Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I've watched the Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection debate video on YouTube several times, and as usual I am less than impressed with the polemics of Bart Ehrman. This time his fallacy involves the historicity of miracles and in particular the miracle of Christ's resurrection. His reasoning goes something like the following:

1. Miracles are the least likely correct explanation for any supposed historical event.
2. The story of the resurrection of Christ is a narrative of an event that if true requires a miraculous explanation.
Conclusion: Any naturalistic explanation of the story of Christ's being raised from the dead is more likely correct than an explanation that allows for the supernatural.

Is it true that miracles are so unlikely that any non-supernatural explanation for a claimed event is more likely true? I'm not sure why Ehrman seems to think miracles are so unlikely. While it's true that miracles are evidently rare, how probable they may be depends on the evidence for them. Ehrman seems to maintain a naturalistic view of miracles based more on an atheistic assumption than on any kind of evidence for them. That's not good reasoning.

I'd like to conclude this OP by pointing out that since I've been debating atheists, I can see that their reasoning is often as bad if not worse than the arguments made by apologists. It seems to me that there would be more atheists in the world if people stopped trying to disprove God.

[nobspeople]

I've watched the Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection debate video on YouTube several times, and as usual I am less than impressed with the polemics of Bart Ehrman. This time his fallacy involves the historicity of miracles and in particular the miracle of Christ's resurrection. His reasoning goes something like the following:

1. Miracles are the least likely correct explanation for any supposed historical event.
2. The story of the resurrection of Christ is a narrative of an event that if true requires a miraculous explanation.
Conclusion: Any naturalistic explanation of the story of Christ's being raised from the dead is more likely correct than an explanation that allows for the supernatural.

Is it true that miracles are so unlikely that any non-supernatural explanation for a claimed event is more likely true? I'm not sure why Ehrman seems to think miracles are so unlikely. While it's true that miracles are evidently rare, how probable they may be depends on the evidence for them. Ehrman seems to maintain a naturalistic view of miracles based more on an atheistic assumption than on any kind of evidence for them. That's not good reasoning.

I'd like to conclude this OP by pointing out that since I've been debating atheists, I can see that their reasoning is often as bad if not worse than the arguments made by apologists. It seems to me that there would be more atheists in the world if people stopped trying to disprove God.

Problem with miracles is that they're based on ignorance. Knowledge replaces ignorance.
If we could travel back to 1400-ish (a miracle in of itself or an understanding of space time?) to a village with a mobile device that's charged and play the villagers a saved video clip of some science fiction program, that, to them, would be miraculous. Today, it's called technology.
It's a lot easier to claim something a miracle than to prove it's not.
Are there miracles? Probably, if something happens that can't be explained - yet - one may call that a miracle. That doesn't mean it's magical or the workings of a supreme deity. It's simply something not yet understood or explainable.

I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but the ones I know have sound reasoning, so I can't comment more on that point, other than to say simply because a person claims they're 'this or that' doesn't excuse them from having good or bad judgement, reasoning, logic, humor, intelligence, etc.
Sometimes, people stink no matter what they claim to be or believe.

[Miles]

.

What is a miracle?

mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun: miracle; plural noun: miracles
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"
(Source: Dictionary of Oxford Languages)

So a miracle is something for which we simply don't have a natural or scientific explanation. This certainly doesn't mean there isn't such an explanation, only that we haven't come across any, which may be because we lack adequate evidence, or the information we do have is inexact or misleading. What it certainly does not mean is that it originated through the work of some kind of divine agency. That would simply be an unjustifiable leap of faith. And as has been pointed out here on Debating Christianity, faith lacks any truth value because ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be accepted on faith as true, which therefore robs it of any credibility.

And because we have yet to establish (prove) any incident has ever had a divine or supernatural origin, such an explanation pretty much falls to the bottom of the list of reasons. Mere assertion simply does not qualify as a justifiable explanation. Moreover, positing a divine agency in such cases is an example of the informal fallacious argument called "Divine fallacy, (an argument from incredulity*) – arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency."
Source: Wikipedia.


*Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."
Source: Wkipedia.



.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Problem with miracles is that they're based on ignorance. Knowledge replaces ignorance.
If we could travel back to 1400-ish (a miracle in of itself or an understanding of space time?) to a village with a mobile device that's charged and play the villagers a saved video clip of some science fiction program, that, to them, would be miraculous. Today, it's called technology.
It's a lot easier to claim something a miracle than to prove it's not.
Are there miracles? Probably, if something happens that can't be explained - yet - one may call that a miracle. That doesn't mean it's magical or the workings of a supreme deity. It's simply something not yet understood or explainable.

