Help me strengthen my argument from miracles

[Windfish]

Any and all help is appreciated:

For this discussion , I will offer one simple proof out of many. I will present two parts to this proof, one general and one specific. They will be presented in standard logical form.

The Argument From Miracles

1. A miracle is an event that has as its only adequate explanatio n the extraordin ary and direct interventi on of God.
2. There are numerous well-attes ted miracles.
3. So, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanatio n is the extraordin ary and direct interventi on of God.
4. Therefore, God exists.

This is a valid argument. That is, its form logically leads to its conclusion . But is it sound? That is, are its premises true? If its premises are true, the conclusion follows necessaril y whether you like it or not. It should be obvious that the truth of the second premise will determine if the argument is sound.

I move, then, to substantia te the second premise with a miraculous event that has been well-attes ted and scientific ally investigat ed. In 1998, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a consecrate d Host was found after several days in the tabernacle of a church to be excreting blood and scabbing. A scientific investigat ion examined a sample from the specimen and found the tissue to be heart muscle of the left ventricle. The lead investigat or, a former atheist and credential ed scientist, is seen talking in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

This is only one of many well-attes ted miracles occurring in the history of the Church since the time of Christ to the present day.

With the second premise now substantia ted, the argument is now valid and sound. The conclusion (i.e., that God exists) is, therefore, true. In considerat ion of the content of the miraculous event, it is also reasonable to conclude that Christiani ty is true.

(The Church is slow to rule on matters such as this (if it rules at all), so, by all means, scrutinize the miraculous claim as much as you want. In fact, I encourage you to do so - it is a win-win. If it is true, your scrutiny will have strengthen ed my argument. If it is not, I will substantiate the second premise with another miracle or use a different proof altogether.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. A miracle is an event that has as its only adequate explanatio n the extraordin ary and direct interventi on of God.

How would we ever know that G-d is the only adequate explanation for a miracle? I think the Problem of Induction kills the proof here before we get any further. Good try though! I love a good proof of G-d. Keep it up!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I believe the problem is that deductive arguments that aren’t based directly on mathematical relations (i.e. If A = B and B = C, and the rest) are always a little suspect. You can never be a hundred percent centain that the premises have no flaws, example; how do we know what we call a miracle wasn’t produced by a demon or an alien, or isn’t a deception of some sort? Why do unexplained things HAVE to be the work of God? We can say that makes the most sense, but making the most sense isn’t the same as a logically necessary proof.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

How would we ever know that G-d is the only adequate explanation for a miracle? I think the Problem of Induction kills the proof here before we get any further. Good try though! I love a good proof of G-d. Keep it up!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I like Bertrand Russell’s story of the “Inductivist turkey”'and the problem of certainty in inductive reasoning;
This turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at 9 a.m. However, being a good inductivist, he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he had collected a large number of observations of the fact that he was fed at 9 a.m., and he made these observations under a wide variety of circumstances, on Wednesdays and Thursdays, on warm days and cold days, on rainy days and dry days. Each day, he added another observation statement to his list. Finally, his inductivist conscience was satisfied and he carried out an inductive inference to conclude, “I am always fed at 9 a.m.”. Alas, this conclusion was shown to be false in no uncertain manner when, on Christmas eve, instead of being fed, he had his throat cut. An inductive inference with true premises has led to a false conclusion.

 

[Windfish]

How would we ever know that G-d is the only adequate explanation for a miracle? I think the Problem of Induction kills the proof here before we get any further. Good try though! I love a good proof of G-d. Keep it up!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Hmm, I think I see where you are coming from, but what rational reason would we have to hold any other explanation but God? I mean, an alien happened to be hanging around a Mass and decided to mess with us? And that still does not explain how the alien could the naturally impossible and turn bread in flesh and blood.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Hmm, I think I see where you are coming from, but what rational reason would we have to hold any other explanation but God? I mean, an alien happened to be hanging around a Mass and decided to mess with us? And that still does not explain how the alien could the naturally impossible and turn bread in flesh and blood.

Are you serious?

 

[Windfish]

Are you serious?

???

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

???

Oh, I think I misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you meant that the “miracle” of the Eucharist, where the bread and wine are turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, is a miracle proving there is a God. Obviously that would be silly, because an atheist would say that your “miracle” is still just bread and wine. But I’m guessing you were talking about the miracle in the YouTube link, so nevermind

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I like Bertrand Russell’s story of the “Inductivist turkey”'and the problem of certainty in inductive reasoning;
This turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at 9 a.m. However, being a good inductivist, he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he had collected a large number of observations of the fact that he was fed at 9 a.m., and he made these observations under a wide variety of circumstances, on Wednesdays and Thursdays, on warm days and cold days, on rainy days and dry days. Each day, he added another observation statement to his list. Finally, his inductivist conscience was satisfied and he carried out an inductive inference to conclude, “I am always fed at 9 a.m.”. Alas, this conclusion was shown to be false in no uncertain manner when, on Christmas eve, instead of being fed, he had his throat cut. An inductive inference with true premises has led to a false conclusion.

You just scared the crud out of Deductive Donkey! :frighten:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hmm, I think I see where you are coming from, but what rational reason would we have to hold any other explanation but God? I mean, an alien happened to be hanging around a Mass and decided to mess with us? And that still does not explain how the alien could the naturally impossible and turn bread in flesh and blood.

Do you mean “naturally impossible” in the strict metaphysical sense like "physically impossible’?

 

[danserr]

Defining a miracle: I think CS Lewis and WLC suggest that the best definition of a miracle is “a naturally impossible event.” (and therefore if it occurs, an event that requires divine intervention).

