, and all that is in it, then certainly he has the ability to step in and reverse the Laws of nature as we know them!". This is the most vivid hallucination I ever had.

I apologize for the intellectual bankruptcy I displayed when I implied that a literalist meant something, just because he wrote it.

Clearly, just because a literalist is making an argument, it doesn't mean he's making that argument, and to imply that just because he's making an argument, he's therefore making an argument, is to misrepresent his viewspoints.

[Mithrae]

No, they believe that a donkey talked because the Bible says so. Simple as that. Presumably because Balaam must've told Moses about it somewhere along the line and Moses wrote it down in Numbers. That is their 'evidence' that a donkey talked.

"Because the bible says so" is an exceptionally obvious reason for conservative Christians to believe something in the first place, and it's now been further explained to you multiple times. However weak that biblical 'evidence' may be, even that is not as intellectually bankrupt as deliberately misrepresenting others' viewpoints, as you seem intent on doing

Mmm. I guess I was hallucinating when I thought I read multiple literalists justifying their beliefs using the argument I spelled out in my OP.

I could swear on my life that if I look at this post by a literalist, I see these very words to this day: "The way I see it is, if there is a God who created the universe, and all that is in it, then certainly he has the ability to step in and reverse the Laws of nature as we know them!". This is the most vivid hallucination I ever had.

Yes, you are blatantly misrepresenting Realworldjack's views. That out-of-context sentence is clearly and explicitly a response to your criticism against the miraculous, not his own justification. In fact, he clearly and explicitly states that it is not even a small portion of his reasons for belief and - lo and behold! - the rest of this small portion of reasons he gives are all "Because the bible says so."

• Realworldjack wrote:
  You do not believe the miraculous claims of Christianity because, they go against your logic, and reason, and you believe they contradict empirical evidence. I look at this differently. The way I see it is, if there is a God who created the universe, and all that is in it, then certainly he has the ability to step in and reverse the Laws of nature as we know them!
  
  Now as I said, I will not be able to give all the reasons for my belief, I can only give a small, small, portion, so lets go back to the begining to Genesis.
  
  The Bible tells us, Adam, and Eve, sinned. . . .
  
  
  
  Now the Bible tells us ....
  
  As I said, this theme continues on throughout the Bible. We could go on and talk about Abraham, and how God made a unilateral covenant with Abrham, (meaning this covenant depended on God alone apart from Abraham), and how the Bible tells us ....
  
  In fact, God tells us in the Bible that ....
  The Bible even tells us that ....

Taking a sentence out of context and trying to paint someone's (explicit!) response to the presumption of naturalism as their justification for belief in the 'supernatural,' even though they clearly stated otherwise and instead pointed repeatedly to the bible as (one of) their basis for belief is indeed intellectually bankrupt.

However unreasonable it may be to consider the bible sufficient 'evidence' for the miraculous, I would suggest that what you are doing here is even moreso.

[Mithrae]

Perhaps this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, so consider it this way:

Charlie believes that the diversity of life on earth is best explained by evolution through natural selection - just because his school textbooks told him so.

Aaron objects that "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, huh?"

Charlie, who has a good memory even if he's not the deepest thinker out there, explains that the human-like ancestors of modern apes occupied different ecological niches from the ape-like ancestors of modern humans, and thus were not in competition with each other.

So Aaron, thinking he's now got a knock-down argument against Charlie's views, starts a thread saying how stupid it is to believe in evolution just because two hypothetical ape-like ancestors supposedly occupied different ecological niches. (And despite being told multiple times by several people that it's not the reason Charlie believes in evolution, he continues to insist on it. Charlie is just so dumb, right? )



Do we all understand the distinction between justification for views, and responses to others' views now?

[atheist buddy]

Perhaps this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, so consider it this way:

Charlie believes that the diversity of life on earth is best explained by evolution through natural selection - just because his school textbooks told him so.

Aaron objects that "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, huh?"

Charlie, who has a good memory even if he's not the deepest thinker out there, explains that the human-like ancestors of modern apes occupied different ecological niches from the ape-like ancestors of modern humans, and thus were not in competition with each other.

So Aaron, thinking he's now got a knock-down argument against Charlie's views, starts a thread saying how stupid it is to believe in evolution just because two hypothetical ape-like ancestors supposedly occupied different ecological niches. (And despite being told multiple times by several people that it's not the reason Charlie believes in evolution, he continues to insist on it. Charlie is just so dumb, right? )



Do we all understand the distinction between justification for views, and responses to others' views now?

No. I still don't understand.

The user RESPONDED to my request for a justification of his views.

I ask: Why do you believe in miracles?

He replies: Because I believe in God and if God exists then miracles are true



The difference between the theist's response and the evolutionist's response that you presented, is that the evolutionist made a demonstrably true statement.

The structure of the argument is similar, but the premises are true in the evolutionist's case, and not-true in the theists case.

