MAGSolo wrote:So its circular logic to ask for evidence that an event that was claimed to have happened, actually happened? You clearly dont know what circular logic means. Do you think we should just believe everything anybody tells us without asking for proof?
It's begging the question to ask why miracles don't happen any more (implied premise: there are no miracles today), and then when examples are given that undermine the argument (counter-premise: miracles are happening today) you defend your argument by asking for evidence for said miracle (methodology of requested proof assuming non-existence of miracles--hence, question begging).
To make it clearer still, if I told you I took a shower this morning, you wouldn't bother asking for proof. Why? Because it is part of your normal experience (implied and accepted premise: people take showers today). Or to use a political example, when someone says, "Why are politics today so much more negative than they used to be?" someone can easily respond with, "My great-grandfather used to tell me stories of how negative it was back then, too." No particular proof
of the proof is demanded,
because the thing itself is part of our experience.
That's what makes your argument circular. You are asking for proof of the proof, but that very question implies the assumption of the non-existence of miracles, which is precisely what your initial argument was.
Endometriosis is not an incurable disease and it does not automatically mean that a woman cannot get pregnant. Thats really the end of the story. Did your mom have any surgery done at all? Endometriosis =/= infertility. Some women with that condition cannot have children and some can, at any rate, your claim that your birth was a miracle (which is here defined as an event that occurs outside of the physical laws of nature) is completely false and flat out incorrect. Please try again.
You obviously don't know anything about endometriosis. As to your question, no, my mother had no surgery of any kind, and the testing showed that
due to her endometriosis her fallopian tubes were completely blocked with scar tissue.
That rendered her infertile, because when your fallopian tubes are so blocked, there can be no egg to be fertilized. The miracle is not so much that she had children, but that the scar tissue was completely removed.
You have not yet shown that miracles occur. You claimed something to be a miracle that wasnt a miracle and then claimed that this is proof that miracles happen every day. Well the original thing you claimed to be a miracle was not a miracle. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Putting forward a circular argument doesn't burst anyone's bubble. It just shows a weaknesses in your ability to think rationally.
Wrong, and again you prove that you have no clue what circular reasoning is. A challenge you to look up what circular reasoning is and then come back and show how I have displayed circular reasoning according to its definition. Anyway, the bottom line is that if miracles occurred in the past, then they should occur today. I will wait for you to post another example of a miracle since your first one failed miserably.
I'll ignore the fact that you clearly have at best a semester or two of philosophy (that's being generous--you sound more like you've read a couple of books that discuss philosophy and logical fallacies as an aside rather than having done any formal studies of logic in and of itself) and look at the more relevant statement here--the underlined one.
First, I have no reason to accept your assumed premise that they don't happen anymore. Do you have any evidence that they
don't/? Here I imagine you'll appeal to the typical atheist remark "U CANT PROOOVE U NEGUTIV!!1!1" which would only further demonstrate your philosophical naivete. In categorical logic, your argument assumes an E type statement, which are perfectly capable of being proved. The real problem for you is that you are making an E type statement when you, at best, are qualified to make an O statement. Less technically, at best, you can argue from your own experience, but then you would just be appealing to personal knowledge, which is insufficient to prove the general case, as in the following absurd argument:
- I've never met a blond woman, therefore, they don't exist
Even you can see that such an argument fails. The missing (implied) premise is something like "I've met every woman that exists," or "If I've never met a blond woman, they don't exist," which are obviously false.
If you are going to make an argument against miracles, the
least you could do is be lazy enough to pull out Hume's long refuted arguments. But your appeals to your (lack of) knowledge of any existing miracles along with the (circularly) embedded assumption of their non-existence isn't just lazy. It would be comical if I thought you were a troll, but seeing that I am under the impression that you actually think you are making valid points, it's . . . well I'll let you finish that.
Second, the underlined statement is essentially a theological statement. Why should I even accept it as true? That is, assuming miracles happened in the past, why should I believe that they should still happen today? Have you not read Hebrews 1:1-2? It says:
- In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
I doubt you read Greek, so let me help you out a bit here. The word "various ways" refers to a variety of methods, and here the author has in mind the ways in which God spoke to Israel throughout the Old Testament. You can probably think of a few ways: through prophets, yes, but also through dreams, through visions, and . . . wait for it . . . through miracles! All of that, the author says, is past, because it was all partial. Now, he says, we have Jesus, through Whom God
has spoken (in Greek, this is emphatic--it's in a tense called the perfect, which is used for a completed action with ongoing results. In English, consider the sentences, "I studied for the test" and "I have studied for the test"; the latter is in the perfect and has a very different connotation than the former), meaning the Divine Revelation is complete, and there is therefore no further need of partial revelation. Thus, things like miracles are no longer necessary for revelatory purposes.
So a related question is, are there non-revelatory miracles? I am inclined to think that there are, but they are very much
not the kind we read about in the Bible (generally)--the kind you are referring to. All that is to say that even beyond the question begging of your argument, you just have at best a contested theological premise, one that is flatly wrong at worst.
There is no evidence that prayer does anything. There are one of two outcomes that can occur when one prays. Either the thing they prayed for will happen or it wont. There is nothing to prove that prayer itself is responsible for an affirmative outcome, and scientific studies have actually shown that prayer does not increased odds for things like recovery from illness and such.
Ah, so many assumptions.
1. Are the scientists who studied prayer theologians? For how can you study something you don't understand?
2. What kind of prayer was studied?
3. How many theological variables did they account for?
4. Is God obligated to answer
any prayer?
5. Why should we expect God to submit to such a study?
And on and on. I find the last question particularly interesting. I've always thought those kinds of studies were silly (even as I read the ones that supposedly showed prayer being answered), because why on earth would we think that the God of the Universe would play our little parlor games? You think He is a lab-rat? Job tried to put God on trial. He challenged God. And do you know what God's response was? He appeared and put
Job on trial. The arrogance of thinking that we can treat God as an impersonal force (at best) that we can measure or our Cosmic Santa Clause who is obligated to wield His omnipotence on behalf of Sovereign Man is stunning.
But again, the assumptions, the assumptions, the assumptions . . .
