Regarding this, what do you all think about Hume's argument against the evidential value of miracles? Hume argues that we should NEVER believe miracles occur, even if they in fact do, because violation miracles (or events that are physically impossible, even if they are logically possible, rather than merely improbable) are the least logically possible event there could be. Since it is irrational to believe the less likely explanation over the more likely, one should not believe that miracles have occurred. No matter how outlandish the naturalistic explanation is, it is more probable than a violation miracle occurring simply because it is physically possible where a miracle is, by definition, not. Even if we observe the miracle for ourselves, we should not believe that it is a miracle, according to Hume, because our senses are capable of being deceived (eg mirage, hallucinations due to lack of food, sleep, stress, etc), and it is more likely that the problem lies in our senses or interpretation than that a violation of natural laws has occurred.Dilettante wrote:it would take some extraordinary evidence for me to ascribe some event to a miraculous intervention. There's too much deception and self-deception in this world to hastily rule it out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Miracles
Moderator: Moderators
Miracles
Post #1On the Naturalism thread, Dilettante made a comment that seems fairly common with regards to miracles:
Post #11
Was Hume a theist?
If miracles are explained away by probability, then it must not be irrational to believe in creation?
Everyone admits that the probability of a universe making itself is so unthinkably magnificent that it puts the skeptic believing that there is no creative designer into the Christian's position when he claims that miracles did indeed happen.
If miracles are explained away by probability, then it must not be irrational to believe in creation?
Everyone admits that the probability of a universe making itself is so unthinkably magnificent that it puts the skeptic believing that there is no creative designer into the Christian's position when he claims that miracles did indeed happen.
"It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Antony Flew
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #12
Welcome, Modus.
No, Hume was not a theist. I am not sure if he was an atheist or an agnostic, though.
It is not irrational to believe in anything as long as you can support your belief with rational arguments. Some creationists attempt to support their belief by just quoting the Bible and thus stop short of a rational argument. Other creationists, however, try to defend their position using logic and rationality. Whether or not their arguments are conclusive / convincing is, of course, another matter. But that's waht this forum is about: using rational arguments to support one's position instead of repeating tired old clichés, assumptions, prejudice, etc.
As for the chances of the universe creating itself, I am aware that this is not an easy question to answer. But the fact is that there are some very famous astrophysicists who think that's actually how it all started. For example, Stephen Hawking has recently theorized that the universe popped into existence much like a bubble suddenly appears in a pot of hot water when it reaches a certain temperature. Would that be a miracle? Apparently not, because a miracle is a violation of the laws of physics, and the laws of physics probably did not exist before the universe itself came into existence. I won't pretend to be able to explain this in detail, but to cut a long story short, some scientists actually contemplate the possibility of the universe coming out of nothing. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but they don't consider it a miracle.
Some people will say "if you believe in the miracles of science, why don't you believe in the miracles of the Bible." The error lies in failing to notice that the word "miracles" is used in a metaphorical sense when it refers to science.
To sum up, I don't think that the skeptic who says there is no creative designer and the Christian who affirms the miracles of the Bible are in the same position at all.
No, Hume was not a theist. I am not sure if he was an atheist or an agnostic, though.
It is not irrational to believe in anything as long as you can support your belief with rational arguments. Some creationists attempt to support their belief by just quoting the Bible and thus stop short of a rational argument. Other creationists, however, try to defend their position using logic and rationality. Whether or not their arguments are conclusive / convincing is, of course, another matter. But that's waht this forum is about: using rational arguments to support one's position instead of repeating tired old clichés, assumptions, prejudice, etc.
As for the chances of the universe creating itself, I am aware that this is not an easy question to answer. But the fact is that there are some very famous astrophysicists who think that's actually how it all started. For example, Stephen Hawking has recently theorized that the universe popped into existence much like a bubble suddenly appears in a pot of hot water when it reaches a certain temperature. Would that be a miracle? Apparently not, because a miracle is a violation of the laws of physics, and the laws of physics probably did not exist before the universe itself came into existence. I won't pretend to be able to explain this in detail, but to cut a long story short, some scientists actually contemplate the possibility of the universe coming out of nothing. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but they don't consider it a miracle.
Some people will say "if you believe in the miracles of science, why don't you believe in the miracles of the Bible." The error lies in failing to notice that the word "miracles" is used in a metaphorical sense when it refers to science.
To sum up, I don't think that the skeptic who says there is no creative designer and the Christian who affirms the miracles of the Bible are in the same position at all.
Post #13
Thank you for the welcome Dilettante.It is not irrational to believe in anything as long as you can support your belief with rational arguments. Some creationists attempt to support their belief by just quoting the Bible and thus stop short of a rational argument. Other creationists, however, try to defend their position using logic and rationality. Whether or not their arguments are conclusive / convincing is, of course, another matter. But that's waht this forum is about: using rational arguments to support one's position instead of repeating tired old clichés, assumptions, prejudice, etc.
