Miracles

[seer]

Walking on water violates the laws of physics, so that what is illogical is the believing in someone who tells you that they violated the laws of physics and walked on water.

Jim, I asked what law of logic a miracle violates. Be specific please.

My argument is not that it is impossible, my argument is that it is iillogical to believe ones claim to have violated physical law without empircal evidence of having done so.

Really Jim, do you or we understand the universe or the laws of physics so well that you can make this claim? Or is it your belief that miracles necessarily violate the laws of physics. And again, what law of logic do miracles violate. Be specific please.

No, the argument is neither irrational nor circular, it is an argument based on physical law, the objective evidence of which contradicts the claim.

Of course it is circular, or at least inductive. You have never seen a man walk on water so walking on water is impossible. It is like saying that all the swans you have seen are white therefore all swans are white. Your "objective evidence" is dependent on your limited or finite experience.

[JimL]

Jim, I asked what law of logic a miracle violates. Be specific please.

And I answered you seer. I said that my argument is not that miracles are in themselves illogical, my argument is that being that such miraculous claims violate the known laws of physics, then "believing" miraculous claims to be true without empirical evidence, is illogical.

Really Jim, do you or we understand the universe or the laws of physics so well that you can make this claim? Or is it your belief that miracles necessarily violate the laws of physics. And again, what law of logic do miracles violate. Be specific please.

Yes we do know the laws of physics seer, and walking on water is in violation of those laws. If you don't believe me, then just go out and try to walk on water and see what happens. Perhaps a God could violate those laws and walk on water, but knowing that it does violate physical law, it would be illogical to believe that it occured based on somebody's say so alone.

Of course it is circular, or at least inductive. You have never seen a man walk on water so walking on water is impossible. It is like saying that all the swans you have seen are white therefore all swans are white. Your "objective evidence" is dependent on your limited or finite experience.

I have not only never seen a man walk on water, I have also seen what happens when a man goes in the water, he either sinks in it or swims through it, but he doesn't walk on it.

[seer]

And I answered you seer. I said that my argument is not that miracles are in themselves illogical, my argument is that being that such miraculous claims violate the known laws of physics, then "believing" miraculous claims to be true without empirical evidence, is illogical.


Yes we do know the laws of physics seer, and walking on water is in violation of those laws. If you don't believe me, then just go out and try to walk on water and see what happens. Perhaps a God could violate those laws and walk on water, but knowing that it does violate physical law, it would be illogical to believe that it occured based on somebody's say so alone.

No Jim, neither you or I understand all the laws of physics. Heck we thought we did until quantum theory came into vogue. And it is clear that we do not, largely, understand the quantum world. So what you consider illogical is based on ignorance. You have never seen a man walk on water so walking on water does not happen. It is an inductive argument. And yes God could violate or supersede those laws.

I have not only never seen a man walk on water, I have also seen what happens when a man goes in the water, he either sinks in it or swims through it, but he doesn't walk on it.

Sure, and you have never seen a fern suspended in midair for 15 minutes either. That does not mean that it did not actually happen.

[JimL]

No Jim, neither you or I understand all the laws of physics. Heck we thought we did until quantum theory came into vogue. And it is clear that we do not, largely, understand the quantum world. So what you consider illogical is based on ignorance. You have never seen a man walk on water so walking on water does not happen. It is an inductive argument.

Human beings are not microscopic objects seer, and quantum theory is not applicable to macroscopic bodies, at least not in the sense that you are suggesting. We may not fully understand physical law, but we understand it enough to know that for human beings to walk on water would violate those laws. Again, don't take my word for it, all you need do is try walking on water for yourself, I assure you that you will sink.

And yes God could supercede those laws.

And as I said before, that is a mere assertion on your part, an assertion that would be illogical for a reasonable mind to believe on ones mere say so.

Sure, and you have never seen a fern suspended in midair for 15 minutes either. That does not mean that it did not actually happen.

No, and I've never seen a talking fern either, and if you told me that it talked to you, my first question would be, what kind of drugs did you ingest, and if your answer was none, then i would suggest that you get some psychiatric help.

[JonathanL]

And as I said before, that is a mere assertion on your part, an assertion that would be illogical for a reasonable mind to believe on ones mere say so.

What is illogical about believing that the creator of the physical laws also has the power to supercede those same laws?

[JimL]

What is illogical about believing that the creator of the physical laws also has the power to supercede those same laws?

Well, first off the claim of the existence of a creater of physical laws is an assertion, and second the claim that a human being said to be that creator broke those laws and walked on water is also an assertion, and so to believe such assertions without actual evidence would be illogical no less so than if I told you that I myself just walked on water. I'll bet you wouldn't believe me, would you?

[JonathanL]

Well, first off the claim of the existence of a creater of physical laws is an assertion, and second the claim that a human being said to be that creator broke those laws and walked on water is also an assertion, and so to believe such assertions without actual evidence would be illogical no less so than if I told you that I myself just walked on water. I'll bet you wouldn't believe me, would you?

No, but that's because you do not exhibit the wisdom and intelligence that I would expect from the Creator of the universe, quite the opposite in fact. That in itself makes me extremely skeptical to any claims you might make about being God and being able to walk on water.

