No, it doesn’t. Again, you are injecting your worldview, in which you insist that only the natural universe can exist.
See above.
Once again, this is only true from your own worldview. There is nothing in the definition of nature which insists that only natural forces are possible. Ergo, your claim that miracles are impossible “by definition” remains false.
Once again, your worldview. True according to Diogenes, but not true “by definition.”
tagos has demonstrated that he is fully capable of recognizing the distinction between matters that are true in his worldview, and those which are true by definition. You have repeatedly argued that certain things are true “by definition,” yet have not provided any such definitions to support those assertions. At least tagos knows better.
Something to keep in mind. Science is very good at explaining the mechanics of natural systems in a linear way and then it’s only accurate and observable to very specific variables. Current science really only gives very localized answers and doesn’t account for the infinitessimal interactions of unobservable systems and interactions of quanta at higher dimensions…We get very good high res snapsots within three dimensions within our human focus, but miss the entire spectrum and much remains unaccounted for. I believe some people’s mistake is to say that if it can’t be accounted for by science then the supernatural must not exist, instead, I see it as, if science could do a full accounting then the supernatural would be shown to be part of the natural.
Science must break the universes hymen to allow penetration.
(I know, that’s weird…but I’ll say it.)
No. tagos and I are saying that if an event is extremely unlikely to occur, with mind-numbingly astronomical odds stacked against it, then it becomes reasonable to belive that it coudl be a miracle. This is vastly different from merely saying “If it’s unlikely, it must be a miracle.”
Again, let’s revisit the Red Sea event. (Again, for the purpose of illustration, people! I’m using a familiar event for the purpose of illustration, and am not presently arguing that it is necessarily historical.) Consider the parting of the Red Sea, at just the moment that Moses asked for it, at just the moment that Moses needed it. This isn’t merely “unlikely,” to use your wording. Rather, even if some scientific explanation were available, the odds of such an event happening as described would be beyond astronomical. It wouldn’t just be a bit unlikely; rather, it’d be enormously implausible! If someone denies even the possibility of miracles, then that person has no recourse but to say, “Well, an incredible coincidence must have occurred. That’s all.”
I think we’ve dealt with coincidences already in this thread, and why even stunningly unlikely things are bound to happen sometimes (whatever “extremely unlikely” happens to mean to you). You might have reason to think a miracle happened if you could prove Moses’s words caused the Sea to part. It was NOT the Red Sea, by the way, it was the “Sea of Reeds.”
Astronomical unlikelihoods are still always more economical than inventing an even more unlikely (and more unexplainable) supernatural, intervening intelligent, all powerful, invisible magic being such as God.
As long as there is a natural explanation, it is irrational and unscientific to hypothesize the supernatural.
Unscientific? Yes. Irrational? I dunno. I know we’ve talked about this before, but saying that it’s irrational to hypothesize the supernatural seems to undermine the general intelligence of the world. Unempirical? Sure. Unscientific? Yep. Irrational? :dubious:
If all theists are irrational, maybe we need to throw all 5 billion or so of them in funny farms.
Well of course I do. How does one suggest that, by suggesting something the vast majority of the world holds to be true that one may be suggesting the world as a whole is stupid, without appealing to argumentum ad populum?
On a somewhat straightforward note, argumentum ad populum, as we all know, is a logical fallacy that dictates that something cannot be declared logically sound just because some (presumably significant) number of people think it to be the case. It doesn’t mean that whatever said number of people think to be the case isn’t true.
And as to the first sentence of your post, I realize that irrationality isn’t the exact same thing as insanity or stupidity…and I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it’s no coincidence that some words meaning or implying insanity or stupidity show up as synonyms of “irrational”. Who trusts the judgment of people that we deem to be irrational?
Well, first one takes note that nobody was being called stupid. Then one notes that the whole world may very
Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?
I’m pretty sure that connotation wasn’t intended, so why bring it up?
Look, everyone is irrational sometimes and about some subjects. That does not mean we are incapable of exhibiting sound judgment and arguing about things logically. That, or an inability to deal with the actual world, would be closer to stupidity or insanity.
I dunno, I’ve seen some pretty judgmental people who seem to convey that connotation - even some on this board, which purports to be a haven for intelligent people. I’d like to think Diogenes is above that, cynical as he may be, but you can never be too sure.
Still, because I might be (and often am) wrong, I apologize.
I did not mean to imply that people who believe in the supernatural are either stupid or crazy. I apologize for that unintentional suggestion. I was using the term “irrational” in a more formal sense related to following empirical, investigatory methods for discovering information. I meant that as a method for acquiring information, unnecessary supernatural hypotheses do not conform to established, “rational” methodologies which require that natural explanations be exhausted before “non” natural hypotheses may be entertained.
To wit, it’s not irrational to believe in God. It IS irrational to point at tire tracks in the snow and assert that God put them there miraculously.