The argument is this:

1) IF X is true then Y is true
2) X is true
3) Therefore Y is true

In the case of the evolutionist, that same logical structure would play out like this:

1) If two different ape-like ancestors occupied different niches, then the existence of modern monkeys and modern humans is explained without having to scrap evolution
2) It is true that the two different ape-like ancestors occupied different niches
3) Therefore the existence of modern monkeys and modern humans is explained without having to scrap evolution

In this syllogism, both premises are true, so the conclusion is true.

In the case of the theist, the same logical structure would look like this.

1) If the God of the Bible exists, then the miracles happened
2) The God of the Bible exists
3) Therefore the miracles happened.

Premise 2 in the theists' argument is not-true. so the syllogism fails.

All I'm trying to do in this thread is saying that the theist argument above, which has undeniably been made on this board, is not a valid argument.

I am not denying that this argument isn't necessarily the only driver, or the primary driver, of a theist's beliefs. Some theists, as you say, may believe simply because "the bible says so", others because of "a feeling in their heart", others because of a mystical experience, others because of Pascal's wager, others because of Kalam. Most of them probably for a combination of multiple reasons.

I am not misrepresenting theists when I report the fact that they have used this argument to justify their belief, and when I then debunk that argument.

I honestly have no patience for someone who would repeatedly claim that my rebuttal of a clearly verbalized justification for belief, is as unreasonable and intellectually bankrupt as belief in a zombie invasion. Your repeated outlandish claims simply tell me that you're more interested in being gratuitously argumentative, then to get to the truth of the matter.

[Mithrae]

Do we all understand the distinction between justification for views, and responses to others' views now?

No. I still don't understand.

Then you're probably beyond anyone's help.

The user RESPONDED to my request for a justification of his views.

I ask: Why do you believe in miracles?

He replies: Because I believe in God and if God exists then miracles are true

You're simply lying here. I quoted above precisely what he said in what context, and it was very clearly and explicitly a response to your claim that miracles contradict empirical evidence - your presumption of naturalism, in other words.

In the case of the evolutionist, that same logical structure would play out like this:

1) If two different ape-like ancestors occupied different niches, then the existence of modern monkeys and modern humans is explained without having to scrap evolution
2) It is true that the two different ape-like ancestors occupied different niches
3) Therefore the existence of modern monkeys and modern humans is explained without having to scrap evolution

In this syllogism, both premises are true, so the conclusion is true.

In the case of the theist, the same logical structure would look like this.

1) If the God of the Bible exists, then the miracles happened
2) The God of the Bible exists
3) Therefore the miracles happened.

Premise 2 in the theists' argument is not-true. so the syllogism fails.

You haven't shown that it's not true And for that matter, Charlie didn't show that the ape-like ancestors claim was true.

But your inconsistency here highlights your problem in any case: In the case of evolution you're saying "If X, then Y is possible and the objection is invalid," but you decided to change the format for the god example, "If X, then Y is true." That's rather disingenuous.

Either that or you're equivocating between the premise "God exists" which you started the thread with, and the premise "the Bible is true" which I (and others) have said all along is the actual basis for conservative Christian belief: No-one says "If there's a god, donkeys talked and virgins gave birth." By appealing to the God of the Bible you're acknowledging that it's the bible which is the basis for belief and God is just a part of that, same as ape-like ancestors are a part of evolution.

Either way, you are proving your own OP to be incorrect.

[Elijah John]

Do we all understand the distinction between justification for views, and responses to others' views now?

No. I still don't understand.

Then you're probably beyond anyone's help.


You're simply lying here.

Moderator Warning


These were reported as personal attacks, and can rightly be considered personal attacks. Please refrain from calling others "beyond help" or even suggesting that they NEED help, or accusing them of lying.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Realworldjack]

I've had several theists make this argument:

I believe in talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births because IF God exists and he has the power to do anything then talking donkeys and virgin births can happen.

First of all, is anybody confused at all about the fact that when somebody says "If X is true then Y is true", then Y hasn't been demonstrated to be true until X has been demonstrated to be true?

In other words, if somebody says "If God exists then donkeys can talk", then the belief in the possibility of talking donkeys hasn't become reasonable until we have extablished the existence of God, indipendently of the talking donkey.

By analogy, imagine somebody said "If Jenny was at Steve's neighborhood yesterday at noon, then it's possible she could have been the murderer who killed Steve in his house yesterday at noon". It doesn't become reasonable to say that Jenny could possibly have killed Steve, until we have etablished that she was in his neighborhood at that time.

If we cannot establish that she was in his neighborhood, we cannot use the notion that she as in his neighborhood to establish she was the murderer. Similarly, if we cannot establish that god exists, we cannot use the notion that he exists to establish that talking donkeys could be possible.

Secondly, if somebody were able to establish that a God capable of making donkeys talk or getting virgins pregnant existed (nobody has in the last 10,000 years), then, by the argument above, he would have only succeded in making a case for talking donkeys and virgin births being possible. Not in demonstrating that they actually happened.

