Why do Atheists arbitrarily and irrationally say Miracles don't exist?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 52
#31
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

By the definition you pushed, my 14 year old son doing his homework before attempting to play Xbox would be a miracle. Its a very low bar, and clearly not what most people mean when they *seriously* claim miracles. It is quite clear miracle are thought to be the work of the claimants preferred god-concept more often than not. My definition is accurate.

Re fraud - it is a significant argument against miracles when known fraudulent accounts are still counted among the body of evidence for miracles by believers [link]. That fraud exists amongst those claiming 'miracle' isn't the problem - its that people choose to believe what has been admitted as fraud because there is no critical evaluation whatsoever (unlike science).

If people were claiming ignorance (the unexplained) was a demonstration of florb - skeptics would not be out of place saying there had been no demonstration thus calling into question the existence of florb. Florb believers might cry about skeptics pointing that out, but until claimants can establish and share knowledge of florbs (or miracles) skeptics aren't wrong.

Tl;dr? It is appropriate for skeptics to disbelieve miracles exists while the evidence/argumentation for them is literally ignorance. 

#32
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Wylted
I will consistently reject the unexplained when submitted as knowledge. 
#33
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
please show us there is a murder, but please do it without producing  the dead body, the weapon or the witness who said he did it.

What you're asking is more like "You've been accused of murder, and the accusation is enough to unequivocally find you guilty." You're using the claim as evidence of the claim, in other words, but I think you know that. 
#34
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.  
I thought you were a protestant. I seem to remember you distancing yourself from Catholicism. Did you change your mind?
#35
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,



TRADESECRET, you keep RUNNING AWAY from my post #13 as shown in the link below where you are to PROVE, that scary word for you, your opinions are valid in your initial post. .https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6671-why-do-atheists-arbitrarily-and-irrationally-say-miracles-don-t-exist?page=1&post_number=13

Comedically, your  ever so sad runaway post #23 doesn’t count! LOL

Now, to make it easier for you in front of the membership, we’ll take it a step at a time, whereas you will only have to answer your “opinions” one at a time, okay? Good!


YOUR FIRST OPINION AS YOU STATED: "Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated." 

As shown above, this is your OPINION, therefore to actually show its validity, where Scientifically, or a Bible citation,  to make this opinion of yours as a FACT?

BEGIN:

#36
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people; first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy.
A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving.
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest -a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
--Albert Einstein
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
The story mentioned is beyond coincidence, especially when you get into why each person who was always on time, were late this one time in the past decade, preceeding the event.

What about the Mayan prophecy that predicted the arrival of white man, the exact same date and time it happened and in the same area?

Coincidence again.
More like a clear example of confirmation bias. If one person had been on time to the choir it still would have been touted as a miracle, and if the entire choir had died you would just move on to another story. Your claim is unfalsifiable, making it definitionally irrational.

Anyone who understands anything about mathematical probability understands that when given large enough quantities of examples, things that are considered statistical impossibilities become statistical certainties. This is why such anecdotes are evidence of nothing, not because atheists are just hand waiving it away.

So where does that leave us here? It leaves us with a remarkable event for which we are trying to discern the cause. By calling it a miracle you are implying a deity was behind it. So unlike the atheist, you are claiming to know what the cause is.

But you have a problem… things that do not exist cannot be regarded as the cause for other things. Therefore, you have to prove that the thing you are attributing as the cause exists *before* you can even offer it as a candidate explanation.

So prove a deity exists. Then, we can talk about whether a deity should be regarded as the explanation here.
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Miracles have occurred in the past. 
Please define miracle. Specifically, please address whether the involvement of a deity or the supernatural is required for an event to qualify.

The bible is evidence for this
The Bible is the source of the claim, not the evidence.

On the other hand atheists are irrational if they say that miracles have not happened.  
An atheist who makes the claim that miracles have never occured are making a positive claim and have therefore adopted a burden of proof, so you are technically correct. The problem here is that you are taking what is overwhelmingly offered as a colloquialism and treating it as a literal claim. Atheists by and large recognize that you cannot prove miracles have never occurred. Rather, the statement is made in response to those who are claiming miracles do or have occurred. Those individuals have never met their burden of proof, so if you actually cared about rationality that would be the place where you would begin.