Thanks for the commentary on miracles, but it doesn't really address the issue I raised in the OP. Is it true that miracles are so unlikely that any non-supernatural explanation for a claimed event is more likely true? If we have really good evidence for a miraculous event, then is explaining that event as genuinely miraculous more likely to be true than an explanation that disallows the supernatural? For example, if Christ's raising Lazarus from the dead happened today in front of news cameras while skeptics looked on seeing no trickery, would a supernatural explanation for that miracle be the most likely true explanation?

I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but the ones I know have sound reasoning, so I can't comment more on that point, other than to say simply because a person claims they're 'this or that' doesn't excuse them from having good or bad judgement, reasoning, logic, humor, intelligence, etc.

Many of the atheists on this board use poor logic. Irrationality is not the sole province of the religious.

[Paul of Tarsus]

.

What is a miracle?

mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun: miracle; plural noun: miracles
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"
(Source: Dictionary of Oxford Languages)

That sounds about right. I often understand miracles as the various events in Bible stories that were instigated by God and that cannot occur without God's intervention.

So a miracle is something for which we simply don't have a natural or scientific explanation. This certainly doesn't mean there isn't such an explanation, only that we haven't come across any, which may be because we lack adequate evidence, or the information we do have is inexact or misleading.

I don't agree that miracles are merely without prosaic explanations. We don't have a natural or scientific explanation for the cosmos' missing mass, but dark matter isn't what I would call miraculous.

What it certainly does not mean is that it originated through the work of some kind of divine agency. That would simply be an unjustifiable leap of faith.

That's how I understand the miraculous, as the work of God or some other supernatural agent.

And as has been pointed out here on Debating Christianity, faith lacks any truth value because ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be accepted on faith as true, which therefore robs it of any credibility.

And as I have pointed out faith is trust or confidence that a truth has been established by reason or evidence. Faith is not a replacement for reason and evidence but is part of why one accepts a conclusion. Yes, faith can be blind if there are no good reasons to accept a truth, but faith can also be founded on reason.

And because we have yet to establish (prove) any incident has ever had a divine or supernatural origin, such an explanation pretty much falls to the bottom of the list of reasons.

The fallacy committed here is the claim that since no miracle has allegedly yet been "established," then they are the least probable explanation for claims of the supernatural. Like I tried to explain in the OP, the probability of a miracle or any other event occurring is not just based on the incidence of miracles in the past but on the evidence for the miracle under consideration. We can be confident a miracle has happened if the evidence is good no matter how little evidence we have for other claimed miracles.

But do you still insist that no matter how good the evidence for a miracle is, you will still reject that miracle as having occurred because you have deemed miracles as the least likely reasons for historical events?

Mere assertion simply does not qualify as a justifiable explanation.

Does this principle apply to the assertions you have made on this post? I agree with this principle, but I'm just wondering if you practice what you preach.

Moreover, positing a divine agency in such cases is an example of the informal fallacious argument called "Divine fallacy, (an argument from incredulity*) – arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency."

Who is arguing that any incredible or amazing thing is the result of divine agency? I understand miracles as the work of God, but I don't claim to be able to prove miracles as his work.

[Miles]

.

What is a miracle?

mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun: miracle; plural noun: miracles
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"
(Source: Dictionary of Oxford Languages)

That sounds about right. I often understand miracles as the various events in Bible stories that were instigated by God and that cannot occur without God's intervention.

So a miracle is something for which we simply don't have a natural or scientific explanation. This certainly doesn't mean there isn't such an explanation, only that we haven't come across any, which may be because we lack adequate evidence, or the information we do have is inexact or misleading.

I don't agree that miracles are merely without prosaic explanations.

Then what are the prosaic explanations for the so-called bible miracles, and in particular the Resurrection? And keep in mind, mere claim doesn't amount to explanation.

We don't have a natural or scientific explanation for the cosmos' missing mass, but dark matter isn't what I would call miraculous.

Good, because absent any evidence it would be a mistake to considered it to be the work of a divine agency.

And as has been pointed out here on Debating Christianity, faith lacks any truth value because ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be accepted on faith as true, which therefore robs it of any credibility.

And as I have pointed out faith is trust or confidence that a truth has been established by reason or evidence.

So, just what reason or evidence has established the truth of your trust?

Faith is not a replacement for reason and evidence but is part of why one accepts a conclusion.

