Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Miracles & Epistemology

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to I do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophicslly would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 10:17:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I look at miracles the same way most main stream religious people have in mind.

Have a problem + pray to God + Positive outcome later = My prayer was answered by God.

I think results (or lack of) matter, so I guess we could debate assuming miracles happen how exactly that comes about but I think the real question here is well does prayer work ? should we believe that prayer work ? has praying to God any God being shown to produce better results than praying to a light bulb or non prayer ?

Or is it all correlation by causation fallacy, confirmation bias, wishful thinking, etc etc....

https://www.youtube.com...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 4:34:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

I am gonna do here my usual thing & speak about the concept of Miracle from an Islamic Perspective:

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

- Miracle is defined in Islamic Theology as an Extraordinary State of Affair such that it is:
1. Violating the ordinary State of Affairs.
2. Generated subsequent to a claim of Prophethood.
3. Compatible with the said claim.
4. Incapacitating: can not be matched.
5. Inimitable: can not be reproduced.
6. Accompanied by Divine Guidance.

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

- Not necessarily. The Qur'an says: "Such is the Law of Allah which has taken course aforetime. And never will you find in the Law of Allah any change." (48:23), & so the definition of Miracle does not break the Laws of the World.

- The more appropriate question would be: Are the Laws under which Miracles occur recognisable? >>> They are thus either of the following:
1. Disjoint from the ordinary Natural Laws.
2. Contained the ordinary Natural Laws.
3. Containing in the ordinary Natural Laws.

1. Ruled out, since the Miracles we are told have Natural premises.
2. Ruled out, since some of Miracles we are told have Unnatural premises (such as raising the dead).
3. Only left explanation.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

- Not necessarily. The natural side of a Miracle can still be inductively deduced. As for the supernatural side, it would be, as you pointed out, impossible to examine with ordinary means, that in case the Miracle is an Event.
- Also, inductive Causality, by design, can not be proven to be necessary. & thus the possibility of Miracles is not contradicted. & according to the Ash'ari School of Though, inductive Causality is not necessary & it's just an apparent Habit of God which He may chose at any moment to overrule, substitute or contain by another Habit.
- Furthermore, Miracles imply & are implied by Prophethood. & so, proving Prophethood would imply proving Miracles, & vis versa.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

- This could go two ways:
I. Proving Prophethood & thus concluding on the Miracle.
II. Proving the Miracle directly.

I. => One way to do this is using this formula (which muslim theologians use, alongside others):
1. If a unique event (extremely unlikely in the future) is true, then the prediction of such event is a sign of strong prediction.
2. If all or almost all strong predictions are true, then the predictor must have high predictive power.
3. If a person is a prophet, then he must be a predictor with high predictive power with no conclusively false prediction.
4. Almost all unlikely events Person X predicted came true, with no conclusively false prediction.
5. Person X is a prophet.
=> (1), (2) & (3) are true, as per the corresponding definitions. Thus, if (4) is a fact, then (5) is True.

II. => One way to go about this is: Tawatur (Flawless Succession, also a tool used by muslim theologians).
> The Principal of Tawatur is: Abundant/Dependant Consistent/Matching Testimonies are conclusive (as to state with certainty the veracity of an Occurrence).
(how all that is expressed & verified is a long story).
=> That is, if such Occurrence fulfils the 6 conditions of Miracle, then it is a Miracle.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

- In Islam, we view the Creation as two Worlds one within the other:
* 'Alam al-Malakut: The World of Sovereignty (or the Unseen World: where the angels live & such).
* 'Alam al-Mulk: The World of Possession (the Seen World: the world humans have access to through senses or intellect).
* 'al-Barzakh: The Interstice (the world between the two I just mentioned) it's where the souls - partially - lay, & the dead & the Jin.
- & so, the World of Possession (this observable World) is existing within the World of Sovereignty, but is bound by the boarders of the First Heaven, which is called 'as-Samaa ad-Dunya- (the Lowest Heaven) which the Qur'an describes as the Heaven with Stars. Beyond the First Heaven, it's all the World of Sovereignty.

- Point: the World of Sovereignty contains the World of Possession, & its associated Habit (Laws) contain the Habit of this World (Causality). & the link Humans have with the World of Possession is their Soul.
- Also, since the latter World is contained in the former, it's also influenced by it. & this influence might take the form of Miracle, or Revelation, or Inspiration, or Prayer . . etc (long story).

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophically would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

- That argument is self-refuting! If we assume the Law of Causality can be violated & go from there to establish some kind of ultra-reality, we have already thereby proved Miracles by default, unless I am misunderstanding you right now.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

- Unless of course the designated Miracle are sufficiently contained in the Natural World, meaning: the natural causes of such Miracles are apparently sufficient. In that case, the Miracle would constitute a singularity, or a unique phenomenon.
- Plus, if the Miracle is not a physical Event, we wouldn't be discussing all of that in the first place. An live example of this is the Qur'an, as in it could be tried & examined as to whether it is indeed a Miracle or not.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 4:59:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:34:59 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

I am gonna do here my usual thing & speak about the concept of Miracle from an Islamic Perspective:

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

- Miracle is defined in Islamic Theology as an Extraordinary State of Affair such that it is:
1. Violating the ordinary State of Affairs.
2. Generated subsequent to a claim of Prophethood.

