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.

I am not seeing why these are mutually exclusive. — Chany

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.

Why aren't people satisfied, so to speak, with the ''evidence'' provided in the Teleological argument? — TheMadFool

"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.

The relationship being referred to here is the relationship between the laws of nature, and God, the former being evidence of the latter. That the laws of nature are said to be evidence of God implies that belief in the laws of nature supports belief in God. Many people do not understand this "support", and some will argue that it is a misunderstanding. Some may require miracles to help them to understand the support. A miracle demonstrates that it is not necessary for existence to be according to the laws of nature.

I never said that the arguments were convincing or good. The teleological argument is, in my opinion, the weakest "official" argument for some type of god (besides ones that are outright invalid or obviously poor). The argument from miracles depends on whether you think miracles occur, which is the topic of much debate amd whether miracles indicate a god or just something beyond the physical.

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?

You seem to be saying it's a subjective thing - some see the connection and others do not. Why?

Isaac Newton was a religious scientist and he was satisfied with discovering the laws of nature which he took to be the work of god.

However, Christians required Jesus to turn wine into water, heal the blind and resurrect after death.

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

That's like saying If heads I win, tails you lose.

Something's not right.

What is it?

Something's not right.

What is it? — TheMadFool

Your reasoning. A god creates order. The teological argument states that this order indicates an intelligent being created it (often it is argued this being to be a god. Isaac Newton sees this order and finds it so special that it makes him believe the divine did it.

Isaac Newton also believes in Christianity. Christianity has miracles written into its scriptures. Miracles suspend the natural order. In order to completely overcome the laws of the universe, one would need to be above them. This goes against the face of modern materialism. If one claims that this ability comes from a god and the only miracles are those related to this god, it lends credance to the idea that these miracles come from this god, who is above the natural order.

I don't see why Isaac Newton cannot hold both ideas at the same time. They are seperate lines of reasoning.

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

I think that's pretty obvious. If there is a God, and there are laws which govern the way that natural things behave, then it is God who makes things behave according to the laws. If this is the case, then wouldn't God be capable of producing exceptions at will?

So, the fact that we can produce laws which describe the way that natural things behave is see by some as evidence that there is a God which makes things behave in that way. Miracles are evidence that things do not, necessarily, by their own nature, behave in that way. The two are both evidence that things behave the way that they do, by the will of God.

So, if I were to play a coin game with you the condition being heads i win and tails you lose, you would accept??!!!

So, you don't find anything wrong with a game in which heads I win and tails you lose???!!

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

That's a different issue than whether the two approaches are compatible or not.

Re the issue you're bringing up in what I quoted above, it's simply a subjective matter of what sorts of things an individual finds persuasive, relative to what they're naturally disposed to believe.

If you take me, for example, I can't even imagine what sort of event--supposedly miraculous--I would take as being evidence of a God. There probably isn't anything. I'd always default to an alternate explanation.

So, you don't find anything wrong with a game in which heads I win and tails you lose???!! — TheMadFool

Why would you be looking at it as a proposed game that someone is asking you to play?

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

It should be clear that I do not think the analogy holds and that the situation of teleogical arguments and arguments from miracles are not mutally exclusive.

I think the real miracle is that the universe appears to be uniform, causally based, I don't accept that there is any necessity behind this, it is just the way it is. If something is 'miraculous' it would not conform to reality as we understand it and it is doubtful we could be conscious of it.

So, you don't find anything wrong with a game in which heads I win and tails you lose???!! — TheMadFool

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.

Miracles are, thought of as broadly as possible, suspensions of or violations of known natural laws — TheMadFool

I don't think this is how religious people define them. You seem to have assumed the Humean line on the subject, perhaps unconsciously.

If God is real, then all things are evidence of God — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly.

We could also say that if he's not real, nothing is really evidence for him.

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

Then it would alternatively be possible to say:

1. If order (laws of nature) do not exist, then God does not exist and anything is possible: that is, miracles are possible.

2. If there is no order then there is no suspension of order. A miracle would not really be a miracle but an example of an event that is simply extremely improbable.

If you believe that order exists because God created it, then what would be so surprising about Him being able to contravene the Laws of His own Creation from time to time even if the order He created were rigidly deterministic? Nowadays the order of nature is thought to be probabilistic rather than deterministic, so in theory anything at all, however unlikely, is possible.

If God created a probabilistic order, how much easier it would be for Him to bring about what would seem to us to be a miracle. For all we know the fundamental events of a probabilistic order which are thought of as absolutely random ( because they are not determined by what we, due to our habits of thought, understand to be a closed causal system, could turn out to be not random at all, but determined by God and even by the human spirit..

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

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.
Either way, it is heads I win, tails you lose. A game where the outcome is already set before it is played.

"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

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?

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

I agree.

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

You do.

Your statement is dead on except the last bit about not having a choice in the matter. — noAxioms

Yeah I see your point. We make the choice first, then the evidence supports whichever belief one chooses. Whichever choice we make, we can use the same facts to support that choice.