#39
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
calling it a miracle you are implying a deity was behind it. So unlike the atheist, you are claiming to know what the cause is.
Calling it a miracle does not imply that. Also too many coincidences happen. We should be getting the right amount of coincidences, not too many . For example the Mayan prophecy that predicted the exact day, hour and minute that they would see their first white guy, is beyond coincidence 
#40
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Wylted
We should be getting the right amount of coincidences, not too many .
WHat's the right amount and how is it determined?
#41
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@ludofl3x
if something has 1 in a billion chance of happening. It should occur in about 1 in a billion situations. 
#42
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Wylted
I'm not sure you understand how probability works, but okay, and also "so many coincidences" according to that post means that so long  the next 1 billion times a church with fifteen choir members blows up and no choir members were on time to practice and therefore were not blown up, this is exactly the right level of coincidences. In other words, every occurence is independent of all others. My advice is (a) don't get into roulette, you're ripe for the "well 32 has not come out in the last 100 rolls, it's 'overdue' to come out" sucker play, and (b) don't learn what a 6 way parlay is. 

 
#43
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Wylted
Give you another one, a real life one: the odds of making a hole in 1 on a par three in golf are about 1 in 12500. I play with a guy who I witnessed make two in a two month period, and he didn't have 12500 swings in between, that's 140 rounds of golf at his level. Did he perform a miracle, was he subjected to a miracle, or was something else afoot, do you think? Because I think it's just what's called a statistical anomaly: something that seems improbable but is not impossible. 

Oakland A's slugger Khris Davis from 2015 to 2019 hit .247. Not AVERAGE across those four years: EXACTLY .247, each year, in succession. Is this miraculous? 

Is that then how you're defining 'miracle,' as something that has no religious connotation, seems statistically HIGHLY improbable, and happens anyway? Sounds like the definition of a coincidence. 
#44
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Did you notice how there are never any miracles in high speed aircraft impacts with the ground?
#45
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Wylted
For example the Mayan prophecy that predicted the exact day, hour and minute that they would see their first white guy, is beyond coincidence 
Sounds like total bullshit to me.  Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
Topic's author
#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
Miracles have occurred in the past. 
Please define miracle. Specifically, please address whether the involvement of a deity or the supernatural is required for an event to qualify.
Miracles are identified by various people in our world. Some who are theists and some who are not. Sometimes it simply refers to an unexplained situation. Sometimes it refers to situations specifically caused by a deity or something supernatural.  In the bible God in the OT used miracles to get Egypt to drive Israel out. In the NT Jesus was observed to do miracles by the power of the Spirit of God. In the NT a little girl in Acts foretold the future through the power of a demoniac spirit.  These miracles obviously were all quite different. Ranging from causing plagues and significant weather events to raising an axe head in water, to changing water to wine, walking on water, healing the sick, and even raising the dead.  They are events - or incidents -unable to be proved except by eyewitnesses at the time and the circumstantial evidence for those who consider them.  I presume God not only creates but also sustains the universe.  I don't believe in random events.  As for a particular definition - I have simply used a descriptive sense here - since ordinarily definitions of miracles fall apart. 


The bible is evidence for this
The Bible is the source of the claim, not the evidence.
I see your point.  It is the source of some of the claims for miracles.  I would also suggest from my worldview that it never tries to prove miracles are true - it makes certain premises or presumptions if you like.  In that sense it is also evidence for miracles. Indeed the bible is a miracle book. It is a book which is fully written by both man and God. Talking about a Christ who is both fully God and fully Man. 


On the other hand atheists are irrational if they say that miracles have not happened.  
An atheist who makes the claim that miracles have never occured are making a positive claim and have therefore adopted a burden of proof, so you are technically correct.
Thank you for your honesty. 

The problem here is that you are taking what is overwhelmingly offered as a colloquialism and treating it as a literal claim.
Then perhaps atheists need to be more careful with their generalizations and colloquialisms.  

