Atheism, fuck yeah!
Welcome atheists, skeptics, freethinkers all,
to this little corner of godlessness.
~Mooglets

doubtingmarcus:

Many theists like to claim that they have good evidence that miracles happen. Some say that prayer cures those with cancer and others like to say there is good historical evidence for certain reports of miracles and they argue because these events occurred it necessarily implies a god or god would be the best explanation for them. Ignoring for a moment that we have many reasons to believe miracles don’t happen how could such an event prove a god? The assumption seems to be that because someone accomplished something which seems to be impossible or something completely inexplicable happened that this somehow proves these are divine acts from god yet this is far from the case.

For the sake of argument I’ll grant the believer any and all miracle claims they like, be it Jesus rising from the dead or Muhammad flying overnight to Jerusalem on a winged-horse. The content doesn’t matter. The problem is how could you possibly determine that the cause of a miracle was a god?

In what conceivably way could judge that events which apparently are beyond all current comprehension are really the work of a god or even not just some advanced technology. Even if we somehow knew it was indeed a violation of the laws of nature it is still an unjustified leap from ‘the laws of nature have been violated’ to ‘god exists’ as countless unknown, or possibly unknowable explanations, could account for that occurrence. If we knew something genuinely inexplicable happened all that we’d be justified in concluding is that some unknown power was being used. It could be an evil supernatural being, a pan-dimensional being, a mass hallucination, advanced aliens testing their technology or future human time travelers playing a practical joke. Given the very nature of miracles, they are inherently inexplicable events, no one would be in a position to say which if any of these were responsible for the actions witnessed. Still some believers claim not just that miracles prove a god but that they prove their particular version of god but there argument put formally is obviously wanting:

1. A miracle happened.
2. ???
3. Prophet (of god)

This clearly is not a valid argument and is why some argue not that miracles necessarily prove god but that god would be the best explanation for miracles, they refer to inference to the best explanation. However the way in which we make an inference to the best explanation is through comprehensive examination and analysis but the nature of miracles implies that such an examination could not be conducted (for more on why see here). Moreover the best explanation for a phenomena takes the unknown in explains it in terms of the known yet an ineffable and unknowable god is not an understood phenomenon. No one would be in a position to say what caused such an event and therefore any assertion that it is a particular entity could be true but there would be no reason to believe any such assertion as it would be a blind guess.

Ultimately the fact that the explanation for a miracle could be a god in no way justifies believing it is in fact a god because an explanation with no justification is no better than no explanation at all. When you add this problem to the fact there are many reasons to believe miracles don’t happen now, like intentional fraud and self-deception, it is beyond perverse to conclude that just because there are reports of miracles that they necessarily occurred and even if they occurred it is necessarily, or even suggestive of, proof for any god let alone a particular god.

An interesting read :)

~Mooglets

i-kandi asked you:You kind of proved my point with your responses. Which is why I said in my first question about the ones I meet lead me to believe that so I don’t think you really read what I said but hey in the end nothing is changing so, hope you get satisfaction out of your blogs.

I-Kandi - you aren’t making any sense. I have repeatedly explained to you that there is a difference between the individual and the individual’s beliefs, and that for the most part it is the beliefs that get mocked, not the individual.

Surely you can understand that distinction?

I wouldn’t be in the slightest bit surprised if you’ve heard something utterly ridiculous, that someone you don’t know, believes, and thought to yourself that it is utterly ridiculous. 

That is precisely what we do. We just do it to all religions and superstitions. Seriously. Take a good, long look at how you react to other religions that aren’t your own. Actually do it, don’t just give it a passing thought, actually think about it. 

Like I said in my first response to you - once you understand the way you personally feel about all other religions on this planet that aren’t yours? You’ll begin to understand how we feel about all of them AND YOURS. 

—

I did actually ask you to explain how we are hypocritical and small minded. You haven’t even attempted to do that, just continued to assert it, without provocation or even anything to back up your assertions. 

The fact that you have just stated that ‘nothings changing’ shows to me that you are the one with the closed mind, the small view, the lack of anything even vaguely resembling an acceptance that if proof were ever presented you would change your mind. 

Because, funnily enough, atheists are perfectly willing to change their world-views, their ‘beliefs’ if you will, if presented with actual, verifiable, empiricle evidence that proves not only that a god exists, but that a specific God exists. 

This is being open minded. Which is what you are obviously not - unless you are perfectly willing to change your mind on your religious beliefs if it comes right down to it and absolutely no evidence is ever found for any god, let alone your specific God? 

(Which there isn’t, by the way.) 

Are you? 

—-

~Mooglets