I am not seeing why these are mutually exclusive. — Chany
Why aren't people satisfied, so to speak, with the ''evidence'' provided in the Teleological argument? — TheMadFool
Something's not right.
What is it? — TheMadFool
My question is why are two mutually contradictory states (ordinary laws of nature AND miracles - breaking the aforementioned laws) taken to be evidence for the same thing - God? — TheMadFool
Why then are people unbelievers - waiting for, well, a miracle to happen? Why aren't people satisfied, so to speak, with the ''evidence'' provided in the Teleological argument? And why do prophets have to perform miracles to gain credibility? I'm quite certain that if tomorrow a miracle were to occur people would begin to believe in the supernatural. Yet they completely ignore the ''ordinary'' evidence. — TheMadFool
So, you don't find anything wrong with a game in which heads I win and tails you lose???!! — TheMadFool
So, if I were to play a coin game with you the condition being heads i win and tails you lose, you would accept??!!! — TheMadFool
So, you don't find anything wrong with a game in which heads I win and tails you lose???!! — TheMadFool
Miracles are, thought of as broadly as possible, suspensions of or violations of known natural laws — TheMadFool
If God is real, then all things are evidence of God — Metaphysician Undercover
To put it in simple terms:
1) If order (laws of nature) exists then God exists
2) If a suspension of order (miracles) exists thenGod exists — TheMadFool
Your statement is dead on except the last bit about not having a choice in the matter. That comes first, and then the analogy fits. Choose that God exists, and then all things are evidence of that. Choose that God doesn't exist, and everything (the same things) become evidence of not-God.I don't see the analogy. If God is real, then all things are evidence of God. If God is not real, then all things are evidence of not-God. You cannot choose X is evidence of God, and Y is evidence of not-God, as if heads means God, and tails means not-God. We have no choice in the matter. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Evidence" is a word which needs to be properly understood. It refers to facts which support a belief. So to refer to any facts as "evidence" requires that one apprehends the support which the facts provide. Therefore, what some call "evidence", others will deny as evidence, depending on how the supposed support is understood. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not really.
The teleological argument says that the high amount of order in the universe (i.e. scientific laws) implies an intelligence designed the universe. The argument from miracles states that there are known events that violate the known natural laws to such a degree that the only plausible explanation is supernatural. I am not seeing why these are mutually exclusive. — Chany
Are the words of God as expressed in the Christian Bible evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christian doctrine? Are they not evidence at all? Are they valid or invalid evidence? Are they good or bad evidence? Are they convincing or unconvincing evidence? Are they admissible or inadmissible evidence?
Who gets to decide? — T Clark
Your statement is dead on except the last bit about not having a choice in the matter. — noAxioms
It's all evidence, but each one of us may decide what it is evidence of.Who gets to decide? — T Clark
It's a fair question. I think the answer is that they are different levels of evidence.Surely, we can't have it both ways. It'd be a hollow argument to say both miracles and ordinary events are evidence of God. Your comments please. — TheMadFool
they were just God exercising his divine prerogative to break his own laws when he wishes — andrewk
I don't see it that way.However, natural order and miracle are contradictory terms — TheMadFool
I don't see it that way — andrewk
Miracles on the other hand are prima facie much stronger evidence for a god — andrewk
Some people think that - although I think they'd use a term like 'evolutionary process' rather than the somewhat loaded term 'manufacturer' (cf watchmaker). But some people look at the complexity of the autopilot and think 'Wow, this is so complex, somebody must have consciously designed it'. Which, after all, is what happens with autopilots in aeroplanes.In terms of your analogy, the autopilot is evidence of an automated non-conscious manufacturer — TheMadFool
By natural order I mean the laws of nature, which is currently the domain of science. By miracle I mean the violation of natural order. Note that natural order and miracles are contradictory with respect to each other. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.