I have been on several different forums where christians just quote from the bible. It doesn't prove anything in rational minds even if they are right. I think the only way to defend a position as it relates to the actuality of something should always be logic and rationality. I believe this is a characteristic of God.
I do believe the bible is the truth. I'm convinced that the bible is what the Creator of this universe wanted to say to humans. I do not believe it is a book about science but it must coincide with science.
So as humans continue to stand on the shoulders of giants moving forward in knowledge, and at the end of all the giants there standing with infinite knowledge of everything is the last giant named Jesus Christ. And only when you become convinced of this will you accept God's Word for reason and I don't expect that to happen from evidence we have today of miracles. The pharisees themselves didn't even believe and they saw the miracles with their own eyes.
The question then is; where did the pot of water come from? I would say you've reduced God to a pot of boiling water!As for the chances of the universe creating itself, I am aware that this is not an easy question to answer. But the fact is that there are some very famous astrophysicists who think that's actually how it all started. For example, Stephen Hawking has recently theorized that the universe popped into existence much like a bubble suddenly appears in a pot of hot water when it reaches a certain temperature. Would that be a miracle?
I know that Stephen Hawking recently changed his mind on black holes and I just haven't read anything about his new position. How has Hawking's new position changed his view on singularity?
Could you post a reference please?Stephen Hawking has recently theorized that the universe popped into existence much like a bubble suddenly appears in a pot of hot water when it reaches a certain temperature.
Again, I'm not current with everyone's positions, but the last time I saw this question posed to some of the most famous physicists of our time [1], they all squirmed and still passed it off to the philosopher. Like someone said earlier (I believe it was a conclusion by Hume) that the problem lies in our understanding rather than an actual miracle. Mathematics cannot deal with infinity! String theory, M-Theory, Membranes, and other dimensions, no matter what theory is proposed, it all ends up the philosophers job to explain, or rather, turns the physicist into a philosopher.Would that be a miracle? Apparently not, because a miracle is a violation of the laws of physics, and the laws of physics probably did not exist before the universe itself came into existence. I won't pretend to be able to explain this in detail, but to cut a long story short, some scientists actually contemplate the possibility of the universe coming out of nothing.
So you may have faith in these theories, but at the root of these theories lie naked the philosophical problems that have men racing to find ways to explain away God the Creator. I don't believe this is a bad thing by any means, I've always thought that scientists are getting closer to finding God then they are to finding a nothing.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcript ... egant.html a little over halfway down. Here is a link for the whole transcript of the program. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcript ... egant.html
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #14
Modus wrote:
I got the "bubble in boiling liquid" analogy from a recent lecture by Stephen Hawking when he was here in Spain a few weeks ago. I can give you a link to his official website where the transcripts from all his recent lectures are posted. But last time I checked the Spanish lecture hadn't been posted. It was printed in the papers here, but I don't have the original English version. I could try to translate it myself, but probably before I'm even halfway done they will upload the original transcript. Here's the link:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/info/iindex.html
And here's a transcript of another, similar lecture:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html
Science may not be equipped to answer ultimate questions, so I'm not sure if scientists will ever be close to discovering God, as you say. On the other hand, the concept of God many scientists have differs from the traditional Christian idea of a personal God, and is closer to a pantheistic deity. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, the philosopher.
Science deals with empirical questions. Philosophy (and theology) deal with metaphysical questions).
BTW, I don't have faith in any particular scientific theory. Some sound more convincing than others, but I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed judgement on most scientific matters, especially in fields like astrophysics. I do have confidence that science will move closer to the truth thanks to its anti-dogmantic, self-correcting nature.
Don't mention it! Give my regards to the city of Roses.Thank you for the welcome Dilettante.
I totally agree.I think the only way to defend a position as it relates to the actuality of something should always be logic and rationality.
I hope it is.I believe this is a characteristic of God.
lol, the pot of boiling water was just a crude example... I'll try to think of something less prosaic next time!The question then is; where did the pot of water come from? I would say you've reduced God to a pot of boiling water!
I got the "bubble in boiling liquid" analogy from a recent lecture by Stephen Hawking when he was here in Spain a few weeks ago. I can give you a link to his official website where the transcripts from all his recent lectures are posted. But last time I checked the Spanish lecture hadn't been posted. It was printed in the papers here, but I don't have the original English version. I could try to translate it myself, but probably before I'm even halfway done they will upload the original transcript. Here's the link:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/info/iindex.html
And here's a transcript of another, similar lecture:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html
Science may not be equipped to answer ultimate questions, so I'm not sure if scientists will ever be close to discovering God, as you say. On the other hand, the concept of God many scientists have differs from the traditional Christian idea of a personal God, and is closer to a pantheistic deity. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, the philosopher.
Science deals with empirical questions. Philosophy (and theology) deal with metaphysical questions).
BTW, I don't have faith in any particular scientific theory. Some sound more convincing than others, but I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed judgement on most scientific matters, especially in fields like astrophysics. I do have confidence that science will move closer to the truth thanks to its anti-dogmantic, self-correcting nature.
