JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Reductios are rather pointless if made in bad faith. The dragon argument is not very generous, how many dragons do you believe actual worshippers and congregations believe in?
. |
I wasn't actually making that point. I was just taking a swipe at the 'spectacular miracle' argument as in they happened long ago, but in modern times don't happen.I was just illustrating how you could make that argument for anything..even dragons. |
Sorry
| Quote: |
There is an open door for miracles through Kant's 3rd antinomy.
Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived.
Antithesis: There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature.
Notice that the antinomy does not deny consistent laws of nature, but advocates in the thesis that such a description is incomplete. A miracle would be an intervention, yes, a spontaneous and free event that 'breaks' the chain of causation.
You are trying to ascribe a logic to something that is (probably) beyond logic. You are suggesting that God by choosing one miracle over another is playing puppets. But that, again, is mere interpretation. Once we have gotten to miracles we are beyond the logic of the laws of causality |
i thought this whole thread was about talking about miracles logically. Why is it beyond logic? Is god not a logical creature?
If miracles are a break in the laws of casuality, am i not correct that any two miracles in essence are the same? In other words the argument with which we began.
Also because something is beyond the laws of casuality, does not mean it is beyong logic or critical thinking. I can still apply logic to how these miracles are meted out, or in comparing between them. i can also use these breaks to find out something about the creature that is causing them. I can infer the nature of God from his miracles.
In effect you are moving the goalposts. Now miracles are beyond logic where they cannot be touched. What does this remind me of...ah the old catholic 'mystery'... |
Good points. You're right that any two miracles are similar in respect to being spontaneous.
You're right that there is a kind of logic to miracles, potentially, but I should refine my statement. The same kind of logic would not apply as they do to natural science.
Lastly, one cannot defend miracles without moving the goalposts. Miracles are by essence outside of natural law. Anyone who thought otherwise would be confused.
Yes, its the classic reason v. revelation quandry. Although one should note that some people do just fine accepting certain revelations without abandoning reason altogether.[/quote]
Fair enough. seems we are pretty much in agreement. Hurrah! This is way too civilized for Daves however.. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
