/lit/ - Literature

Try reading and not learning from google images

>>19172785
Just stop now, logic isn't for everyone and that's ok. Learn to dance or sing or draw or fix air conditioners or something, it's ok anon.

>>19172785
Must we have the same thread every two days? Why not spice it up with an original bait?

>we dont understand how something can happen with our current scientific framework
>this means it cant happen
Okay, makes sense.

>>19172785
>firm and unalterable experience

lmfao ok hume.

NOOOO YOU CANT HAVE REALITY WARPING ABILITIES THATS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!

>>19172785
hume is every reason why the people ought to hate the enlightenment

>>19172795
>>19172799
The salt from never experiencing a miracle

>>19172838
it really is a testament to the madness of humanity that so many people can in one hand shower praise and adoration endlessly on science for its consistent ability to show us new things every day, while in the other hand, every day they take to creating a new dogma to strictly adhere to that represents the new thing learned, and anything outside of that dogma is said to be inherently false.

>>19172785
>NOOOOOOOOO 4TH DIMENSIONAL ENTITIES CANNOT BREAK INTO THE 3RD DIMENSION, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!! ONLY THIS DIMENSION'S LAWS ARE TRUE!!!!

>>19172785
Am I low IQ/illiterate or is he arguing for miracles, in a roundabout way.

>>19172876

This but exactly the opposite. The day will come when not a single human being believes in deity, and we will all be the better for it.

>>19172886
what the fuck does this long-ass sentence even mean, anon

>>19173124
this is your brain on atheism

>>19173129
i thought it was pretty clear. it means that people praise science for the fact that we learn more and more from it all the time, but at the same time, these same people ignore this perpetual process of constant change and new information and say "this is how it is, no exceptions!" despite the fact that they know damn well science its self brings new "exceptions" every day and will likely never fill in all the insurmountable gaps in our knowledge of existence

>>19173151
I think every normal atheist acknowledges this. Certainly any scientist does. You're equating secularism with r/atheism.

>>19173167
But there have to be certain ground rules for us to function and carry on, and the reigning logic of the day will be treated as fact until it's no longer the reigning logic. You might have a point about the way people flip shit whenever new evidence is brought forward, or some new understanding. But average people have no reason to take an interest in the minutia that science teaches us. And most of what science is teaching now is minutia. We either know the big stuff fairly well (evolution for example), or we just don't understand it period.

>>19173167
if your experience tells you that i guess you are lucky because im my experience people love treating science like a completely infallible dogma, anything outside of which is simply absurd to them. im not even trying to go on some /pol/ "science bad" rant here, but people treating it like the new infallible religion is just so odd and self defeating

>>19173141

I notice that you've failed to find fault with the statement I gave, falling back on snark. Perhaps you would like to type *tips* or similar.

>>19173188
Because your statement is the most retarded thing I've read this month. Go read books.

>>19172785
>The more technology and science advance, less and less miracles happen
Really gets the noggin joggin that one

>>19173193
Massive cope

>>19173141
does religion even have any sort of net negative impact on humanity? as far as i can tell at least here in the west, religion is basically just impotently trying to hold people back from falling deeper and deeper into self destructive cycles of behavior and thought that have very real and material negative consequences

>>19173202
Wait... miracles are infrequent? Huh... interesting observation.

>>19173202
>Essential Meaning of miracle
>1 : an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God

how exactly are things identified by science and miracles mutually elusive?

>>19173004
yes

>>19173219
>reading comprehension
Holy fuck

>>19173210
Retard lol

>>19173253
you arent exactly making your case here, anon

>>19173235
Maybe look up the definition of miracle lol.

>>19173304
Something that becomes more infrequent the more science advances(or since the invention of cameras for example)?

>>19172785
Yes.

I take it Hume wasn't a christcuck

>>19173193

There is nothing worth liking about the idea of god. It is neither true, nor beautiful, nor good. It is every way false. The sadness is that human beings are wired for storytelling in order to make sense of a cruel world, and this is what leads them into error. They mistake the idea of god as being somehow good, or true, or beautiful, failing to realize that the idea is an anthropomorphic projection of their best and worst impulses, that they have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate its existence, and failing to recognize the ugliness in the creature described, being so depraved as to attribute beauty to it in order to spare ego death. Do a *tips* if it helps you to cope.

>>19173314
Some miracles are contingent on ignorance of scientific laws, yes.

>>19172886
>you should believe in things without any basis because... YOU JUST SHOULD OK?

>>19173314
>>19173330
See here.
https://iep.utm.edu/miracles/#H1

>>19173331
how could you even interpret that from what i wrote? I was simply commenting on the paradoxical close mindedness of people who seem to thrive on the quest of knowing the unknown. being open minded does not mean believing literally everything just because

>>19173330
how does science invalidate a miracle when "scientific laws" dont even have an actual material explanation?