The Jenny/Steve analogy still applies. If you somehow demonstrate that Jenny was in Steve's neighborhood when he was killed, then you've only demonstrated that it's possible that she killed him, you have not demonstrated that she actually killed him. You still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that she killed him. And you still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that God actually caused a donkey to talk.

Lastly, think of the most outrageously absurd, patently impossible thing you can imagine. I dunno, that Bin Laden had the power to turn water into wine, or that Hitler resurrected German soldiers with the power of the Holy Spirit, or that Pontius Pilate was born of a Virgin. If a God who has the power to bend the laws of physics exists, then all of those things are possible, and no less so than the talking donkey or Jesus's virgin birth. An argument that demonstrates anything, actually demonstrates nothing.

Question for debate: Is there any merit to the theist argument I depicted above?

Please allow me to explain my reason for using the word, "IF." If I were speaking solely to Christian friends, say at a Church function I would rarely, if ever use the phrase, "if God exist." The reason I would not do this is because I assume we all believe God exists. However, in this format I understand that I cannot just assume the existence of God. I have also plainly stated, although I believe there is a God, I cannot prove this, rather all I can do is give reasons for why I believe there is a God. With this being the case, in this format there is no way I can say, "because God exist." I have also pointed out that you, nor anyone else can prove that God does not exist, or that Christianity is false! You also cannot prove what it is you believe to be the absolute truth, which you have admitted! In the end you are in the same boat with me, in other words all you can do is to give reasons for what you believe, and why you believe it. But in reality, all you have done is give probabilities, (odds), of certain things occuring, which in the end makes my point for me, (more on this momentarily). In short, I use the word, "If," out of respect for the fact that I cannot prove my certainty to others. Therefore, since I cannot prove that God exist, and you cannot prove that He does not exist, I say in respect of this, "IF God exist!"

Now, you have gone to the extreme in explaining to us the probablities, and odds, of certain things as, donkeys talking, virgin birth, etc. But as I said, this makes my point!
The only difference between us here is, I disagree with your odds. The odds of a donkey actually talking are absolutely zero! Donkeys do not possess the ability to speak, meaning it is not possible. In fact, even the existence of God does not make it possible for a donkey to speak, because as I just stated donkeys do not possess this ability! With all this being said, "IF," God exists, and a donkey has spoken in the past, then this would have been a miracoulous event! In other words, an act of God! God acted upon this donkey, and somehow reversed the laws as we know them, but this still does not mean it is possible for a donkey to speak, because it is impossible for a donkey to speak! I hope you can see, there is a difference between, God causing a donkey to speak, as opposed to it being possible for a donkey to speak. To be clear here, you are leaving open the possiblity of a donkey talking, no matter how thin the possiblity, while I am saying there is no possibility at all of a donkey talking!

To another point, there is another contributor who is saying this part of my argument is sound, but my fallacy is that I simply believe because the Bible says so! I believe this is an unfair, and premature assessment! I have labored to demonstrate that this is not the case, and maybe I have not made that case, but I assure you, I do not believe simply because "the Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" I have studied the Bible intently, and I have read it the way I read and listen to everything else, which is in a critical manner! I have also stated that, "I would rather not believe, but I am compelled to believe, and I have been compelled by the evidence!" As I have also said, "it is impossible for me to share all the reasons for my belief in this format!" It is not my intent, nor do I believe that I can persuade anyone here on this site to believe as I do. I am here simply to converse with those of other beliefs in order to understand what others believe and why they believe it!

I am not the type of Christian that adheres to esay believism! In other words, I do not believe I can convince someone to be a Christian over an hour lunch, by simply apealing to the emotions. Rather, I believe this is a process that occurs over a period of time as we converse with each other in an apeal to the mind! Maybe this quote will better illustrate where I stand,

"I cannot embrace with my heart, a faith that does not first convince my mind!"

I do not expect all to be convinced by the same evidence I have been convinced by, in fact I expect there to be those who disagree, all I would like to do is to be involved in the conversation, in hopes of undertanding what others believe, in order to help me understand better what it is I claim to believe, and who knows, in the end, it may be myself who becomes convinced I am the one in error!

Allow me to say again, my computer is on the skids, and I am having to respond on my ipad, which is not allowing me to check my work for some reason. I am not the best of typers so please forgive my mistakes, thanks!

[atheist buddy]

I do not expect all to be convinced by the same evidence I have been convinced by, in fact I expect there to be those who disagree, all I would like to do is to be involved in the conversation, in hopes of undertanding what others believe, in order to help me understand better what it is I claim to believe, and who knows, in the end, it may be myself who becomes convinced I am the one in error!

I respect that.

So, please tell me on what basis you believe that the God of the Bible exist.

I don't believe he exists, but much like you, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

We can't both be right, so let's try to figure it out.