Why should it be exclusive to that? It seems non prophethood violations of "ordinary state of affairs", especially ones with intentionality, would be regarded as a miracle.

3. Compatible with the said claim.
4. Incapacitating: can not be matched.

Why not? This is arbitary.

5. Inimitable: can not be reproduced.

Again, why not? Entirely arbitary.

6. Accompanied by Divine Guidance.

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

- Not necessarily. The Qur'an says: "Such is the Law of Allah which has taken course aforetime. And never will you find in the Law of Allah any change." (48:23), & so the definition of Miracle does not break the Laws of the World.

If naturalism is the law of the world then supernaturalism is false by fiat, lol. The law of Allah =/= naturalism. You are equivocating here.

- The more appropriate question would be: Are the Laws under which Miracles occur recognisable? >>> They are thus either of the following:
1. Disjoint from the ordinary Natural Laws.
2. Contained the ordinary Natural Laws.
3. Containing in the ordinary Natural Laws.

1. Ruled out, since the Miracles we are told have Natural premises.
2. Ruled out, since some of Miracles we are told have Unnatural premises (such as raising the dead).
3. Only left explanation.

The English in this is bad... Disjoint/contained/containing are not being used in the common sense so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

- Not necessarily. The natural side of a Miracle can still be inductively deduced. As for the supernatural side, it would be, as you pointed out, impossible to examine with ordinary means, that in case the Miracle is an Event.

This just begs the question of having a miracle in the first place. That's EXACTLY a what we are trying to establish. We are trying to demonstrate a non-naturalistic event, which is de facto, a attempted proof of a negative.

- Also, inductive Causality, by design, can not be proven to be necessary. & thus the possibility of Miracles is not contradicted. & according to the Ash'ari School of Though, inductive Causality is not necessary & it's just an apparent Habit of God which He may chose at any moment to overrule, substitute or contain by another Habit.

Ugh. Please learn the definition and philosophical usage of "necessary", and it means something very different so how you use it. If we assume that the law of causality is emergent from a naturalistic framework, then obviously a violation of a naturalistic framework would violate causality, as per basic set theory. Regardless of whether or not it is a necessary truth.

Moreover, this does nothing to address the epistemological question.

- Furthermore, Miracles imply & are implied by Prophethood. & so, proving Prophethood would imply proving Miracles, & vis versa.

- This could go two ways:
I. Proving Prophethood & thus concluding on the Miracle.
II. Proving the Miracle directly.

I. => One way to do this is using this formula (which muslim theologians use, alongside others):
1. If a unique event (extremely unlikely in the future) is true, then the prediction of such event is a sign of strong prediction.
2. If all or almost all strong predictions are true, then the predictor must have high predictive power.
3. If a person is a prophet, then he must be a predictor with high predictive power with no conclusively false prediction.
4. Almost all unlikely events Person X predicted came true, with no conclusively false prediction.
5. Person X is a prophet.
=> (1), (2) & (3) are true, as per the corresponding definitions. Thus, if (4) is a fact, then (5) is True.

This is affirming the consequent... Therefore, it's invalid deductively, and only weakly inductive in this case. Moreover miracles =/= prophethood.

=> That is, if such Occurrence fulfils the 6 conditions of Miracle, then it is a Miracle.

Provide these 6 conditions.

- In Islam, we view the Creation as two Worlds one within the other:
* 'Alam al-Malakut: The World of Sovereignty (or the Unseen World: where the angels live & such).
* 'Alam al-Mulk:....
<snip>

This topic is about epistemology. The Islamic worldview is completely irrelevant here until one accepts it's presuppositions, which clearly we do not. If you have logical points that are derivative from it then present them, but presuppositions that are inherent to Islam is going to be completely useless to anyone else.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophically would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

- That argument is self-refuting! If we assume the Law of Causality can be violated & go from there to establish some kind of ultra-reality, we have already thereby proved Miracles by default, unless I am misunderstanding you right now.

You are conflating the descriptive notion of causality, I.e. we can see/measure the causes associated with effects, with the prescriptive notion of causality, i.e. That in principle all things in the world must have a cause, regardless of whether or not the cause can be measured.

If in naturalism, there is a reality that is not directly accessible, but fully informative to the laws of cause and effect, which do manifest effects in reality that is directly accessible to humans, then it would give the appearence of miracles, despite having absolutely nothing divine involved.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

- Unless of course the designated Miracle are sufficiently contained in the Natural World, meaning: the natural causes of such Miracles are apparently sufficient. In that case, the Miracle would constitute a singularity, or a unique phenomenon.

You didn't justify the assertion of singularity/uniqueness. I requested this further up.

- Plus, if the Miracle is not a physical Event, we wouldn't be discussing all of that in the first place. An live example of this is the Qur'an, as in it could be tried & examined as to whether it is indeed a Miracle or not

This doesn't say anything.... This topic is about epistemology from the standpoint of the subject (humans). Thus how can one know. Islamic theology isn't going to have a lot to say on this because it already presupposes the answers & mechanisms.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:20:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 9:44:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Define naturalism first.

