Islamic law does not allow for liberally inventing new extensions. Read the page on Sharia. The consensus of religious scholars will never defend the view that politicians would have the authority to extend Islamic law. That is unthinkable. — alcontali

What has this got to do with anything we are talking about? Law has nothing to do with faith. You can't legally force someone to believe in something or not to believe in something.

Your argument is completely superfluous and meaningless.

A shan't read the page on Sharia. It would be a waste of time. Mine and Sharia's.

My conviction from this point is that you are not a sensible person. (With all due respect.) You are enwrapped in religious thoughts, so much so, that reason and logic can't penetrate your thoughts and understanding. This is my opinion on you.

It is futile to argue with you, as you are a fanatic. This is another opinion I formed on you.

And thirdly, your behaviour is a classic case of trolling: you make statements out of the blue, that have no connection in any way to anything that has been said to you. This is a fact, not an opinion.

I suggest the mods would remove you as a major troll. But it's their call, not mine.

It is futile to argue with you, as you are a fanatic. This is another opinion I formed on you ... I suggest the mods would remove you as a major troll. But it's their call, not mine. — god must be atheist

Well, from what you are saying, it is not clear who exactly is the "fanatic", and a "major troll", and so on.

What has this got to do with anything we are talking about? Law has nothing to do with faith. — god must be atheist

You would benefit from reading Nassim Nicolas Taleb's article, titled "We Don’t Know What We Are Talking About When We talk about Religion".

This article is exactly about your misconception and your ignorance, the type of which is incredibly widespread. Nassim is a Lebanese Orthodox-Greek Christian, and from his background and experience growing up in the Middle East, he really does understand the difference between the various Abrahamic religions.

You absolutely do not. You know absolutely nothing about religion, but you think you do. That is a Dunning-Kruger problem: Stupidity is defined as not knowing when you do not know. Let me put it straight for you:

You do not know what you are talking about when you talk about religion.

That is why you desperately need to read Taleb's article.

This is an excerpt:

People rarely mean the same thing when they say “religion”, nor do they realize that they don’t mean the same thing. For early Jews and Muslims, religion was law. Din means law in Hebrew and religion in Arabic. For early Jews, religion was also tribal; for early Muslims, it was universal.

((In fact, it still is.))

Let me repeat. People like you are very, very stupid. The worst problem about stupidity is that stupid people have no self-knowledge, simply, because they are too stupid for that. So, you fail to understand your own limitations. That is what makes you stupid. It is not the lack of knowledge on the subject. It is the fact that you are convinced that you know, while you know f_ckall.

Now that I brought it up, what about "faith"? Isn't that belief despite lack of evidence? — TheMadFool

What of faith in evidence?

What of faith in evidence? — Shamshir

I don't know. Are you suggesting something I'm not aware of? Am I missing something?

Self-proving or obvious starting points? I'll answer this from a rational perspective. Rationality admits to its flaws, one of which may be a smattering of faith. Faith, in its full-blown form, admits no evidence at all. I think that's the difference and it matters. Am I talking about blind faith here? You tell me. Thanks for your question.

Where and what is evidence - with or without faith?

Where and what is the evidence for evidence - it's evident - it even dints, it's even dense.

I've had three sequential miracles occur in my life through unplanned happenstance (these three indviduals all came to me to make unplanned proposals, and neither one of them knew each other yet required all three in unison to make one thing work ). I can't get into the specifics but it all came down to this: either it was by sheer chance or luck, or divine intervention. Based on my (leap of) faith, I chose to infer the latter.

Based on my (leap of) faith, I chose to infer the latter. — 3017amen

How exquisitely beauitful that you infer a miracle.

:starstruck: :starstruck:

Reason bounds
Faith bounds
Choose one?
nay, the two are one

Well thank you kindly for your response!

I like your notion of faith and reason. Through logical inference or inductive reasoning we can uncover and discover certain human phenomena that sounds reasonable to most people.

Accordingly, at some point it becomes a choice or leap of faith. Kind of like Pascal's Wager...

Accordingly, at some point it becomes a choice or leap of faith. — 3017amen

I think it's a matter of degrees and not all or none. We've all jumped over holes. It's just that in religion the hole is bigger. Does that mean believers are mentally stronger and atheists are wimps jumping over tiny holes with the help of "evidence"?

Hey TMF!