Atheists by and large recognize that you cannot prove miracles have never occurred.
I think there are some atheists who are more honest than others.   Most have never actually thought about what they believe or why they say it. In my experience most have jumped on a bandwagon and believe it  because they were taught the bare basics at school.  When tested they tend to descend into rudeness and ad hominin attacks.  I concede this is the case in most systems of beliefs.  There are those who have thought about it and there are those who have simply been indoctrinated but have never thought it through. 

Rather, the statement is made in response to those who are claiming miracles do or have occurred. Those individuals have never met their burden of proof, so if you actually cared about rationality that would be the place where you would begin.
Again, I would reject that statement.  Some people begin with a presumption that miracles don't occur.  This is a natural deduction to people who don't believe in God.  If God does not exist, then supernatural miracles cannot happen.  (By the way, this is a secondary doctrine for atheists despite the fact that atheists tend to say they have only one doctrine) What is the burden of proof that is necessary?  And to whom must this burden be sustained? For instance Jesus healed a blind man in John 9.   He was a man blind from birth.  One day Jesus meets him and heals him.  He can see. People at the time who knew him saw the change. His parents saw the change. He was blind and now he can see.  The religious leaders question - first they doubted the miracle - and probably continued to do so - because they could not believe that Jesus could be from God.  Hence they were skeptical.  Yet there were many eye-witnesses of what happened at the time. 

How do we test the burden of proof here?  Is it the actual event? Or would we remain skeptical because we don't believe in miracles?  We can't repeat this situation.  We can't ring up any of the witnesses today.  All we have is a book written thousands of years ago. So then does it come to the credibility and the reliability of the book?  

Surely, events that took place 2000 years ago are relevant for us today.  We would not dispute that. Yet how would we ascertain the credibility of such history?  Do we presume that the book is simply myth? We could do that.  Many do. But would that be rational or simply prejudice? 

As I have said above - I have not seen a miracle take place personally. Although I certainly know people - reliable people - trustworthy people - who would swear it and even have medical records.  But the records - show what? A miracle or something unexplained?  If it is unexplained, then an atheist could never say it was a miracle - just that one day we might know.  There are plenty of examples of medical records that one day show a significant medical issue and then next day it has gone.  GPs would not ordinarily call it a miracle. Is it though? I don't know. But they do call it unexplained - and it gets filed as such. 

What is the expected standard of proof to prove a miracle? Is it beyond lingering doubt? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Is it on the balance of probabilities? Is it the pub test? And why is it that particular standard?  






Topic's author
#47
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.  
I thought you were a protestant. I seem to remember you distancing yourself from Catholicism. Did you change your mind?
I am a protestant..  This does not mean I reject all of Catholicism.  I personally don't go for the RC definition of Saint either. But one assumes that even in the RC they must have some standard definition of a miracle and also a standard of proof that needs to be met in order to make a person a saint.  After all, if there were no definite standards then there would be more saints - and not too much difficulty to become one. 

For the gate to be managed effectively, there must be a standard of proof - for a miracle. That is my point.   
#48
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
What is the expected standard of proof to prove a miracle? Is it beyond lingering doubt? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Is it on the balance of probabilities? Is it the pub test? And why is it that particular standard
FOr me, the definition of a miracle is some act that CLEARLY defies the laws of nature, and is documented, and investigated by neutral parties. If it's not outside the laws of nature, like, I don't know, a guy being bodily risen from the dead after three days then shooting off into the sky after 40 days, then in my book it's improbable, but not a miracle. 

If God does not exist, then supernatural miracles cannot happen.
This is not at all true: if no god exists, then by definition a god cannot author miracles, that's more accurate. If a documented miracle were to occur, all you'd have presumably is a documented miracle, and seeing how much the Christian god loves to hide and confound people, it's not likely that it would reveal itself this way. Miracles are not contingent on god, they're contingent on the supernatural. 