And yet, another believer incapable of using a dictionary.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:28:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to I do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophicslly would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

Response: A better definition of a miracle is something that occurs that has no logical natural explanation for it. It is not just something that does not occur in nature, because science is inductive and can be wrong. So something that does not occur in nature may not be a miracle. It may have been nature all along, but was not discovered or overlooked. So a miracle would be something far from a logical explanation of natural occurrence.

That said, to identify a miracle is simple. If I was to continue to be shot in the head by a real bullet at point blank range and never die, that would be a miracle. For there is no logical explanation to explain why I never die.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:34:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:20:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:44:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Define naturalism first.

And yet, another believer incapable of using a dictionary.

Nice try - there's about a million different definitions of naturalism out there and a lot of them are mutually incompatible.

I probably know more about naturalism(s) than you do in any case.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:40:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:28:34 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to I do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophicslly would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

Response: A better definition of a miracle is something that occurs that has no logical natural explanation for it. It is not just something that does not occur in nature, because science is inductive and can be wrong. So something that does not occur in nature may not be a miracle. It may have been nature all along, but was not discovered or overlooked. So a miracle would be something far from a logical explanation of natural occurrence.

That said, to identify a miracle is simple. If I was to continue to be shot in the head by a real bullet at point blank range and never die, that would be a miracle. For there is no logical explanation to explain why I never die.

All you did was provide one example of something that you might define as a miracle. This does not provide us with a method of determining what is and what isn't a miracle. The approach you seem to be suggesting implicitly contains a problem that Envisage already mentioned. That is, the problem of proving a negative. Can you prove that there is no logical explanation to an event, X?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:47:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to I do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophicslly would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

I must disagree. We have a very good grasp on the way things work and the laws followed by matter and energy in this universe. Anything that occurs that does not comport with those laws can be described as supernatural. We can define that clearly. What we could not confirm is the 'divine' nature of the event. At best, if we were able to watch a person pray for healing and suddenly an amputated limb grew back we could infer some sort of divine direction.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:50:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:40:59 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:


All you did was provide one example of something that you might define as a miracle. This does not provide us with a method of determining what is and what isn't a miracle. The approach you seem to be suggesting implicitly contains a problem that Envisage already mentioned. That is, the problem of proving a negative. Can you prove that there is no logical explanation to an event, X?

Response: Yet you yourself do not deny the fact that a person cannot survive gunshots to their head a point blank range every time. So your own acknowledgement supports the fact that a miracle and was is not can be tested. And to deny it is a miracle shows a contradiction on your part because that would mean that any thing is possible, therefore refuting any scientific claim and shows you support a negative.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:57:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 9:44:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Define naturalism first.

The proposition that "The world obeys laws" that are prescriptive and describable within a mathematical framework.

Sounds fair?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 1:35:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:47:52 AM, dhardage wrote:
I must disagree. We have a very good grasp on the way things work and the laws followed by matter and energy in this universe. Anything that occurs that does not comport with those laws can be described as supernatural. We can define that clearly. What we could not confirm is the 'divine' nature of the event. At best, if we were able to watch a person pray for healing and suddenly an amputated limb grew back we could infer some sort of divine direction.

You cannot infer divine direction until you can either demonstrate that the occurrence resembles divine direction (in which case if we had such examples we wouldn't be having this discussion), or you need to make the argument that what just happened in nature cannot happen in nature.

If someone prayed for a limb to grow back and then the limb grew back, I would find a magic trick to be a much more likely explanation. David Copperfield made the statue of liberty disappear, I don't see anyone claiming he must be a God.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to I do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophicslly would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

I think "miracles" happen within the context of a natural world. When mankind can not explain how God did something they describe it as "supernatural". But why would a God all-powerful and all knowing from all of time need to break any rules of natural to accomplish a task?

I take the view that God sees all of time. So God already knows of a prayer before it is even prayed. And God by tapping the surface of a puddle could create a wave that spreads into a thunderstorm or grants a person the "need" they asked for. Say someone prayed for rain. The makings for that rain were already set in motion long before the prayer. God was already moving stretching space and time to make a rain cloud.

Science may come along and say it wasn't the time of year for rain, or rain is highly unlikely because past experiences and induction of science say "rain will not happen". But the lack of explanation that make the event "supernatural" and miraculous is a description occurring from the incompleteness of knowledge from the science and mankind. I think if we knew all the variables as God knew them we would see the miraculous event as being "assured to happen".

(I also think the only prayers answered are those that are humble in nature and for the accomplishing of God's will. That prayer is not a phone service to order from a catalog of all human desires. I don't think God gives much attention to our own selfish desires)
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:41:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 1:35:20 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:47:52 AM, dhardage wrote:
I must disagree. We have a very good grasp on the way things work and the laws followed by matter and energy in this universe. Anything that occurs that does not comport with those laws can be described as supernatural. We can define that clearly. What we could not confirm is the 'divine' nature of the event. At best, if we were able to watch a person pray for healing and suddenly an amputated limb grew back we could infer some sort of divine direction.