Firstly, in a Kierkegaardian sense, no. The will to believe is a choice. To me, pragmatically, it's no different than any other faith I hold; faith in work, faith in science, faith in sports, faith in people, and so on.

Second, I don't know about Atheists and why they choose differently. Like I've speculated before, it has to do more with some psychological edict or an axe to grind about same. Similarly, Einstein had some concerns thus:

" Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)"

In terms of extremism I look at it this way, Fundies are far-right; Atheists are far-left.

The will to believe is a choice — 3017amen

This is news to me. I don't know where you're coming from so excuse me if I make any silly mistakes.

I read a book on logic a couple of years ago and its opening few pages were about how denying facts/truths lead to hurt and, if unlucky enough, to death. I take this to mean that belief insofar as truth is concerned is NOT a choice. Refusing to believe in gravity may lead to disaster.

However, there are issues where the choice to believe or not is "real". I find this best exemplified in religion. We have theists and atheists, mutual contradictions and yet have people by the droves on both sides. This is, simply speaking, possible only if belief is a choice.

That said people aren't dumb, not at least as dumb as some forum members seem to think. People do reason and I suspect theism and atheism are choices based on reason and logic meaning they aren't completely free choices but actually compelled by the force of logic. Nevertheless, when options are open and one side is as good as the other choices are made and we can agree that belief is a choice.

To make the long story short I don't think belief is just a matter of choice. If one must use the word "choice" then a correct description would be informed choice.

What is interesting is that we do make choices without rationally analyzing situations e.g. we pick an icecream flavor without reasoning. This means we are capable of severing the link between logic and choice. This brings us back to your claim: belief is a choice.

Sure.....In the context of miracle's/logic, as well as religious beliefs, I would say more specifically the choice is made through inductive reasoning. That's an important distinction.

The other distinction you made: gravity--->computation and/or instinct--->'denial' or ignoring both leads to death.

And another point you made I think relates to the Will to believe; Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Maslow, William James and even Einstein to name a few talked about that so-called intrinsic nature or feature that we have called the Will. The connection there usually makes it way back to existential things like human instinct, sentience and intuition, or an innate sense of wonder.

So briefly, I would say in this context TMF, rather than your 'informed choice' you could replace it with logical inference. And more specifically, inference based upon unexplained phenomena from conscious existence (or from conscious human Beings ) if you prefer.

But yeah, The Will is an intriguing topic no doubt...and quite extensive to say the least. Does that interpretation clarify?

A standard definition of miracle would be an out-of-the-ordinary event. — TheMadFool

That's clearly unacceptable as a definition, given the logical consequences. There aren't any miracles.

Hitchens is correct that miracles wouldn't necessarily imply, or even count as evidence towards, the existence of God. There are any number of possible explanations that could be given. It could be attributed to the work of magical faeries, for example.

Here is a basic argument for the claim that miraculous events are evidence for the divine:

1. If a miraculous event happened, then the laws of nature were violated.
2. If the laws of nature were violated, then God made it possible.
3. Therefore, if a miraculous event happened, then God made it possible.

Premise (1) seems true, as long as the agreed upon definition of ‘miracle’ is a violation of the laws of nature. It seems like that is the way to go for defining miracles, so I’ll leave this premise.

Premise (2) is the more problematic one. One could object that God need not be posited to explain violations of the laws of nature. For instance, the only reason we have to believe that there are unbreakable laws of nature in the first place is because we have never, in the past, seen otherwise. But it does not follow from this that future events must follow the laws of nature. Just because we have always seen things follow the laws of nature in the past does not mean that things will always continue to do so. We have no grounds at all to say that the future will behave like the past, we can only say it probably will behave like the past. And it seems hard for someone to give reasons that miracles are evidence for God’s existence. It doesn’t seem to work to argue this way. The reason is that you would be using evidence for God as background evidence then using miracles as posterior evidence. It wouldn’t be the other way around. I think, as I will explain below, it would be best to go the other direction.

You are asking for an argument denying that miraculous events are evidence for the divine. I think the objection to premise (2) in the paragraph above supports that aim. Further, it seems more correct to go in the other direction. Perhaps we need really solid evidence for God’s existence first, so we can argue from that to the possibility of miracles. Arguing from miracles to God seems less plausible than arguing from God to miracles. For instance, the concept of God, specifically his maximal power, would allow him to uphold and violate laws of nature at his will. It wouldn’t be that the possibility of violations of laws of nature prove God exists. In this way, God could be used as evidence for miraculous events. But miraculous events cannot be used as evidence for God.