 Although I certainly know people - reliable people - trustworthy people - who would swear it and even have medical records.  But the records - show what? A miracle or something unexplained?  If it is unexplained, then an atheist could never say it was a miracle - just that one day we might know.  There are plenty of examples of medical records that one day show a significant medical issue and then next day it has gone.  GPs would not ordinarily call it a miracle. Is it though? I don't know. But they do call it unexplained - and it gets filed as such. 
For someone who is taking the piss out of the atheists in the OP for arbitrarily saying miracles don't exist, suddenly you're taking a very wishy washy stance. Unexplained is all anyone can call these occurrences. 
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
Calling it a miracle does not imply that. Also too many coincidences happen. We should be getting the right amount of coincidences, not too many . For example the Mayan prophecy that predicted the exact day, hour and minute that they would see their first white guy, is beyond coincidence
Please define “miracle”.

Also, please be clear as to what you mean when you say it’s beyond coincidence. If it is not a coincidence then what was it and how do you know?

And take note that this is all before we’ve even established that your story is accurate.
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Miracles are identified by various people in our world.
I’m asking you for your definition. What are you calling miracles? That’s a pretty important place to start if we’re going to have a conversation about them.

What is the expected standard of proof to prove a miracle? Is it beyond lingering doubt? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Is it on the balance of probabilities? Is it the pub test? And why is it that particular standard?
You’re confusing the burden of proof with the standard of evidence. The burden of proof is just the question of who is obligated to do the proving, the standard of evidence is the degree of confidence must we have in the conclusion for it to suffice.

The standard of evidence depends on the situation. If we’re talking about throwing someone in jail for life, we need an extremely high standard in order to protect the innocent. If we’re talking about proof in the sense of whether a belief is justified, then I’d say preponderance of the evidence (aka more likely than not) is sufficient.

As far as how we get there, to me it’s a simple matter of two principals; first is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I told you I went shopping yesterday, you wouldn’t need evidence to be justified in believing that claim because it’s not extraordinary at all. If I told you I met Beyoncé you might need something more than my word, say a picture, before you’re willing to accept that. If I told you I bought a time machine and went back to see the dinosaurs, I’m pretty sure I could take you through it and you would still think it must be a hoax. The more extraordinary the claim the more it takes to justify it.

The second principal is Occam’s razor. Is it more plausible that a statistical impossibility occurred by chance, or that a deity intervened? Statistical anomalies may be relatively rare, but on a planet with over 6 billion people on it and stories tracked for hundreds or even thousands of years it’s not outlandish at all to assume some pretty unlikely things would occur.

So when someone says “how do you explain X” the answer is quite simple… I don’t, but there’s nothing remarkable about accepting that remarkable things can just happen, and if I am to believe that some supernatural force or whatever other cause one claims is behind it they need to provide some pretty extraordinary evidence to justify that.
#51
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I am a protestant..  This does not mean I reject all of Catholicism.  I personally don't go for the RC definition of Saint either. But one assumes that even in the RC they must have some standard definition of a miracle and also a standard of proof that needs to be met in order to make a person a saint.  After all, if there were no definite standards then there would be more saints - and not too much difficulty to become one. 


For the gate to be managed effectively, there must be a standard of proof - for a miracle. That is my point.   
Best I can tell, the Vatican has the same philosophy on miracles you do. They deem unexplained healings/events as miracles. What's worse, is that they have also deemed what CAN be explained as miracles too. Its not about a consistent standard of proof, but a hurdle to sainthood which can be adjusted as necessary. 

365 days later

#52
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated. 

Miracles are also by their nature intended to be rare and unusual.  

The only way for an atheist to say miracles don't exist would be to say that "In my experience, I know there can be no miracles because I have done the empirical research on every place on planet earth and in every moment of history that has ever taken place". Or the atheist could could say he has talked to someone who does know everything.  ( I think the only person who knows everything is God) 


So the statement of knowing miracles are not true is not knowledge - it is prejudicial opinion.  Something which does not have any educational value. 

What say you? 
Miracles go against known natural laws.

Some examples.

Walking on water.
Raising the dead
Virgin birth


Even the people were not impressed with the miracles Jesus preformed and threatened to stone him.

John 10:32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”