You cannot infer divine direction until you can either demonstrate that the occurrence resembles divine direction (in which case if we had such examples we wouldn't be having this discussion), or you need to make the argument that what just happened in nature cannot happen in nature.

If someone prayed for a limb to grow back and then the limb grew back, I would find a magic trick to be a much more likely explanation. David Copperfield made the statue of liberty disappear, I don't see anyone claiming he must be a God.

You could be right but I was assuming that the prayer and the regrowth were carefully observed and no sleight of hand was present. This would be the only way to even suspect divine intention, though it would still not be absolute proof by any means.,
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:13:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to I do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophicslly would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

I think "miracles" happen within the context of a natural world. When mankind can not explain how God did something they describe it as "supernatural". But why would a God all-powerful and all knowing from all of time need to break any rules of natural to accomplish a task?

I take the view that God sees all of time. So God already knows of a prayer before it is even prayed. And God by tapping the surface of a puddle could create a wave that spreads into a thunderstorm or grants a person the "need" they asked for. Say someone prayed for rain. The makings for that rain were already set in motion long before the prayer. God was already moving stretching space and time to make a rain cloud.

Science may come along and say it wasn't the time of year for rain, or rain is highly unlikely because past experiences and induction of science say "rain will not happen". But the lack of explanation that make the event "supernatural" and miraculous is a description occurring from the incompleteness of knowledge from the science and mankind. I think if we knew all the variables as God knew them we would see the miraculous event as being "assured to happen".


(I also think the only prayers answered are those that are humble in nature and for the accomplishing of God's will. That prayer is not a phone service to order from a catalog of all human desires. I don't think God gives much attention to our own selfish desires)

The point of he OP is to question how we could possibly determine that an observed event is best explained by divine intervention. Your response is to assume it was divine intervention and move from there.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 4:17:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:50:29 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:40:59 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:


All you did was provide one example of something that you might define as a miracle. This does not provide us with a method of determining what is and what isn't a miracle. The approach you seem to be suggesting implicitly contains a problem that Envisage already mentioned. That is, the problem of proving a negative. Can you prove that there is no logical explanation to an event, X?

Response: Yet you yourself do not deny the fact that a person cannot survive gunshots to their head a point blank range every time. So your own acknowledgement supports the fact that a miracle and was is not can be tested. And to deny it is a miracle shows a contradiction on your part because that would mean that any thing is possible, therefore refuting any scientific claim and shows you support a negative.

I'm not sure you understood the post the way I worded it. I'm saying what you provided was a hypothetical example of something that would make sense to call a miracle if it happened. I'm not denying that would be 'miraculous' under many definitions. But it being just a hypothetical example, it doesn't give us a method of checking if someone is a miracle.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 7:59:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:34:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:20:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:44:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Define naturalism first.

And yet, another believer incapable of using a dictionary.

Nice try - there's about a million different definitions of naturalism out there and a lot of them are mutually incompatible.

LOL. Sure, here are your "million mutually incompatible" definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Is it such, perhaps, that you've actually never used a dictionary, or know what one is?

I probably know more about naturalism(s) than you do in any case.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 8:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:28:34 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/6/2015 6:10:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is not a knock on miracles per second, but on our ability to determine them even if they did exist. Thus the limits of our epistemology.

First, how does one define a miracle?

A rough definition would be a "divinely directed departure from the order of nature"

Thus, a miracle is defined according to what the presupposition of naturalism is not. Whatever laws the world obeys are broken in the case of a miracle.

Thus, any claim of a miracle is necessarily a negative argument, because it requires fulfilling a proof of a negative, which is extremely difficult to do so convincingly inductively.

Thus, I would like people to contribute, atheist and theists, about what would in principle, constitute a good case for a miracles, or set of miracles, and how is it well-justified.

Personally, I tried imagining a world where objects appear ex nihilo whenever one both needs and prays for it, out of pure convenience. Obviously naturalism is going to have a hard time making a case that it had nothing to I do with these objects magically appearing, but even in these cases it could still be some. Perhaps there is some natural link between consciousness and nature, and that consciousness is separate from reality, but in a non-divine manner.

Again, such an explanation is prima facie absurd, but philosophicslly would almost certainly make for more powerful explanatory power and simplicity than God, and an actual miracle.

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

Response: A better definition of a miracle is something that occurs that has no logical natural explanation for it. It is not just something that does not occur in nature, because science is inductive and can be wrong. So something that does not occur in nature may not be a miracle. It may have been nature all along, but was not discovered or overlooked. So a miracle would be something far from a logical explanation of natural occurrence.

That said, to identify a miracle is simple. If I was to continue to be shot in the head by a real bullet at point blank range and never die, that would be a miracle. For there is no logical explanation to explain why I never die.

But, you would die as would anyone else. Your example is silly.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 11:18:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 7:59:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:34:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:20:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:44:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Define naturalism first.

And yet, another believer incapable of using a dictionary.

Nice try - there's about a million different definitions of naturalism out there and a lot of them are mutually incompatible.

LOL. Sure, here are your "million mutually incompatible" definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Is it such, perhaps, that you've actually never used a dictionary, or know what one is?

I probably know more about naturalism(s) than you do in any case.