Who gets to decide? — T Clark

It's all evidence, but each one of us may decide what it is evidence of.

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

It's a fair question. I think the answer is that they are different levels of evidence.

To see the laws of nature as evidence of divine design requires a great deal of interpretation. That will usually only be interpreted as evidence by a scientist that is already religious, like Kepler or Newton.

Miracles on the other hand are prima facie much stronger evidence for a god. In the stories they are used to convince unbelievers. They are not needed for those who already believe.

There is also a difference in time. The only miracles that modern scientists would accept as miracles are those related in ancient texts, such as the resurrection of the dead, multiplying loaves and fishes, turning water into wine, making the Sun stand still in the sky for hours on end. At the time those were reported to have been done there was no such thing as a scientist, so there was no 'look at this amazing set of natural laws' viewpoint to contradict.

There are events that occur in modern days that are claimed as miracles - eg an unexpected remission from cancer. But they are lame compared to those mentioned above, and do not require acceptance of the existence of a deity.

The modern-day religious scientist who sees natural laws as evidence for God can take the following approaches to reported ancient miracles:

- They are just stories, included in the scriptures for metaphorical reasons; or
- they were just God exercising his divine prerogative to break his own laws when he wishes;
- they didn't break any natural laws but are explicable by some more complex natural law that we have not yet been clever enough to discover.

Well it seems I have to go into much more detail into the logic of the issue.

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.

We have two arguments as follows:

Argument (A) from people like Isaac Newton:

1. If natural order exists then God exists (N > G)
2. Natural order exists (N )
So,
3. God exists (G)

Argument (B) from most religious folks:

1. If miracles exist then God exists (~N > G)
2. Miracles exist (~N)
So,
3. God exists (G)

Combining the two arguments above, as you all seem to be doing (by criticizing my objection) we get the argument (C) below:

1. (N & ~N) > G
2. N & ~N
So,
3. G

Logically speaking the argument (C) is valid - anything follows a contradiction. But it is unsound because contradictions (N & ~N) are always false.

What say you?

they were just God exercising his divine prerogative to break his own laws when he wishes — andrewk

As other members have also pointed out. It appears to solve the problem as expressed in the OP. However, natural order and miracle are contradictory terms raising doubts about the soundness of the argument for God (see my reply to Chany, MU, and TS.)

However, natural order and miracle are contradictory terms — TheMadFool

I don't see it that way.

One could believe that God had created a set of laws that are the universe's Autopilot, but that very rarely he switches the Autopilot off in order to make a manual intervention. If ordinary mortal pilots can do that, why not an omnipotent being?

In terms of the above symbolism, the argument that Miracles-> God is not that
~N->G. That would be claiming that there is no Autopilot. Rather they are saying the Autopilot appears to have been overriden, so somebody must have done the overriding - and who better to do that than the person that constructed the Autopilot?

While I don't find any arguments for or against the existence of a non-specific God sound, I don't see anything wrong with that argument.

I don't see it that way — andrewk

Ok. I get the autopilot analogy (other posters have more or less said the same thing). However you said:

Miracles on the other hand are prima facie much stronger evidence for a god — andrewk

Why is it that miracles are considered ''stronger'' evidence? Isn't there a hidden assumption in such an outlook. It appears to me that natural order has an alternate non-divine explanation. Otherwise why is it ''weaker'' than miracles as evidence for god. Extending this train of thought, but not exaggerating it beyond relevance, it looks like people in general don't consider it necessary that natural order implies existence of the divine. Isn't that why miracles are ''stronger'' evidence? So, my objection about the issue still stands.

In terms of your analogy, the autopilot is evidence of an automated non-conscious manufacturer but disengaging the autopilot requires a conscious, thinking pilot (god).

So, I still think (like most people) that the two approaches to the issue cannot be so easily reconciled.

In terms of your analogy, the autopilot is evidence of an automated non-conscious manufacturer — TheMadFool

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.

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

Miracles presuppose a natural order to violate though. You can't ignore big differences between statements; you can only apply a negation in logic if the statement is effectively the same, but with "not" in front of it. Both arguments start from the same first premise:

1) Natural order exists.

The teleological argument goes:
2) Natural order indicates intelligence to make it.
3) Intelligence indicates a creator.
Therefore,
4) Natural order indicates a creator.

The argument from miracles goes:
2) There exist events (miracles) that clearly violate the natural order.
3) The best explanation of these events is to appeal to supernatural origin.
Therfore,
4) Miracles indicate a supernatural realm.

The argument will usually go on to tie this supernatural realm with a god, for, by example, pointing to miracles in their religion. Also note that miracles do not wipe out natural order, but only violate it temporarily. They are nonrandom events credited to a divine being. If miracles were random, they would violate the first premise.

None of the premises after the first one are shared in any way, so the arguments do not put forth a premise that contradict each other. You have to argue that the argument from miracles is internally invalid and contradictory, making it a bad argument.