“GOD EXISTS!” Argument No. 10 - Miracles

uncompromising-rhetoric:

image

  1. Miracles are events that violate the laws of nature.
  2. Miracles can be explained only by a force that has the power of suspending the laws of nature for the purpose of making its presence known or changing the course of human history (from 1).
  3. Only god has the power and the purpose to carry out miracles (from 2).
  4. We have a multitude of written and oral reports of miracles. (Indeed, every major religion is founded on a list of miracles.)
  5. Human testimony would be useless if it were not, in the majority of cases, veridical.
  6. The best explanation for why there are so many reports testifying to the same thing is that the reports are true (from 5).
  7. The best explanation for the multitudinous reports of miracles is that miracles have indeed occurred (from 6).
  8. god exists (from 3 & 7).

And here’s why it’s faulty:

  • FLAW 1: It is certainly true, as Premise 4 asserts, that we have a multitude of reports of miracles, with each religion insisting on those that establish it alone as the true religion. But the reports are not testifying to the same events; each miracle list justifies one religion at the expense of the others. See FLAW 2 in the Argument from Holy Books (Coming soon). 
  • FLAW 2: The fatal flaw in The Argument from Miracles was masterfully exposed by David Hume in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Chapter 10, “On Miracles.” Human testimony may often be accurate, but it is very far from infallible. People are sometimes mistaken; people are sometimes dishonest; people are sometimes gullible — indeed, more than sometimes. Since in order to believe that a miracle has occurred we must believe a law of nature has been violated (something for which we otherwise have the maximum of empirical evidence), and we can only believe it on the basis of the truthfulness of human testimony (which we already know is often inaccurate), then even if we knew nothing else about the event, and had no particular reason to distrust the reports of witness, we would have to conclude that it is more likely that the miracle has not occurred, and that there is an error in the testimony, than that the miracle has occurred. (Hume strengthens his argument, already strong, by observing that religion creates situations in which there are particular reasons to distrust the reports of witnesses. “But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense.”)

The Argument from Miracles covers more specific arguments, such as The Argument from Prophets, The Arguments from Messiahs, and the Argument from Individuals with Miraculous Powers.

(via skepticalavenger)

Source: uncompromising-rhetoric

shawnyankey: They say us Christians are stupid, delusional, and downright crazy for believing in what they call…’An invisible man that lives in the sky’. Because God knows that believing that all this just happened on its own isn’t crazy at all. Nope, That makes perfect sense… Click The Pic and Come Laugh at Laughing at Life 2 with our sarcastic take on Atheism! Click the pic, Come Laugh, NOW!!! I’m not sure what your point is here. Could you please elaborate?
Pop-upView Separately

shawnyankey:

They say us Christians are stupid, delusional, and downright crazy for believing in what they call…’An invisible man that lives in the sky’. Because God knows that believing that all this just happened on its own isn’t crazy at all. Nope, That makes perfect sense…

Click The Pic and Come Laugh at Laughing at Life 2 with our sarcastic take on Atheism!

Click the pic, Come Laugh, NOW!!!

I’m not sure what your point is here. Could you please elaborate?

iamxalex:

Of course God exists. You know what’s the biggest proof of God? Strong Atheists. You see, no one goes around dedicating their entire lives to saying something that doesn’t exist really doesn’t exist. You don’t see people going around saying, “There are no heffalumps.” Everyone knows there are no heffalumps. Atheists prove God’s existence like the darkness proves the light. We would not know darkness if not for the light.

Ok, but you see, the reason people spend a lot of time and effort talking about the nonexistance of God is because in America, God is seen as a pretty fucking big deal, especially if you live in a more southern state. You’re taught about Christianity the way you’re taught right from wrong. You grow up without questioning it, and if you do ever question it, it’s seen as wrong. You obviously wouldn’t know this, but being an atheist in America is pretty fucking hard. Not only do you have to listen to people talk about God every fucking day of your life, but there’s also all these negative stereotypes about atheists that go around in churches, and I’ll admit that I’ve suffered a fair bit of abuse simply because I don’t believe in a god like everyone else seems to. 

