Atheist arguments shot down.?

Question

Here's an argument I heard recently from an atheist:

"If you say that the miracles in the Bible could happen even if they are scientifically impossible because God can do whatever he wants, then you are taking something you have NO scientific evidence for (the existence of God) and you are using it to prove something you have no scientific evidence for (the miracles)."

This is a really bad argument because it is NOTHING but WORDPLAY.

That's like me saying God can't create a rock so big he can't move it.

It's just word play. Agree?

Answer 1

AGREE

Answer 2

When a mathematical formula or a logical argument gets complicated, people can plug in examples to test them. So, think of a person for whom there is no scientific evidence, such as Santa Claus. Now think of a phenomenon for which there is no scientific evidence, say, Christmas presents all magically delivered in the same night to every home familiar with Christianity. The presents are factual, but the explanation is not. And the explanation only makes "sense" if you've invent the character. This is not wordplay. It's a simple deconstruction.

Now apply this to your argument. Assuming the events described as "miracles" actually occurred, by definition, they cannot be explained scientifically. Otherwise they would never have been considered miracles. So we have three explanations: 1) they never actually happened, 2) there is a natural explanation that is not obvious, or 3) they were supernatural events.

Obviously a supernatural event requires a supernatural cause, because it can't be understood normally. But supernatural things are beyond explanation, all of them, God, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy and every flavor of "magic". "Impossible" beings can do "impossible" things because they operate in undefined territory. That is NOT an explanation.

Mathematics might be a better example. Can God make 1 equal to 2? Sure, because he's omnipotent! But what does making 1 = 2 mean? It means mathematics collapses. Mathematicians do not define devision by zero as "infinity" because it doesn't really make sense. They simply say the result is "undefined". You can't discuss things that go beyond the rules.

Can God make atomic nuclei orbit their electrons instead of vice-versa? Okay, but matter won't behave the way we expect and the universe we know will be undone. Can God make an object travel faster than light, or be in two places at once? Yeah, but then we can throw away our physics textbooks because nothing makes sense.

The idea of God "obeying" the rules of his creation sounds humiliating, but the "laws" of physics are simply formulations of what we find out about how the universe behaves. It is the basic wiring of reality. God breaking the "rules" makes no sense. If God created the universe, then regularly violates its integrity, it's not much of a universe, and he's not much of a god.

A scientifically impossible being doing scientifically impossible things, that's essentially what you're arguing? Fine, that's faith. But there's nothing to argue. You have no "proof" for either one, which is not a good logical defense. And note, you aren't able to answer the rock paradox. So why are you trying to mount a logical defense of miracles?

Answer 3

No, I do not. If your reasoning is to get someone to believe in the existence of something, and you say that "this being exists and completed this act," you must be able to prove your assertions. You must prove that things operate outside of physical laws (miracles/supernatural), and that those things are an argument for a god or whatever you believe.

Wordplay is bad, but I think there is value in the quote. Without evidence, your argument about physical events (nature or gods intervening in nature) has absolutely no grounding. .

Answer 4

Agree

You could call it nothing but wordplay. I've often found it interesting how the "non-believer", from whatever background, can somehow sense when a "believer" may not be able to eloquently express and prove their beliefs, and, so they play upon and try to test the believer's faith with these useless verbal assaults (or, in this case, wordplay). In the end it would appear to only strengthen the believer's faith.

Read on, and believe...

Ah yes, belief in miracles.
Belief can sometimes exist and be correct, even though the belief is beyond proof. An example of this is someone believing in what someone else tells them. Now, it just so happens that what has been told is a true, scientifically provable fact that has nothing to do with religion. We could think of lots of examples. However, the person blindly believing it cannot explain it. He just believes, since it is scientifically proven to the person that told it, that's enough for the other person to believe in it, enough for him or her to say,"I believe it !!!"

We believe a lot of things that people tell us that are indeed true, although we do not always understand or have the knowledge to explain how these things work. We do, however, have the evidence that these things work or are true, etc.., which leads us to believe. For instance, a mechanic can explain to us why a car moves and how it runs. Since we can see the evidence of this, we believe in it, although we may not be able to explain how the car's engine works.

The same is true for religion. Religion has yet to be openly proven by science. There are a lot of things science has yet to prove. However, we also have the TRADITION of religion, and that has nothing to do with science. Supposedly, about 2000 years ago, there was a man called Jesus. The tradition of his existence and what he did for humanity has been passed down through the generations. During his life he taught and healed many people. These people remembered their experience(s) with Jesus and past down these memories to their children, who past down the tradition to their children and their children, etc... Today, we believe that he existed, we believe in what he told people, we believe in the things that he told people and we believe in the miracles he performed, although we do not always understand how these things work.

So, let's complete this circle by creating a metaphor. In this case, Jesus is the mechanic (the mechanic mentioned earlier in this answer). Jesus has explained to us how the engine of faith, love, hope, and this universe, works. We see the evidence of this working through everyday miracles (births, transformations, the continuation of our faith, etc...). We believe, yet somehow, we cannot explain all that we witness. But we still believe and know, somehow, that what we witness is true.

Many of us have also personally experienced the things or at least something Jesus told people, so we believe, even though we cannot scientifically explain these things.

You do not have to be a Christian to understand this.

So yes, I agree, and I think you have shot down this atheists argument.

Answer 5

I disagree. I think he's totally right. There is no scientific that God exists. The truth is He isn't of a scientific existence. Saying you want to scientifically prove that God exists is like saying you physically want to touch the human soul.

Those who chose to not accept that God exists by faith will learn that the next level of existence is where it was important.

Answer 6

No. It's very simple. How is it word play? DO you have evidence for god? DO you have evidence for the "miracles?" If no, then he's just stating fact in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Not the same thing as word play.

Answer 7

The burdon of proof is on the claimants. We atheist don't have to prove diddly-squat. Else we would be too busy disproving the easter bunny, santa clause, the goblin in your closet to worry about some god ... or every god ever invented.

I'd rather just drink a black russian and be content with life without deities and miracles.

Answer 8

It seems to me that Atheist just think in a different way. There is a lack of communication going on with a lot of words being said. They don't understand that we are worried for them and they see the religious as trying to push religion on them. It's like trying to fit a round peg thru a square hole.

Answer 9

Actually, I consider it decent commentary on using biblical miracles as proof of god's existence. You can't prove the miracles, therefore you can't prove their origin, therefore you can't prove god.

Simple enough to me. You didn't seem to do a very good job of "shooting this argument" down. Apparently you don't understand it, and you just want to rally together people to agree with you.

Answer 10

The problem with Christianity is not that we don't have scientific evidence. The problem is one book, The Bible, is ALL THE EVIDENCE we can play with.

Answer 11

Yawn. No, it isn't. It's saying that you are making claims for a being whose existence cannot be proven but who is invested with powers that are scientifically not possible.

There is no word play there at all. It's simply an observation about the claims that are made by Christianity.