[JimL]

No, but that's because you do not exhibit the wisdom and intelligence that I would expect from the Creator of the universe, quite the opposite in fact. That in itself makes me extremely skeptical to any claims you might make about being God and being able to walk on water.

And yet the information that you have concerning the wisdom and intelligence of the creator, as well as the miraculous claims made of him, such as walking on water, came from human beings who also don't have the wisdom and intelligence of a creator/God, and yet you believe them. Thats a bit of a contradiction in your logic, wouldn't you say?

[JonathanL]

And yet the information that you have concerning the wisdom and intelligence of the creator, as well as the miraculous claims made of him, such as walking on water, came from human beings who also don't have the wisdom and intelligence of a creator/God, and yet you believe them. Thats a bit of a contradiction in your logic, wouldn't you say?

It doesn't matter that the human beings who wrote down what Jesus said and did did not themselves have the wisdom and intelligence of God. You do not yourself have to be wise and intelligent to write down the deeds and words of someone who is. But in the first place I'm not saying that I would automatically believe someone who said that they were God just because they exhibited wisdom and intelligence to a higher degree than most (perhaps even than anyone else), I'm saying that anyone who does not atleast exhibit wisdom and intelligence is automatically precluded from being God which is a different claim altogether.

[JimL]

It doesn't matter that the human beings who wrote down what Jesus said and did did not themselves have the wisdom and intelligence of God. You do not yourself have to be wise and intelligent to write down the deeds and words of someone who is. But in the first place I'm not saying that I would automatically believe someone who said that they were God just because they exhibited wisdom and intelligence to a higher degree than most (perhaps even than anyone else), I'm saying that anyone who does not atleast exhibit wisdom and intelligence is automatically precluded from being God which is a different claim altogether.

Right, so you wouldn't automatically believe someone who said they walked on water based on their word alone, they would first have to exibit wisdom and intelligence, however you are defining that, and once you have determined that they are wise and intelligent, what would be the next step in your determining whether or not they were telling you the truth about their having walked on water?

[Tassman]

What is illogical about believing that the creator of the physical laws also has the power to supercede those same laws?

Nothing, provided one accepts the unsubstantiated premise that a creator deity exists in the first place. I see no reason to accept such a claim. After all, creator deities are found in the mythologies of nearly all theistic religions - they're a dime a dozen.

[JonathanL]

Nothing, provided one accepts the unsubstantiated premise that a creator deity exists in the first place. I see no reason to accept such a claim. After all, creator deities are found in the mythologies of nearly all theistic religions - they're a dime a dozen.

So your argument is that there is no reason to accept the existence of a creator deity because concepts of creator deities are found in nearly all theistic religions? I'm not sure how you make such a connection, but I'm pretty certain it is not through logical reasoning of any kind.

[Tassman]

So your argument is that there is no reason to accept the existence of a creator deity because concepts of creator deities are found in nearly all theistic religions? I'm not sure how you make such a connection, but I'm pretty certain it is not through logical reasoning of any kind.

There’s nothing wrong with your logic that IF a divine creator of the physical laws actually existed, then he would have the power to supersede those same laws. The flaw in your argument is that there is no more substantive evidence to support the existence of your particular creator deity than there is for the claimed existence of hundreds of other creator deities as found in nearly all theistic religions throughout history.

[seer]

Human beings are not microscopic objects seer, and quantum theory is not applicable to macroscopic bodies, at least not in the sense that you are suggesting. We may not fully understand physical law, but we understand it enough to know that for human beings to walk on water would violate those laws. Again, don't take my word for it, all you need do is try walking on water for yourself, I assure you that you will sink.

Again Jim, your whole argument is a fallacy, it is inductive. That just because you have never seen a man walk on water, therefore a man can not walk on water. That does not follow. And no, you do not know the laws of physics well enough to make any kind of universe statement. You are just asserting a belief based on your limited and finite experience.

And as I said before, that is a mere assertion on your part, an assertion that would be illogical for a reasonable mind to believe on ones mere say so.

Yet you get to assert that a man can not walk on water based on your limiter knowledge and experience.

No, and I've never seen a talking fern either, and if you told me that it talked to you, my first question would be, what kind of drugs did you ingest, and if your answer was none, then i would suggest that you get some psychiatric help.

Except Jim, the experience I had with the fern was real and physical. As real as this computer sitting in front of me. And there was a witness.

[JimL]

Again Jim, your whole argument is a fallacy, it is inductive. That just because you have never seen a man walk on water, therefore a man can not walk on water. That does not follow. And no, you do not know the laws of physics well enough to make any kind of universe statement. You are just asserting a belief based on your limited and finite experience.

Thats a silly argument seer, its not not just me that has never seen it, but we all empirically know that human beings can not walk on water, and one needn't know the laws of physics to figure that out.

Yet you get to assert that a man can not walk on water based on your limiter knowledge and experience.

That human beings can not walk on water is a logical conclusion to come to based on empirical evidence.

Except Jim, the experience I had with the fern was real and physical. As real as this computer sitting in front of me. And there was a witness.

So says you. And why should I believe you? I know, you don't care whether I believe you or not, but that does not answer the question. The question is why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe you?