*sigh*

"Naturalism" seems to me ... rather like "World Peace" Almost everyone swears allegiance to it, and is willing to march under its banner. But disputes can still break out about what it is appropriate or acceptable to do in the name of that slogan. And like world peace, once you start specifying concretely exactly what it involves and how to achieve it, it becomes increasingly difficult to reach and to sustain a consistent and exclusive "naturalism." There is pressure on the one hand to include more and more within your conception of "nature:' so it loses its definiteness and restrictiveness. Or, if the conception is kept fixed and restrictive, there is pressure on the other hand to distort or even to deny the very phenomena that a naturalistic study - and especially a naturalistic study of human beings - is supposed to explain. (Stroud 2004, 22)

Stewart Goetz;Charles Taliaferro. Naturalism (p. 6). Kindle Edition.

"We are naturalists now. But, even so, this common naturalism is of a very vague and general sort, capable of covering an immense diversity of opinion. It is an admission of a direction more than a clearly formulated belief" (Sellars 1922, vii).

Stewart Goetz;Charles Taliaferro. Naturalism (p. 7). Kindle Edition.

" The term "naturalism" has no very precise meaning in contemporary &#21746;hilosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed "naturalists" from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing "supernatural", and that the scientific method should be used to &#26619;nvestigate all areas of reality, including the "human spirit" (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).

So understood, "naturalism" is not a &#27530;articularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized"that is, they would both reject "supernatural" entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the "human spirit".

&#24179;ven so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of "naturalism". It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret "naturalism" differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, "naturalism" is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles"few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as "non-naturalists".[1] This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the requirements of "naturalism". Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand "naturalism" in a unrestrictive way, in order not to disqualify themselves as "naturalists", while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for "naturalism" higher.[2]"

http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 12:21:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:17:17 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:


I'm not sure you understood the post the way I worded it. I'm saying what you provided was a hypothetical example of something that would make sense to call a miracle if it happened. I'm not denying that would be 'miraculous' under many definitions. But it being just a hypothetical example, it doesn't give us a method of checking if someone is a miracle.

Response: Yet since the hypothetical example makes sense and fits the definition of a miracle, then it does give a method of checking. I gave a definition and supported it with an example that makes sense and you admit it does. Therefore, it is valid. Whereas you are claiming it does not give a method of checking while failing to give an example of such, thus your claim is not accurate and is invalid.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:33:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 12:21:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/7/2015 4:17:17 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:


I'm not sure you understood the post the way I worded it. I'm saying what you provided was a hypothetical example of something that would make sense to call a miracle if it happened. I'm not denying that would be 'miraculous' under many definitions. But it being just a hypothetical example, it doesn't give us a method of checking if someone is a miracle.

Response: Yet since the hypothetical example makes sense and fits the definition of a miracle, then it does give a method of checking. I gave a definition and supported it with an example that makes sense and you admit it does. Therefore, it is valid. Whereas you are claiming it does not give a method of checking while failing to give an example of such, thus your claim is not accurate and is invalid.

Then what is the general principle by which to check the validity of a miracle? Examples are not general principles. They can only illustrate general principles.

"Whereas you are claiming it does not give a method of checking while failing to give an example of such, thus your claim is not accurate and is invalid."
- Even if I correct your grammar, I don't understand what this means. I'm supposed to give you an example of why an example =/= a general principle?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:30:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 2:33:07 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

Then what is the general principle by which to check the validity of a miracle? Examples are not general principles. They can only illustrate general principles.

"Whereas you are claiming it does not give a method of checking while failing to give an example of such, thus your claim is not accurate and is invalid."
- Even if I correct your grammar, I don't understand what this means. I'm supposed to give you an example of why an example =/= a general principle?

Response: The example is a general principle since it logically fits the definition of a miracle and can be objectively tested and observed. You can test and observe what is capable according to nature, thereby determining what is not capable. So a miracle can be found objectively with principles.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 10:29:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 11:18:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:59:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:34:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:20:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:44:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Define naturalism first.

And yet, another believer incapable of using a dictionary.

Nice try - there's about a million different definitions of naturalism out there and a lot of them are mutually incompatible.

LOL. Sure, here are your "million mutually incompatible" definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Is it such, perhaps, that you've actually never used a dictionary, or know what one is?

I probably know more about naturalism(s) than you do in any case.

*sigh*

"Naturalism" seems to me ... rather like "World Peace" Almost everyone swears allegiance to it, and is willing to march under its banner. But disputes can still break out about what it is appropriate or acceptable to do in the name of that slogan. And like world peace, once you start specifying concretely exactly what it involves and how to achieve it, it becomes increasingly difficult to reach and to sustain a consistent and exclusive "naturalism." There is pressure on the one hand to include more and more within your conception of "nature:' so it loses its definiteness and restrictiveness. Or, if the conception is kept fixed and restrictive, there is pressure on the other hand to distort or even to deny the very phenomena that a naturalistic study - and especially a naturalistic study of human beings - is supposed to explain. (Stroud 2004, 22)

That is pure baloney. Naturalism is the model of our world because it provides real explanations as to how things work, the more we include, the more we understand.