It would go something like:

1. If God exists, then He would be maximally powerful.
2. If God is maximally powerful, then He can violate the laws of nature at will.
3. If God can violate the laws of nature at will, then miracles are possible.
4. Therefore, if God exists, then miracles are possible.

Miracles by definition are events that cannot be explained by natural or scientific laws. I would say that miracles are not the best evidence for the existence of God. According to Bart Ehrman, miracles are so highly improbable that they are the least probable occurrence because of the way they violate the way nature naturally works. Along the same lines is Hume’s argument in against believing in miracles. Hume’s argument looks like this:
1. A miracle is a “a violation of a law of nature”
2. If it is “a violation of a law of nature”, then the prior probability of a miracle is very low.
3. Therefore, the prior probability of a miracle is very low. (1,2 MP)
4. If the prior probability of a miracle is very low, then we should believe in a miracle only if the evidence for it is very strong.
5. We should only believe in a miracle only if the evidence for it is extremely strong. (3,4 MP)
6. The evidence for a miracle is never extremely strong.
7. So, we should never believe in any miracle. (5,6 MT)
I agree with Hume’s general argument about how there is never strong evidence for miracles, but I stray away from agreeing or disagreeing that we should never believe in any miracles. I simply think that miracles should not be used as evidence for God because of how impossible it seems to be, let alone prove. God by itself is already a being that is hard to prove with natural or scientific laws, so trying to use another thing that is impossible to prove through natural or scientific laws as evidence for God seems to be a little redundant.

Miracles are evidence of a defective mind.

That's clearly unacceptable as a definition, given the logical consequences. There aren't any miracles.

Hitchens is correct that miracles wouldn't necessarily imply, or even count as evidence towards, the existence of God. There are any number of possible explanations that could be given. It could be attributed to the work of magical faeries, for example. — S

I think the aim is to prevent the jump from unexplained event to the supernatural. So I don't believe "work of magical faeries" counts as good reasoning.

Premise (2) is the more problematic one. One could object that God need not be posited to explain violations of the laws of nature. For instance, the only reason we have to believe that there are unbreakable laws of nature in the first place is because we have never, in the past, seen otherwise. But it does not follow from this that future events must follow the laws of nature. Just because we have always seen things follow the laws of nature in the past does not mean that things will always continue to do so — Teaisnice

1. If God exists, then He would be maximally powerful.
2. If God is maximally powerful, then He can violate the laws of nature at will.
3. If God can violate the laws of nature at will, then miracles are possible.
4. Therefore, if God exists, then miracles are possible. — Teaisnice

Ergo, there are two explanations for a miracle:

1. God

2. As an intrinsic feature of induction where the future isn't guaranteed by the past

Which is more probable in your view? Why?

Which possibility is more productive? Why?

As an aid to help you answer the above questions I'd like to refer you to heavier-than-air flight or planes and choppers. It's certain that when Moses was alive, planes would violate the laws of nature known then which excluded men from being able to fly. This knowledge would be based on induction right? Now imagine a person from those times being shown a flying plane. What would be and should be his reaction? If I know anything about human religious behavior he would say "god did it". However, given that we're in the know about aviation technology, his reaction should be to look for a natural explanation and, after having made the relevant discoveries, to update his knowledge of the laws of nature.

Sure.....In the context of miracle's/logic, as well as religious beliefs, I would say more specifically the choice is made through inductive reasoning. That's an important distinction.

The other distinction you made: gravity--->computation and/or instinct--->'denial' or ignoring both leads to death.

And another point you made I think relates to the Will to believe; Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Maslow, William James and even Einstein to name a few talked about that so-called intrinsic nature or feature that we have called the Will. The connection there usually makes it way back to existential things like human instinct, sentience and intuition, or an innate sense of wonder.

So briefly, I would say in this context TMF, rather than your 'informed choice' you could replace it with logical inference. And more specifically, inference based upon unexplained phenomena from conscious existence (or from conscious human Beings ) if you prefer.

But yeah, The Will is an intriguing topic no doubt...and quite extensive to say the least. Does that interpretation clarify? — 3017amen

Even if miracles are logic-based conclusions I think it is fundamentally flawed because it involves the false dichotomy of either natural or supernatural.