The reason that nobody goes around decrying heffalumps is because every single person in the country knows that they’re made-up creatures from Winnie the Pooh. Hell, they’re only creatures that Pooh dreams about, so they’re not even real in the Winnie the Pooh canon. My point is that nobody spends their time talking about heffalumps because 70-80% of the population doesn’t believe in them. We don’t have to hear about heffalumps on TV every day (unless you’re watching an old Winnie the Pooh video). We aren’t discriminated against because we don’t believe in heffalumps. We don’t have people going door-to-door asking us to believe in heffalumps, we don’t have heffalump churches that are exempt from taxes, we don’t have people killing each other because they like different heffalumps better, we don’t have our kids being told to give reverence to heffalumps in school every morning, we don’t have “in heffalumps we trust” written on all our money, we don’t have parents freaking out and disowning us because we don’t believe in heffalumps, we don’t have “news” stations dedicating time to perpetuating a “war on heffalumps.”

I think you get the point.

Also, your argument is a complete non sequitur. I’m willing to bet that you’ve never spoken much with an atheist before on any remotely religious topic. Come back when you can make a sensical argument.

lackofbelief: natural-bedlam: This is a serious project about the Bible.  This particular scene just struck me, because God explicitly states that he doesn’t want us to live forever.  He didn’t want us to be knowledgeable.  He wanted us to be stupid, temporary pets.  Toys.  Ignorant things he could play with, forget about, and let die.Another reason why I’m Atheist, because even if God did exist, his personality isn’t worth worshiping. ^exactly. I always thought it was bizarre how once Adam was as knowledgeable as “God,” “God” became outraged and offended and banished Adam forever and punished everyone after that. 
Pop-upView Separately

lackofbelief:

natural-bedlam:

This is a serious project about the Bible. 

This particular scene just struck me, because God explicitly states that he doesn’t want us to live forever.  He didn’t want us to be knowledgeable.  He wanted us to be stupid, temporary pets.  Toys.  Ignorant things he could play with, forget about, and let die.

Another reason why I’m Atheist, because even if God did exist, his personality isn’t worth worshiping.

^exactly. I always thought it was bizarre how once Adam was as knowledgeable as “God,” “God” became outraged and offended and banished Adam forever and punished everyone after that. 

Source: natural-bedlam

uncompromising-rhetoric: “GOD EXISTS!” Argument 1: The Cosmological Argument Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe must have a cause (from 1). Nothing can be the cause of itself. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3). Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4). god is the only thing that is outside of the universe. god caused the universe (from 5 & 6). Therefore, god exists. AND HERE’S WHY IT’S FAULTY FLAW 1.a: can be crudely put: Who caused god? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking god to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to god himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though god exists, he doesn’t have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that god is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why god must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can’t be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe? FLAW 1.b: There’s already a more, credible, theoretical explanation for why is there something rather than nothing.  “The Universe came from Nothing” was popularised by Stephen Hawking and and some other Physicists and atheists before him, but modern Physicists of today are no longer buying the notion that the Universe came from nothing.  “Something, from nothing?”, they said, “It really does sound absurd.”  Albert Einstein’s iconic “Energy equation” (E=mc²) explains that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.  It cycles.  It is formally accepted in Physics that, in the early stages of the Universe’s “nothingness”, isn’t really empty, but there are fluctuations of Energy, and from the fluctuations of energy, Matter is produced (E=mc²). Yes, Energy is eternally existent, it was not created by anything or anyone, it cannot be destroyed.  From there, the basic of the sub-atomic particles are born, and kept on happening at a rapid rate known as Eternal Inflation Theory.  Though, this concept has a much bigger scope to define and explain in terms of Physics and Quantum mechanics, such as the Energy equation is in an “incomplete” state (the complete one being E²=m²(c²)²), and that the process of Energy creating matter gives out a particle and an anti-particle simultaneously and will cause them to annihilate each other, and then cycles the whole matter-returning-to-energy form.  Case point is, Scientific theories and calculations are born out of rigorous studies, experimentation, and observation.  The god idea? From a book with no definitive author from 4,000 years ago who’s academic credibility on origins of the universe is close to zero to none. FLAW 2: The notion of “cause” is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume. The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe (Will explain this later on the series), are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: “And if there were nothing? You’d still be complaining!” (most of these excerpts are from Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s (love her) Book, 36 Arguments for the Existence of god: A Work of Fiction.)Follow me so you can read the next 35 (almost sound) Arguments for the existence of god!-Vernard
View Separately

uncompromising-rhetoric:

“GOD EXISTS!” Argument 1: The Cosmological Argument

  1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
  2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).
  3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
  4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).
  5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).
  6. god is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
  7. god caused the universe (from 5 & 6).
  8. Therefore, god exists.

