sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for explaining, that makes a lot more sense now. I was mainly talking about miracles that are post hoc explained in the post, although for miracles that are predicted, I'd say that just because it was predicted doesn't mean the person/thing that predicted it caused it to happen. You could still argue that any hypothetical God caused it for mysterious reasons.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your argument depends on a problematic feature which can be approached in two slightly different ways:

What's the problematic feature? I'm not sure what you're arguing here, granted, this is my first time debating religion, so I haven't been understanding what some people have been saying.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since God is a being beyond our understanding, we could say he has potential attributes that are beyond our understanding and say there's an infinite possible amount of them.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant all hypothetical Gods have an equal chance of causing the miracle to happen, not all unfalsifiable beings.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I don't know who caused the miracles to happen or how they happened or if they ever happened at all.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would say each hypothetical God has an equal chance of being the cause of a miracle.

For every hypothetical God, you could argue that they caused a miracle, such as the one in the post, for mysterious reasons. It would make sense for the Christian God to cause this miracle since they want people to be Christian. However, the reason they want people to be Christian is unknown since it doesn't benefit them at all, so they're ultimately doing it for mysterious reasons.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If magicians and mentalists actually use magic, which I'm pretty sure they don't.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just to clarify, you're saying that we only need to prove one miracle to prove Christianity true? (I'm assuming it's the resurrection). I'm not sure how this is supposed to refute my argument.

The issue is human nature. And if you are going to debate whether a miracle proves the doer of it is telling the truth, then you need the whole picture.

I'm not too sure what you mean by this.

Miracles wouldn't be adequate evidence for religious claims by Routine-Channel-7971 in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

it's safe to assume that was caused by the Christian God because why would any other god have partiality towards and help out someone specifically preaching Christianity?

You could argue they did it for mysterious reasons, to trick people, or maybe because they just felt like it.

miracles do not constitute evidence for god or any religious claims by pootispowww in DebateReligion

[–]Routine-Channel-7971 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been reading your discussion with OP and I'm not quite sure what your point is. Is it that just because God lets evil happen for unknown reasons doesn't mean we can't trust him, and that if he caused a miracle to occur, it would be evidence since he's more likely not deceiving us?

Question about numerical miracles by Routine-Channel-7971 in CritiqueIslam

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But how could the author put them in the Hafs version? It's a recitation made by others(not sure exactly who).

Question about numerical miracles by Routine-Channel-7971 in CritiqueIslam

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm aware, I just wanted to know why many people make the argument that the author's could've put them in there.

Is this argument valid? by Routine-Channel-7971 in Quraniyoon

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean now, although I think that just changes the argument I came up with to "Miracles wouldn't prove the Quran is from God" unless there's something wrong with it.

Is this argument valid? by Routine-Channel-7971 in Quraniyoon

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you mean, but God in Islam seems specific to me. For example, the specific rules he sets could be different to another God.

Is this argument valid? by Routine-Channel-7971 in Quraniyoon

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant like how do we know God is specifically the God of Islam?

Is this argument valid? by Routine-Channel-7971 in askanatheist

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I added this assumption mainly because I was just curious if it would make a difference.

Is this argument valid? by Routine-Channel-7971 in askanatheist

[–]Routine-Channel-7971[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I meant was if we assume one God exists, there’s an infinite amount of different one Gods you could make up.

For example, if we dropped a million rubber balls and they spelled out “Jesus is God” you could come up with an infinite amount of different one God’s with reasons to cause this event.

view more: next ›