Predetermined Conclusion
“I have hidden one easter egg. It is in your room under your bed.” If a search is predetermined, will it be a surprise when it is found?
“Tommy let the chickens out! Come see, come see! Who could have done it?” If you already have a claim, is there really a question?
“Since you are watching tv, I am going to assume you have already finished your homework.” If you are assuming it’s so, is it necessary to say so?
In each of these examples, something was stated before any inquiry that presumes upon the subject. If you say where you hid it, it’s not hide-n-seek. If you say who did it, there’s no mystery. If you assume something, you’ve already decided to believe it without fact-checking.
So here is my next question. If you have already predetermined something to be true, do you need evidence for you to assert that it is true?
Atheism vs. Miracles 101.
Conclusion - Miracles are impossible.
Rephrased - The Atheist has defined science to exclude miracles and thus conclude that miracles are impossible.
Quaint, yet ironically not very scientific of them! Science by definition is limited by the observed and the repeatable and thus cannot prove or disprove the existence of miracles.
The atheist may claim that science is the only way to know, yet how do they know that statement is true? It’s certainly not verifiable through scientific means.
If I asked a scientist why there is toast on my plate, he may say that the toaster heated the bread to “x” degrees, which did “z” to “y” and this reaction created “m” and hence the bread became what we call toast. And if the scientist declared all of this, I would simply turn to him and say, there’s toast on my plate because I wanted to eat it.
Science cannot answer why, only how. And there are a lot of why’s in this world. Science is not the purely singular form of knowledge available to us. Morality, emotions, thoughts, desires, all of these things are outside the purview of scientific inquiry. Science can look into how these things operate and how the affect us, but they can’t answer why, nor are the aspects of these things scientific in nature. You cannot observe and repeat anger over a situation. You cannot observe a thought. You cannot quantify right and wrong.
Therefore, 1) science is not the end-all, know-all. There are other ways of knowing, and (2) miracles lie outside the purview of science by it’s very definition.
Conclusion - you haven’t proven anything about miracles. All you have done is play word games with predetermined conclusions.
Jared Williams
“Tommy let the chickens out! Come see, come see! Who could have done it?” If you already have a claim, is there really a question?
“Since you are watching tv, I am going to assume you have already finished your homework.” If you are assuming it’s so, is it necessary to say so?
In each of these examples, something was stated before any inquiry that presumes upon the subject. If you say where you hid it, it’s not hide-n-seek. If you say who did it, there’s no mystery. If you assume something, you’ve already decided to believe it without fact-checking.
So here is my next question. If you have already predetermined something to be true, do you need evidence for you to assert that it is true?
Atheism vs. Miracles 101.
- The Atheist has predetermined that science is naturalism - only that which is observable and repeatable - the laws of science.
- Miracles break the laws of science. They are not repeatable. Ie. they are not natural.
Conclusion - Miracles are impossible.
Rephrased - The Atheist has defined science to exclude miracles and thus conclude that miracles are impossible.
Quaint, yet ironically not very scientific of them! Science by definition is limited by the observed and the repeatable and thus cannot prove or disprove the existence of miracles.
The atheist may claim that science is the only way to know, yet how do they know that statement is true? It’s certainly not verifiable through scientific means.
If I asked a scientist why there is toast on my plate, he may say that the toaster heated the bread to “x” degrees, which did “z” to “y” and this reaction created “m” and hence the bread became what we call toast. And if the scientist declared all of this, I would simply turn to him and say, there’s toast on my plate because I wanted to eat it.
Science cannot answer why, only how. And there are a lot of why’s in this world. Science is not the purely singular form of knowledge available to us. Morality, emotions, thoughts, desires, all of these things are outside the purview of scientific inquiry. Science can look into how these things operate and how the affect us, but they can’t answer why, nor are the aspects of these things scientific in nature. You cannot observe and repeat anger over a situation. You cannot observe a thought. You cannot quantify right and wrong.
Therefore, 1) science is not the end-all, know-all. There are other ways of knowing, and (2) miracles lie outside the purview of science by it’s very definition.
Conclusion - you haven’t proven anything about miracles. All you have done is play word games with predetermined conclusions.
Jared Williams
