A simple challenge for atheists

[LostLocke]

You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

What you are basically saying here is that we already have to believe in God before you can prove God to us.

[Esquilax]

You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

What you are basically saying here is that we already have to believe in God before you can prove God to us.

Which is the crux of the circular reasoning that Steve utterly fails to recognize, added to the utterly baffling idea that he thinks he can prove the existence of miracles with an "if god, then..." proposition.

[Tonus]

The virgin Mary appearing on a piece of burnt toast is more evidence for miracles than a cobbled-together book of ancient legends which itself is almost 2,000 years old. Just find one of those "miracles" and you're halfway there. Granted, the other half is what people have spent centuries trying to achieve with no success, but it's a start.

[SteveII]

How is your position on miracles not circular?

Well, let me educate you. But do remember that we talked about this dictating other people's positions to them; it's awfully rude.

1 There is no God.

Not a part of our position, but please don't just senselessly leap to the contra-positive.

2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.

Also not a part of our position, as miracles could either work through natural means caused by a supernatural source, or be supernatural but not caused by a god. Don't assume everyone else is bound by your definitions.

3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.

Since one and two are incorrect, three cannot be true.

4 The gospels contains reports of miracles.
5 Therefore, the gospels contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.
6 Therefore, the gospels cannot be trusted.
7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
8 Therefore, there is no God.

So, you're adding the strawman fallacy to your- quite impressive!- list of them, now?

Is there any other evidence for the existence of God than a miraculous event? You will not accept conclusions like first cause, fine-tuning, complexity of life, human consciousness therefore God. You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

If you believe miracles are from god, then of course you'd need evidence of the existence of god (not those question beggy, arguments from ignorance you listed here) before you should believe in miracles; it's irrational to believe in the effect with no indication that the cause exists. The problem is that what you're doing is saying that if god exists, miracles are possible, and since you believe in miracles- let's not forget you've not mentioned any specific examples of those- then therefore god must exist, since you've defined miracles as things that god causes, and they're possible if you believe in god.

Or, are you saying that if we knew the gospel writers to be eyewitnesses then you would believe in miracles.

Eyewitness testimony, even at its best, is to be disregarded if it conflicts with the available objective evidence. Since we have no indication that miracles or gods are even possible, there is no reason to accept eyewitness testimony of events that contradict everything we know to be true about the way reality works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I understand your distinction of defining miracles as events that God causes is the same as saying if God is possible miracles are possible. I will not use that argument again.

So we are left with if a hypothetical "miracluous" event occurs then we know:

1. Its cause is not natural
2. It may be a supernatural random event (no purpose)
3. It may be a supernatural directed event (purpose)

If purpose is evident in a supernatural event, why can't we conclude a purposeful supernatural being?

There is no logical reason to say that a supernatural event can't be witnessed. What makes it different than any other event witnessed. The witnesses use the same sense data. It is not logical that the event itself has the power to make sense data unreliable.

Why isn't "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" special pleading?

[Mister Agenda]

And you can't just cover for your first baseless assertion with a second, because now you've just replaced "are miracles possible?" with "is god possible?" and even if you answer the latter question you'd still need to answer the former. As it stands, you're attempting to rush ahead without answering either question, and that alone makes every conclusion you draw suspect at best.

Through reasoning, we discover that the existence of God is logically possible (ontological, cosmological, teleological). Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible

The definition of miracles is an event that occurs beyond the explanation of natural things.

You have a claim between your premise and conclusion. That's exactly as 'good' a 'syllogism' as:

1. If Esquilax's friend is possible, time travel is possible.
2. Esquilax's friend is possible.
3. Therefore, time travel is possible.

You can prove anything with 'logic' like that. Which makes it not logic.

[FatAndFaithless]

Good lord you're a dolt.

[Esquilax]

So we are left with if a hypothetical "miracluous" event occurs then we know:

1. Its cause is not natural
2. It may be a supernatural random event (no purpose)
3. It may be a supernatural directed event (purpose)

I'd be even more careful than that, as a non-natural cause doesn't necessarily mean a supernatural one either. I'd be looking for evidence of supernatural causation, not just the absence of a natural one; making assumptions based on a lack of data rarely produces accurate results, and when it does, it's purely accidental.

If purpose is evident in a supernatural event, why can't we conclude a purposeful supernatural being?

You could conclude that, sure. But I'd add that "supernatural being" also doesn't necessarily mean god, for the same reasons that a lack of natural causes does not entail supernatural ones.

There is no logical reason to say that a supernatural event can't be witnessed. What makes it different than any other event witnessed. The witnesses use the same sense data. It is not logical that the event itself has the power to make sense data unreliable.