Premise 2. Premise two doesn’t really have to take the strong view that “there are many well attested miracles.” This seems to commit you to defending the existence of many miracles, whereas, if we define a miracle either as you have or as a naturally impossible event, then even one miracle is enough to prove God.

• that being said, I do kind of like the idea of mentioning several miracles, though you’d have to pick a few and show how they were historically probable under the normal rules of historical investigation.

The argument itself is deductive, but the second premise is inductive. I see why that makes some people nervous, but I don’t think it should.

An argument is a good argument (WLC) if the premises are more plausible than the denials. We don’t have to prove mathmatically that premise 2 is true, we just have to show that it is more plausible than not. If so, then a rational person should accept it and the argument is a good one.

The problem with the problem is induction at least if you take a very strong form of it and say that induction cannot lead to knowledge because of xyz problems, is that it leads to some conclusions I find ridiculous.
-historical knowledge is all inductive, yet we can be said to know facts of history. I know the holocaust happened, the civil war happened, Louis XVI of france was beheaded etc.
-most scientific knowledge is inductive, yet we say that scientific experiments can lead to knowledge.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

The argument itself is deductive, but the second premise is inductive. I see why that makes some people nervous, but I don’t think it should.

An argument is a good argument (WLC) if the premises are more plausible than the denials. We don’t have to prove mathmatically that premise 2 is true, we just have to show that it is more plausible than not. If so, then a rational person should accept it and the argument is a good one.

That’s one thing I don’t get about Craig (I assume that’s who you refer to as WLC). He’ll say that an argument is a good argument if the premises are more plausible than the denials. We don’t have to prove mathmatically that premise 2 is true, we just have to show that it is more plausible than not, and THEN he ends his deductive argument with “Therefore God exist”, and says it’s a “Proof”'of God’s existence. Huh? The argument may give a good reason to believe God exists, but it’s not a Proof.

 

[danserr]

That’s one thing I don’t get about Craig (I assume that’s who you refer to as WLC). He’ll say that an argument is a good argument if the premises are more plausible than the denials. We don’t have to prove mathmatically that premise 2 is true, we just have to show that it is more plausible than not, and THEN he ends his deductive argument with “Therefore God exist”, and says it’s a “Proof”'of God’s existence. Huh? The argument may give a good reason to believe God exists, but it’s not a Proof.

Actually, I am going through his book Reasonable Faith and he actually says that the problem with the word “proof” is that “In the minds of most people the word proof or prove connotes a mathematical demonstration” (189). He says it’s better to talk about there being good evidence or arguments for God. So he certainly advises talking about evidence instead of proof.

And “proof” does not only mean mathematical certainty. To give an example from history. Someone makes a historical case for an event (let’s say the existence of the holocaust). He gathers evidence for the event and if the evidence is sufficient he will be justified in considering himself to have “proven” that the event occurred. And he is right to think so. Historical proofs are different from mathematical proofs, they do not allow mathematical certainty, but they are rightly considered proofs nonetheless. So I think it might be technically correct to refer to a philosophical argument as a proof, even if each premise is not mathematically proven.

• One more thought, Craig says somewhere that he never claimed to be able to prove Christianity to a mathematical certainty, just that it is much more probable than not, which seems fair.

At any rate, the point for windfish’s argument is that inductive reasoning to establish a premise is perfectly acceptable and doesn’t imperil the argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Defining a miracle: I think CS Lewis and WLC suggest that the best definition of a miracle is “a naturally impossible event.” (and therefore if it occurs, an event that requires divine intervention).

That definition of miracles is inherently flawed. If an event occurs which people think is physically impossible, the only information that we can really derive from such an event is that our understanding is flawed, because it didn’t turn out to be physically impossible after all.

Any claim that something is physically impossible only means the claimant thinks that what he personally believes defines what is possible. Its clearly irrational. Not that being irrational ever stops anybody.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Actually, I am going through his book Reasonable Faith and he actually says that the problem with the word “proof” is that “In the minds of most people the word proof or prove connotes a mathematical demonstration” (189). He says it’s better to talk about there being good evidence or arguments for God. So he certainly advises talking about evidence instead of proof.

And “proof” does not only mean mathematical certainty. To give an example from history. Someone makes a historical case for an event (let’s say the existence of the holocaust). He gathers evidence for the event and if the evidence is sufficient he will be justified in considering himself to have “proven” that the event occurred. And he is right to think so. Historical proofs are different from mathematical proofs, they do not allow mathematical certainty, but they are rightly considered proofs nonetheless. So I think it might be technically correct to refer to a philosophical argument as a proof, even if each premise is not mathematically proven.

• One more thought, Craig says somewhere that he never claimed to be able to prove Christianity to a mathematical certainty, just that it is much more probable than not, which seems fair.

At any rate, the point for windfish’s argument is that inductive reasoning to establish a premise is perfectly acceptable and doesn’t imperil the argument.

I read Reasonable Faith a few years back, I didn’t like it very much (though it’s much better than the books of the other Evangelical protestant apologists). It seems like Craig is bastardizing the logic of deductive argument and reinventing it for his own arguments. The “problem” isn’t that in the minds of most people the word proof or prove connotes a mathematical demonstration or certainty, THAT’S what a proof is suppose to do, especially when it’s set up as the conclusion of a deductive argument that ends “Therefore, God exist”. Just look at the definition of a deductive argument for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; “A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.”

He shouldn’t be setting up his arguments as deductive arguments, it give them the illusion of a certainty that they do not have. That’s why I prefer catholic Stephen Barr to the apologists in the Evangelical camp, he doesn’t present his apologetic arguments as proofs, just as supporting evidence of a theistic worldview, you might want to read Modern Physics and Ancient Faith when you’re done with Reasonable Faith, IMHO a much better book than Craig’s.