Stewart Goetz;Charles Taliaferro. Naturalism (p. 6). Kindle Edition.

"We are naturalists now. But, even so, this common naturalism is of a very vague and general sort, capable of covering an immense diversity of opinion. It is an admission of a direction more than a clearly formulated belief" (Sellars 1922, vii).

Stewart Goetz;Charles Taliaferro. Naturalism (p. 7). Kindle Edition.

" The term "naturalism" has no very precise meaning in contemporary &#21746;hilosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed "naturalists" from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing "supernatural", and that the scientific method should be used to &#26619;nvestigate all areas of reality, including the "human spirit" (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).

So understood, "naturalism" is not a &#27530;articularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized"that is, they would both reject "supernatural" entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the "human spirit".

&#24179;ven so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of "naturalism". It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret "naturalism" differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, "naturalism" is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles"few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as "non-naturalists".[1] This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the requirements of "naturalism". Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand "naturalism" in a unrestrictive way, in order not to disqualify themselves as "naturalists", while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for "naturalism" higher.[2]"

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Yes, the book, "interventions", which is merely theist garbage:

"Indeed, no reader can miss the repeated warnings throughout the book that the only thing that really unites and excites the naturalist base is their atheism -- their confident belief that God, or more specifically the God of classical metaphysical theism, does not exist. The book could not, however, have been called "Theism" or even "Naturalism and Theism." For while GT do argue in the fifth and final chapter of the book that theism should be taken seriously, they make no attempt to show that theism is true or even to show that theism is the most plausible of the many distinct alternatives to a naturalistic world view. Rather, the parts of the book that discuss theism do so primarily for the purpose of defending the coherence of teleologism on the divine plane. Accordingly, GT defend theism against objections to the coherence of divine agency but not against other equally serious objections. "

https://ndpr.nd.edu...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 11:00:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:59:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
You are conflating the descriptive notion of causality, I.e. we can see/measure the causes associated with effects, with the prescriptive notion of causality, i.e. That in principle all things in the world must have a cause, regardless of whether or not the cause can be measured.

- Agreed.

If in naturalism, there is a reality that is not directly accessible, but fully informative to the laws of cause and effect, which do manifest effects in reality that is directly accessible to humans, then it would give the appearence of miracles, despite having absolutely nothing divine involved.

- It seems as though you are using the absurd notion of the God of the gaps, in the sense that: if IT doesn't have a -natural- cause, then God did it, thus God might have not done IT if IT has a -natural- cause. In that case, why is He called God again?!
- Why on earth would the fact that something has or doesn't have a real or ultra-real cause affects its divine origin (or lack thereof)? What on earth is the correlation between "IT has a cause" & "God didn't do IT" !!??

Thus I am left in the position that, even if miracles were real, we simply would never be in a position to say that they are miracles via. Inductive means (I.e. Via. Scientific methods, etc).

- Unless of course the designated Miracle are sufficiently contained in the Natural World, meaning: the natural causes of such Miracles are apparently sufficient. In that case, the Miracle would constitute a singularity, or a unique phenomenon.

You didn't justify the assertion of singularity/uniqueness. I requested this further up.

- Miracles are, by definition, associated with Prophethood. & I am speaking here with the definition of Miracle I use, the one with the relative concept of ordinary State of Affairs.
- If the Message of a particular Prophet is supposed to last (& they usually do), then his Miracle shouldn't be replicable. In that case, where it is apparently Natural, it shouldn't happen more than twice, at least as far as humans are concerned.
- If a natural phenomenon happens to be a singularity, but without any claim of Prophethood associated with it, then why call it a Miracle in the first place?!

This doesn't say anything.... This topic is about epistemology from the standpoint of the subject (humans). Thus how can one know. Islamic theology isn't going to have a lot to say on this because it already presupposes the answers & mechanisms.

- Actually No! Islamic Theology is very much based on Reason, nothing like Christian Theology at all, where it's a lot about faith. In fact, Islamic Theology is called: Kalam, which literally means: Critical Discourse. Knowledge plays a pivotal role in the islamic Tradition.
- Reason & Revelation in Islamic Theology are interchangeable, some Schools of Thought consider Reason as reference & test Revelation based on it (such as the Mu'tazila), some other Schools do the opposite (such as the Maturidiya), some stay in between (such as Asha'ira).
- 'Miracles' is a sub-branch of Islamic Theology, & they have been established & discussed thoroughly in all sorts of ways, here is a quick look:
Kalam (Science of Theology)
---- Principals of Theology
---- Branches of Theology
-------- Sciences of the Essence & Attributes
-------- Sciences of Promise & Admonition
-------- Sciences of Fate & Predestination
-------- Sciences of Mission & Trust
---------------- Prophethood
---------------- Miracles
---------------- Revelation
---------------- Imamate
---------------- Sainthood
-------- Sciences of The Unseen
---- Jurisprudence of Theology
---- History of Islamic Thought
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 11:01:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:59:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
- Sorry, I should've explained more. So, allow me to elaborate on the 6 conditions of Miracle:

1. Violating the ordinary State of Affairs.
- First, a particular State of Affairs might be ordinary for some, & not for others, in a place & not in another, in a time & not in another. Depending on how the far & how long the Message accompanied by the Miracle was intended to expand, it (the Miracle) must at least be in Violation of the ordinary Sate of Affairs for as long as far as the Message it endorses was intend to go. A Miracle associated with a Universal Message, such as Islam, must therefore be perpetually in Violation of all ordinary State of Affairs.
- Second, a Miracle does not violate the State of Affairs per se, for it is itself a State of Affairs, the key point here is: ordinary, which is related to how normally things are excepted to go, & thus a relative concept. The whole point of a Miracle is not in being extraordinary, but in having an overwhelming convincing power to inspire awe & thus compliance.