Obviously, but putting ones trust in something that isn't backed by reason or evidence seems pretty foolhardy. May as well rely on tarot cards or a ouija board.

Yes, faith can be blind if there are no good reasons to accept a truth, but faith can also be founded on reason.

But in as much reasoning can be quite flawed, it isn't much better than hanging your hat by a wet noodle. EVIDENCE is what is needed to make confident assertions of truth.

And because we have yet to establish (prove) any incident has ever had a divine or supernatural origin, such an explanation pretty much falls to the bottom of the list of reasons.

The fallacy committed here is the claim that since no miracle has allegedly yet been "established," then they are the least probable explanation for claims of the supernatural.

Really! So just what is your evidence that the supernatural actually exists? I ask because so far I've yet to see any. All I run into are unsubstantiated claims.

Like I tried to explain in the OP, the probability of a miracle or any other event occurring is not just based on the incidence of miracles in the past but on the evidence for the miracle under consideration.

Well you may take miracles ("events that are not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.") as true, but not having seen any evidence for them I can't go along with you.

We can be confident a miracle has happened if the evidence is good no matter how little evidence we have for other claimed miracles.

Fine, just produce this evidence and I'll go home.

But do you still insist that no matter how good the evidence for a miracle is, you will still reject that miracle as having occurred because you have deemed miracles as the least likely reasons for historical events?

Not at all. Present convincing evidence and we'll be bosom buddies.

Mere assertion simply does not qualify as a justifiable explanation.

Does this principle apply to the assertions you have made on this post? I agree with this principle, but I'm just wondering if you practice what you preach.

Yup. If you question any of my assertions simply ask for an explanation. Of course I can't guarantee you'll find it justifiable, but I'll give it my best shot.

Moreover, positing a divine agency in such cases is an example of the informal fallacious argument called "Divine fallacy, (an argument from incredulity*) – arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency."

Who is arguing that any incredible or amazing thing is the result of divine agency?

It's part of the definition of "miracle" presented, which you agreed with: "That sounds about right."

I understand miracles as the work of God, but I don't claim to be able to prove miracles as his work.

So, your understanding is based on what, the claims of others?



.

[brunumb]

And as I have pointed out faith is trust or confidence that a truth has been established by reason or evidence.

You may have stated that but is really nothing more than your opinion. The reality is that faith is only necessary when truth has not been established by any compelling reason or evidence.

Faith is not a replacement for reason and evidence but is part of why one accepts a conclusion.;/quote]

Faith is precisely a replacement for reason and evidence. With the latter there is no need for faith.

Yes, faith can be blind if there are no good reasons to accept a truth, but faith can also be founded on reason.

Faith is invariably blind in the absence of evidence. What people usually consider as reason for faith invariably boils down to biased opinion or unverified claims that are accepted uncritically.

Whenever Christian claims fail to meet the pub test faith inevitably rears its ugly head. Faith is not a virtue. It is a polite expression for a certain degree of gullibility.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I don't agree that miracles are merely without prosaic explanations.
Then what are the prosaic explanations for the so-called bible miracles, and in particular the Resurrection? And keep in mind, mere claim doesn't amount to explanation.

I didn't say that there are prosaic explanations for miracles. In fact, I just got done saying that they are without prosaic explanations.

We don't have a natural or scientific explanation for the cosmos' missing mass, but dark matter isn't what I would call miraculous.

Good, because absent any evidence it would be a mistake to considered it to be the work of a divine agency.

I don't know if it's necessarily a mistake to deem unexplained phenomena to be God's work. Maybe such phenomena is his work. It appears that you deny the possibility of miracles from the outset.

And as I have pointed out faith is trust or confidence that a truth has been established by reason or evidence.

So, just what reason or evidence has established the truth of your trust?

The reason should be valid (no fallacies), and the evidence should support the conclusion I reach.

Obviously, but putting ones trust in something that isn't backed by reason or evidence seems pretty foolhardy.

Then why deny miracles without good reason or evidence to reach that conclusion?

EVIDENCE is what is needed to make confident assertions of truth.

In many instances evidence is needed to come to sensible conclusions, but as in abstract logic or math, truths can often be defined without evidence. The equation 2 + 2 = 4, for example, is true by definition and requires no evidence to prove it.

The fallacy committed here is the claim that since no miracle has allegedly yet been "established," then they are the least probable explanation for claims of the supernatural.

Really! So just what is your evidence that the supernatural actually exists? I ask because so far I've yet to see any. All I run into are unsubstantiated claims.