I think a lot of the confusion has to do with the word "supernatural" which to science has the same meaning as an unexplained observation which would normally set off a barrage of tests or experiments and an investigation of existing theories that can't make sense of the unexplained observation. Contrast the preceding to how the average person associates all unexplained events with the divine. The word "miracle" and "supernatural" are loaded with divine connotations that few can resist the urge to think every unexplained event is god's doing.

Miracles are evidence of a person's lack of understanding

Miracles are evidence of a person's lack of understanding — ovdtogt

I would say so but there are types who consider the very comprehensibility of our world a miracle which of course is leaning uncomfortably towards an intelligent design i.e. creator-God theory for some.

I would say so but there are types who consider the very comprehensibility of our world a miracle — TheMadFool

True. The creation of the Universe and Life are still miracles. This is the reason we are still in no position to abandon our Gods.

True. The creation of the Universe and Life are still miracles. — ovdtogt

I find these definitions helpful:

Natural event = something with a non-zero probability of occurring naturally over time.
Supernatural event (a miracle) = something with a zero probability of occurring naturally over time.

Now if something has a non-zero probability of occurring naturally over time, then we expect multiple instances of it to occur, so the definitions can be also written as:

Natural event = things that occurs in a plurality
Supernatural event (a miracle) = a singleton event (across time and space)

Then the Big Bang is obviously a supernatural event. The same cannot be said for life though - it may have occurred on other planets at different times in the past - we do not know for sure.

Then the Big Bang is obviously a supernatural event. The same cannot be said for life though - it may have occurred on other planets at different times in the past - we do not know for sure. — Devans99

The Big Bang may also have occurred at different times in the past. It might be occurring right now in a parallel universe.

If past time is infinite and the Big Bang is a natural event then it seems an infinite number of big bangs must have occurred:

(non-zero chance of Big Bang occurring per year) * (∞ past years) = (infinite number of big bangs)

With an infinite number of big bangs, the CMBR should be infinite in intensity too - which it is not.

Note that the dubious maths of infinity also imply that an infinite number of big bangs should have occurred at each possible point in space in the universe/multiverse (if big bangs are indeed natural events).

I imagine all 'parallel' universes to be connected to our universe via time and space so stray radiation from the infinite number of big bangs would find its way to us and contribute to an infinite CMBR. I suppose you could envisage parallel universes as islands of space-time separated by nothingness, but they would be expanding islands and eventually overlapping islands - leading to an infinite CMBR.

If past time is infinite and the Big Bang is a natural event then is seems an infinite number of big bangs must have occurred: — Devans99

What makes you say past time is infinite? Past time is 13.8 billion years. And what makes you believe these parallel universes have contact with ours in any shape or form? To be honest, I don't even know what a parallel universe is.

I don't believe that past time is infinite - I was just pointing out that infinite past time and a natural origin of the Big Bang seem to be incompatible. Logically it seems to follow that one of the following must be true:

- Time has a start
or
- The Big Bang is supernatural event

Both are indicate of the presence of some sort of creator deity IMO.

Both are indicate of the presence of some sort of creator deity IMO. — Devans99

Yes that is what one may logically deduce. It would explain the existence of the Universe. It can not however explain the existence of a creator deity.

If the creator deity has permanent timeless existence - then it does not need explaining - it just 'IS' in a tenseless way - it is beyond time so beyond the requirement to have a cause - there is nothing that logically or sequentially precedes a timeless entity - so it does not need to be caused or explained.

So it would be the 'brute fact' that is required to explain why is there something rather than nothing... brute facts must be timeless... everything in time has a cause so at least one timeless brute fact must exist else there would be no universe, no nothing.

Yes I am familiar with the 'God has always existed' argument. I just find it very dissatisfying. It is like somebody putting an empty plate in front of me and telling me it is delicious food.. It would require a whole heap of faith for it to fill my stomach.

There seems to me to be no other argument that explains the origin of things.

To paraphrase Aquinas's 3rd way:

1. Can't get something from nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence else there would be nothing now / no universe
3. (because if there was ever a state of nothingness, nothing would persist till today)
4. Nothing can permanently exist inside of time - it would have no start to its existence and if it never started existing it does not exist.
5. That leaves a timeless 'something' as the only possible root cause of everything.