Events in general can be witnessed; I have no issue with supernatural ones being witnessed either. But merely witnessing an event doesn't testify to its cause; that requires additional investigation, and so far we've only ever been talking in the abstract, rather than about specific examples, so we haven't established supernatural causation for anything.

See, this is why we doubt eyewitness testimony, as it is necessarily limited by the understanding and perceptions of the witness themselves. When we're talking about the gospel authors, inhabiting as they did a pre-scientific time period with an incredibly limited understanding of the natural world (I'd remind you that the bible is the same set of books that label rainbows as miracles from god) then their testimony is shaky at best; frankly, their go to response to anything they didn't immediately understand was supernatural, even if we take their testimony as totally real, eyewitness testimony... which we have no reason to do. All we could say, at best, is that the gospel authors believed they saw some supernatural things.

That's hardly surprising. It was a common conclusion to come to, back then.

Why isn't "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" special pleading?

Because it isn't; it's not demanding special consideration or exemption from consideration for a given concept without justification, it's demanding appropriate consideration given the nature of the claim. It utilizes exactly the same scale of required evidence that every reasonable person uses; the claim that one hundred people were murdered at once requires more evidence than the claim that one person was murdered. That's not special pleading, it's the nature of the investigative process.

[Mister Agenda]

How is your position on miracles not circular?

For one thing, the position you're ascribing to us is not our actual position.

1 There is no God.

Maybe there is a God. It's impossible to assess the likelihood of God until you define what you mean by it. Some versions of God are self-contradictory and terefore must not exist. Some versions don't involve contradiction, and merely lack any good reason to think they're actually real.

2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.

If there is a God, it doesn't necessarily do 'miracles'. Maybe there is a God, and he/she/it works entirely by natural means.

3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.

I don't know that miracles are impossible. I just know that one has never been scientifically confirmed. Like claims of the paranormal, the closer you look, the less there actually is.

4 The gospels contains reports of miracles.

Yep, you got us on that point.

5 Therefore, the gospels contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.

That superficially appears to be the case, but if you have evidence otherwise, I would be very interested in it.

6 Therefore, the gospels cannot be trusted.

I really can't think of any ancient document that should be trusted without corroborating evidence.

7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.

If you know of any evidence for God, please share with the class.

8 Therefore, there is no God.

Therefore, there is no compelling reason to believe that God is real. Even if God IS real, belief in God is not justifed by reason or evidence. If you don't think the things you believe should be justified by reason or evidence, that's you, but odds are that skeptics are going to have certain standards for what they should find convincing.

Is there any other evidence for the existence of God than a miraculous event?

A miraculous event would be a good start, even if you substitute 'supernatural' for God. If you know of a proven miracle, you should lead with that.

You will not accept conclusions like first cause, fine-tuning, complexity of life, human consciousness therefore God.

I could accept such conclusions if they were preceded by a sound premise, non-fallacious support, and some evidence.

You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

We can certainly say 'prove miracles before I believe in God'.

Or, are you saying that if we knew the gospel writers to be eyewitnesses then you would believe in miracles.

The difference between us isn't necessarily that we are more skeptical, but that we hold your religious beliefs to the same standards as anyone else's. Buddhists and Hindus can't prove their miracles either. Do you believe that Buddhist and Hindu miracle claims are equally as genuine as Abrahamic claims? If you disbelieve those Eastern miracle claims, is the process by which you reject them substantially different from the process by which we reject yours?

[SteveII]

I understand your explanation on special pleading.

Now I don't write these things out to rehash whether they were true or not. We have everyone's opinion on the quality of the evidence. I am trying to improve my argumentation. Thank you for your patience.

Okay, from the abstract to the specific. Just say there was better eyewitness evidence, and Jesus, who claimed to be God, was crucified and rose from the dead (predicting both beforehand). We could observe that:

1. Being dead after a crucifixion was a well know and predictable state
2. The extraordinary evidence required is not only Jesus healthy after a crucifixion, but for 40 days he appeared to many.
3. It is reasonable to assume the cause was the that which he claimed it to be: God.
4. There was a key theological component to the teachings of Jesus that only make sense in light of his death. For one example out of hundred, John the Baptist introduced him as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

So again, if there was better evidence for this event and it was otherwise as the gospel writers described, it would not be illogical to assume:

A. There is no hidden scientific reason to explain this event.
B. There exists extraordinary evidence of the event
C. God was the likely cause of the supernatural event
D. The event was not to make a general point, but rather had a complex purpose.

Are these reasonable conclusions drawn from this set of facts? Would it be correct to say that the rationality of Christianity increases the more reliable the gospels are proven to be.

Again, this is a thought experiment, not a gospel trashing exercise.

[Foxaèr]

We have everyone's opinion on the quality of the evidence.

Except that you have provided no evidence. What you consider evidence is logically unsound apologist argumentation.