AND HERE’S WHY IT’S FAULTY

  • FLAW 1.a: can be crudely put: Who caused god? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking god to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to god himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though god exists, he doesn’t have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that god is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why god must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can’t be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?
  • FLAW 1.b: There’s already a more, credible, theoretical explanation for why is there something rather than nothing.  “The Universe came from Nothing” was popularised by Stephen Hawking and and some other Physicists and atheists before him, but modern Physicists of today are no longer buying the notion that the Universe came from nothing.  “Something, from nothing?”, they said, “It really does sound absurd.”  Albert Einstein’s iconic “Energy equation” (E=mc²) explains that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.  It cycles.  It is formally accepted in Physics that, in the early stages of the Universe’s “nothingness”, isn’t really empty, but there are fluctuations of Energy, and from the fluctuations of energy, Matter is produced (E=mc²). Yes, Energy is eternally existent, it was not created by anything or anyone, it cannot be destroyed.  From there, the basic of the sub-atomic particles are born, and kept on happening at a rapid rate known as Eternal Inflation Theory.  Though, this concept has a much bigger scope to define and explain in terms of Physics and Quantum mechanics, such as the Energy equation is in an “incomplete” state (the complete one being E²=m²(c²)²), and that the process of Energy creating matter gives out a particle and an anti-particle simultaneously and will cause them to annihilate each other, and then cycles the whole matter-returning-to-energy form.  Case point is, Scientific theories and calculations are born out of rigorous studies, experimentation, and observation.  The god idea? From a book with no definitive author from 4,000 years ago who’s academic credibility on origins of the universe is close to zero to none.
  • FLAW 2: The notion of “cause” is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.

The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe (Will explain this later on the series), are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: “And if there were nothing? You’d still be complaining!”


(most of these excerpts are from Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s (love her) Book, 36 Arguments for the Existence of god: A Work of Fiction.)

Follow me so you can read the next 35 (almost sound) Arguments for the existence of god!
-Vernard

(via skepticalavenger)

Source: uncompromising-rhetoric

Survey: One in Five Americans are Without Religion

The fastest growing “religious” group in America is made up of people with no religion at all, according to a Pew survey showing that one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion.

The number of these Americans has grown by 25% just in the past five years, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The survey found that the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing even faster among younger Americans.

Thirty-three million Americans now have no religious affiliation, with 13 million in that group identifying as either atheist or agnostic, according to the new survey.

Pew found that those who are religiously unaffiliated are strikingly less religious than the public at large. They attend church infrequently, if at all, are largely not seeking out religion and say that the lack of it in their lives is of little importance.

And yet Pew found that 68% of the religiously unaffiliated say they believe in God, while 37% describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious.” One in five said that they even pray every day.

John Green, a senior research adviser at Pew, breaks the religiously unaffiliated into three groups. First, he says, are those who were raised totally outside organized religion.

Second are groups of people who were unhappy with their religions and left.

The third group, Green says, comprises Americans who were never really engaged with religion in the first place, even though they were raised in religious households.

According to the poll, 88% of religiously unaffiliated people are not looking for religion.

Poll respondents 18-29 were also more likely to identify as atheist or agnostic. Nearly 42% religious unaffiliated people from that age group identified as atheist or agnostic, a number far greater than the number who identified as Christian (18%) of Catholic (18%).

(via atheismfuckyeah)

Source: CNN

Jesus Christ is mocked…

hallelujah7:

and even treated as a myth…

Through faith…

in the Spirit…

can His present existence be perceived.

When Jesus Christ comes…

then what shall the mockers do?

for all mocking shall cease in that day.



I hate to burst your bubble, but no matter how hard you want him to come, he’s just not going to, sort of like a boyfriend who’s faking it.

The Atheist blogs on Tumblr make me cringe.

religiousragings:

whatsyrdamagex:

It’s like the people who run them all get together, hivemind, and decide to reduce religion down to fundamentalism and attack that.

Well, here’s the thing.  If you take a small amount of cyanide and you stir it into a bunch of sugar, you can point at it and say that it’s mostly good stuff.  An atheist (please note that it isn’t capitalized), will look at the sugar and say, it really doesn’t matter, it’ll still kill you.

It’s hard to talk about the positive aspects of religion when the negative aspects are constantly trying to mis-educate our children in the most basic of sciences, enslave our women, and force their false moralities up everyone’s butt.

There might be some good things about holding hands, building a community of friends, and singing kumbaya and stuff, but until you can get religious politicians to stop demonizing people with gender differences because GOD hates them, we kinda have to focus on stopping them.

Sorry.  That’s kinda the reality.

~ Steve

(via skepticalavenger)

Source: meow--zedong

Top