I don't wish to spend a lot of time on this thread trying to convince skeptics that the supernatural exists. Substantiating miracles is not the topic of this debate. I'm just glad that you seem to recognize your fallacy.

Who is arguing that any incredible or amazing thing is the result of divine agency?

It's part of the definition of "miracle" presented, which you agreed with: "That sounds about right."

I see you are trying to score a rhetorical point here by misquoting a definition that you posted earlier and therefore misrepresenting what I said about it. Very tricky! Were you hoping I wouldn't notice?

I understand miracles as the work of God, but I don't claim to be able to prove miracles as his work.

So, your understanding is based on what, the claims of others?

It's just my own point of view regarding what miracles are.

[Miles]

I didn't say that there are prosaic explanations for miracles. In fact, I just got done saying that they are without prosaic explanations.

But you had a negative, "don't," before that. So resolving the double negatives in your statement ("don't" and "without" (don't have)) your "I don't agree that miracles are merely without prosaic explanations" means "I agree that miracles are with (do have) prosaic explanations." Hence my remark.

I don't know if it's necessarily a mistake to deem unexplained phenomena to be God's work.

Without any evidence it certainly is.

It appears that you deny the possibility of miracles from the outset.

Prove to me that miracles exist and I'll stop denying the possibility.

And as I have pointed out faith is trust or confidence that a truth has been established by reason or evidence.

So, just what reason or evidence has established the truth of your trust?

Cite the trust you have in mind, and, if it isn't too laborious, I'll give you my reason or evidence.

The reason should be valid (no fallacies), and the evidence should support the conclusion I reach.

So just what is the reason and evidence that supports your conclusion?

Obviously, but putting ones trust in something that isn't backed by reason or evidence seems pretty foolhardy.

Then why deny miracles without good reason or evidence to reach that conclusion?

For the same reason I deny flying unicorns and faeries dancing atop toadstools. There is no good reason to contend they exist.

EVIDENCE is what is needed to make confident assertions of truth.

In many instances evidence is needed to come to sensible conclusions, but as in abstract logic or math, truths can often be defined without evidence.
The equation 2 + 2 = 4, for example, is true by definition and requires no evidence to prove it.

Yup. The evidence being an inferential argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumption is logically guaranteed by the conclusion.

The fallacy committed here is the claim that since no miracle has allegedly yet been "established," then they are the least probable explanation for claims of the supernatural.

I don't wish to spend a lot of time on this thread trying to convince skeptics that the supernatural exists. Substantiating miracles is not the topic of this debate. I'm just glad that you seem to recognize your fallacy.

And just what fallacy is that? Do you really believe that the reason (the supernatural in this case), which lacks any rational basis of existence, such as convincing evidence, should be considered as an explanation of a phenomenon over those reasons that do have a rational basis?

Who is arguing that any incredible or amazing thing is the result of divine agency?

It's part of the definition of "miracle" presented, which you agreed with: "That sounds about right."

I see you are trying to score a rhetorical point here by misquoting a definition that you posted earlier and therefore misrepresenting what I said about it. Very tricky! Were you hoping I wouldn't notice?

Nah, this little verbal tap dancing doesn't sell. For one thing, you fail to show my misquote. But here, let me help you out.

"mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun: miracle; plural noun: miracles
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

Now, point out my misquote if you will.


.

[Paul of Tarsus]

And as I have pointed out faith is trust or confidence that a truth has been established by reason or evidence.

You may have stated that but is really nothing more than your opinion.

Yes, that is my point of view as far as faith is concerned. Whose opinion about faith did you want me to post?

The reality is that faith is only necessary when truth has not been established by any compelling reason or evidence.

Establishing truth even with the best evidence or reason isn't enough because you need to trust the truth of the claim, or at least I do. I need to be confident that truth has been demonstrated. My trust and confidence in a truth claim is what I mean by faith.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying about faith. Maybe some atheist dogma is tossing a monkey wrench into the works.

Faith is precisely a replacement for reason and evidence. With the latter there is no need for faith.

So if a claim is substantiated by evidence, you don't need to be confident that the claim is true. Trusting the truth of the claim doesn't factor in. For you truth is true whether you believe it or not. That's some interesting thinking there.

Faith is invariably blind in the absence of evidence.

Yes. That's what I've said.

What people usually consider as reason for faith invariably boils down to biased opinion or unverified claims that are accepted uncritically.

Faith can be like that, but not necessarily.

Faith is not a virtue. It is a polite expression for a certain degree of gullibility.

Sure, if you accept the atheists' definition of faith.