2. Generated subsequent to a claim of Prophethood.
Why should it be exclusive to that? It seems non prophethood violations of "ordinary state of affairs", especially ones with intentionality, would be regarded as a miracle.
- First, Miracle is a religious notion & as such it has to do with Prophethood.
- Second, according to Religion (in this case: Islam), other forms of violation of the ordinary State of Affairs do exist, & they are 10, 4 good forms (such as Karama), & 6 evil forms (such as Magic), however, there are not associated with Prophethood & thus do not serve the purpose of Miracle.
- Third, there are no truly extraordinary State of Affairs, for the concept is relative (see 1.), & thus no True Miracles, & by extension, no true violations of the ordinary State of Affairs (i.e no True Magic. . .). Every State of Affairs obeys decreed Laws, some of these Laws are natural (perceived by sensory experience), & some are supernatural (perceived by other ways).
- Fourth, & here is the point I am trying to make: not every violation of the ordinary State of Affairs is a Miracle, although the opposite is True. To illustrate this point further I am gonna give you an example:
> The story where Moses throws his stick & it turns into a snake & eats the illusions of ropes turned snakes his adversaries (the magicians) created. The stick turning into a snake, & the ropes turning into a snake are both violations of the ordinary State of Affairs for us today, but at the time, Magic was so widely used it wasn't seen as an extraordinary State of Affairs, & thus a Magic based 'miracle' would not constitute a Miracle, i.e. if Moses used Magic he won't have an overwhelm convincing power.

3. Compatible with the said claim.

- An example to illustrate why such condition: a man claims to be a Prophet, & claims that he'll make a baby talk or a rock speak, & the baby talks or the rock speaks & says: "you're a liar, you're no Prophet". So, even though the guy succeeded in generating an extraordinary event subsequent to his claim of Prophethood, the event was incompatible with his claim.

4. Incapacitating: can not be matched.
Why not? This is arbitary.
- I reckon the misunderstanding we have between us is that you consider Miracle to be a Truly Extraordinary Event, whereas I see Miracle as a violation of the ordinary State of Affairs, & ordinary here being a relative concept.
> Eg. raising the dead, it's extraordinary considering the natural States of Affairs, but not so considering the already existing supernatural State of Affairs.

If naturalism is the law of the world then supernaturalism is false by fiat, lol. The law of Allah =/= naturalism. You are equivocating here.

- That's not what I meant. In the Islamic World View, there is a very fine line between Natural Laws & Supernatural Laws, sometimes not even. There are just Laws, some are perceived through sensory experience (that might be called natural), some by pure intellect, some through other types of experiences (such as Mukashafa).
> Eg. The Theory of the Soul in the Islamic Tradition combines all these approaches, natural & supernatural, as though it (the Soul) obeys some Laws that have natural sides & supernatural sides.

The English in this is bad... Disjoint/contained/containing are not being used in the common sense so I have no idea what you are talking about.

- Sorry, translated form French, didn't realise they'd be confusing. What I mean is that the set of Laws that Miracles obey may:
> Be completely different from the Natural Laws. <<< Ruled out, since the Miracles we are told have Natural premises.
> Be part of the Natural Laws. <<< Ruled out, since some of Miracles we are told have Unnatural premises (such as raising the dead).
> Include the Natural Laws & other Supernatural Laws too.

This just begs the question of having a miracle in the first place. That's EXACTLY a what we are trying to establish. We are trying to demonstrate a non-naturalistic event, which is de facto, a attempted proof of a negative.

- Some Miracles have sufficient Natural Causes, & thus can be fully demonstrated from a naturalistic view.
- Other than those, yes, it is indeed an attempted proof of a negative, but only if we consider solely the Natural Laws, if we can somehow by unordinary means understand supernatural Laws, then it won't be an attempted proof of a negative.
- According to the Islamic Tradition, there are indeed ways to understand the Natural Laws, one of the main branches that study such laws is called 'Ilm al-Mukashafa (Science of Manifestation), or other dubious ways such as: Sorcery.

Ugh. Please learn the definition and philosophical usage of "necessary", and it means something very different so how you use it.

- I meant by Necessary: Necessarily True.

If we assume that the law of causality is emergent from a naturalistic framework, then obviously a violation of a naturalistic framework would violate causality, as per basic set theory. Regardless of whether or not it is a necessary truth.

- Except if Natural Causality was necessarily True, then every Event within Nature can not violate it, & thus Miracles won't exist.

Moreover, this does nothing to address the epistemological question.

- It does, indeed. You yourself defined Miracle as: "divinely directed departure from the order of nature", any epistemological attempt to approach the notion of Miracle should include a supernatural approach.

This is affirming the consequent... Therefore, it's invalid deductively, and only weakly inductive in this case. Moreover miracles =/= prophethood.

- Which consequent are you talking about?! Don't you agree with the Formula?!
- Prophethood has Three necessarily linked aspects:
> Revelation.
> Miracle.
> Prophecy (which include predictions).
=> The formula I gave is for the 'Predictions' aspect of Prophethood, just to illustrate how one might proceed to start demonstrating a Miracle although it would take much more than just a Formula.

Provide these 6 conditions.

- See first paragraph.

This topic is about epistemology. The Islamic worldview is completely irrelevant here until one accepts it's presuppositions, which clearly we do not. If you have logical points that are derivative from it then present them, but presuppositions that are inherent to Islam is going to be completely useless to anyone else.

- It is indeed about epistemology, & the points I advanced, though pertain to an Islamic Narrative, are Reason based. I even provided ways to demonstrate the occurrence of a Miracle that anyone could do, not necessarily a muslim.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 11:10:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 11:00:38 AM, YassineB wrote:

- Actually No! Islamic Theology is very much based on Reason, nothing like Christian Theology at all, where it's a lot about faith.

LOL. That's hilarious. Islam is based entirely on one man who went into a cave and talked with an angel. That us pure blind faith and pure bs. Reason destroys such blind faith.

In fact, Islamic Theology is called: Kalam, which literally means: Critical Discourse. Knowledge plays a pivotal role in the islamic Tradition.
- Reason & Revelation in Islamic Theology are interchangeable, some Schools of Thought consider Reason as reference & test Revelation based on it (such as the Mu'tazila), some other Schools do the opposite (such as the Maturidiya), some stay in between (such as Asha'ira).

You must have some bizarre notion of what is reason and knowledge because they have nothing to do with Islam.

- 'Miracles' is a sub-branch of Islamic Theology, & they have been established & discussed thoroughly in all sorts of ways, here is a quick look:
Kalam (Science of Theology)
---- Principals of Theology
---- Branches of Theology
-------- Sciences of the Essence & Attributes
-------- Sciences of Promise & Admonition
-------- Sciences of Fate & Predestination
-------- Sciences of Mission & Trust
---------------- Prophethood
---------------- Miracles
---------------- Revelation
---------------- Imamate
---------------- Sainthood
-------- Sciences of The Unseen
---- Jurisprudence of Theology
---- History of Islamic Thought

Sciences of the Unseen, Fate and Destination, Mission and Trust? LOL. Firetrucking hilarious, dude.

The Islamic propagandist will tell any lie, no matter how utterly ridiculous.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 1:17:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 5:30:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:33:07 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

Then what is the general principle by which to check the validity of a miracle? Examples are not general principles. They can only illustrate general principles.

"Whereas you are claiming it does not give a method of checking while failing to give an example of such, thus your claim is not accurate and is invalid."
- Even if I correct your grammar, I don't understand what this means. I'm supposed to give you an example of why an example =/= a general principle?

Response: The example is a general principle since it logically fits the definition of a miracle and can be objectively tested and observed.
- That is an obvious contradiction. Examples are not general principles themselves, and this example does not illustrate a well thought out general principle.

You can test and observe what is capable according to nature, thereby determining what is not capable. So a miracle can be found objectively with principles.
- While it makes sense on some level, this still becomes the type of reasoning which says, "I can't explain it any other way, so this is a miracle".
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 1:30:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 1:17:51 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

- That is an obvious contradiction. Examples are not general principles themselves, and this example does not illustrate a well thought out general principle.

Response: That is obviously not true, since you failed to show how the example does not apply in general, thus refuting yourself.

You can test and observe what is capable according to nature, thereby determining what is not capable. So a miracle can be found objectively with principles.

- While it makes sense on some level, this still becomes the type of reasoning which says, "I can't explain it any other way, so this is a miracle".

Response: Rather, it shows that neither you nor anyone else can provide another logical reason other than a miracle, thus supporting the fact that it is a miracle. The very same logic you yourself use to determine what is natural and what is not.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:58:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 1:30:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/9/2015 1:17:51 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

- That is an obvious contradiction. Examples are not general principles themselves, and this example does not illustrate a well thought out general principle.

Response: That is obviously not true, since you failed to show how the example does not apply in general, thus refuting yourself.

I was asking you how the example applies in general. Like I said, an example can illustrated a general principle, but an example is not itself a general principle, by definition. And no, that's not what 'refuting yourself' means.


You can test and observe what is capable according to nature, thereby determining what is not capable. So a miracle can be found objectively with principles.

- While it makes sense on some level, this still becomes the type of reasoning which says, "I can't explain it any other way, so this is a miracle".

Response: Rather, it shows that neither you nor anyone else can provide another logical reason other than a miracle, thus supporting the fact that it is a miracle. The very same logic you yourself use to determine what is natural and what is not.

Yes. I'll reword the part that you were responding to here. That's called an argument from ignorance. And what are you assuming is the logic I used to determine what is natural and what is not?