>>19173372
It gets worse how can logic explains logical laws? Nothing is true and everything is permitted. Rational argument is impossible

>>19173314
Miracles are usually uncommon. there are a few exceptions in history (like Christ and the very early church). There really aren't any more or less miracles recorded today than there would be in like, 1000ad or sometime. but you're acting like miracles should be this super common occurrence that everyone is watching for at all times to be able to record and even with mobile phones thats just not true.

Laws of nature doesn’t make sense in Hume’s skepticism

>>19172785
It's hilarious to me how many "academics" think Hume was attempting to argue against miracles. Read an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Chapter 1, if the watch and ice arguments don't lead you to the conclusion that miracles can't be disproven, you're ngmi. He says that you can't reason your way into believing that ice exists if you have never seen it before, and you can't reason your way into proving that a man made a watch that you find on the ground. But in spite of that, ice is real and watches are man-made. His point wasn't that miracles were impossible, but rather that they are beyond the scope of rational investigation.

>>19172785
>"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature"

But the very idea of the existence of "laws of nature" is an inductive inference, which Hume effectively destroyed in his argument regarding the problem of induction.*

It follows that if (i) Hume is correct in positing his version of the problem of induction, then (ii) miracles do not "violate" "laws of nature" because there are no such "laws."

Thus, Hume's skepticism about inductive inferences (which includes the induction that there are "laws" of nature) rebuts his strangely dogmatic remarks about miracles.

Thus I refute Hume on the question of miracles.


*See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

>>19172799
Justify logic.

>>19172785
>firm and unalterable experience

So these are the "great abstract minds" of Western thought?

>>19172799
> I accept a transcendent and immutable principle (logic), which has no empirical or natural evidence on the basis of belief and I take that to imply a transcendently ordered cosmos and an immutable natural order from which I can derive my understanding of the world.

That sounds an awful lot like religion, and more than a little like a miracle...

Amazing to see a thread in which both sides are filtered

>>19173984
tradcaths are gonna FREAK when they read this

>>19173984
Hume did a lot to illustrate the shortcomings of rationalism, but it seems to have gone way over everyone’s heads.

>>19173606
>There really aren't any more or less miracles recorded today than there would be in like, 1000ad or sometime.
No, if you go back to the middle ages you had lots of churches, especially after the crusades, claiming they had magic relics in order to attract pilgrims. Either these miracles don't happen as often or fewer people today accept christgrifters' shlock.

>>19173984
It's hilarious how you missed the point of the no miracles argument while shitting on others for getting it correctly.
Miracles, unlike ice or watches, are violations of the ordinary operation of the laws of nature - if they weren't, they wouldn't be miracles because they could be explained naturalistically. So while we have no reason to believe in the existence of ice or not (it could or could not exist according to the laws of nature), the bar for belief in miracles is so high as to make any testimony of them improbable.

>>19174162
Hume's attack on induction is not an attack on empirically-observed laws of nature, but a priori metaphysical reasoning. The entire point of what Hume is saying is that in science we empirically observe regular conjunctions and these are good enough to call laws. Miracles by definitions are not regular conjunctions, they are exceptions to them. Therefore we have no grounds for believing in them.

>>19174449
>So while we have no reason to believe in the existence of ice or not (it could or could not exist according to the laws of nature), the bar for belief in miracles is so high as to make any testimony of them improbable.
Hume never made that argument. What basis do you have for deciding that the bar for inexplicable things being possible vs impossible falls somewhere between ice and miracles? You say that ice exists within the laws of nature, but someone who lived within an environment so hot that ice never formed would have no framework for understanding the relevant natural laws. To such a person, the idea of water so cold that it becomes solid would be completely beyond the pale. Furthermore, to suggest that something must conform to natural laws in order to be possible is to presuppose that miracles are impossible, by definition. That is a form of circular reasoning.

>>19174521
You say that ice exists within the laws of nature, but someone who lived within an environment so hot that ice never formed would have no framework for understanding the relevant natural laws.
If we don't know of a law governing the freezing of water into ice, then ipso facto it cannot be a miracle, because a miracle is a violation of a law of nature.

If I went to someone who had never heard of ice and said that a miracle had occurred where water had frozen, they would not have reason to believe my testimony that a miracle has occurred is true. Because it is no more imaginable to him that water could miraculously freeze then it could by some unknown natural law.

>Furthermore, to suggest that something must conform to natural laws in order to be possible is to presuppose that miracles are impossible, by definition.
You literally don't understand the argument. The argument is not that something is literally impossible unless it conforms to natural laws. We can never absolutely 100% rule out the possibility of violations of laws of nature. The point is that violations of these laws are so improbable that we can never accept testimony of them.

And yes, the definition of a miracle as a violation of a natural law is necessary, because if a miracle is in accordance with a natural law then there is no reason to believe it didn't happen naturally.

>>19174449
>Hume's attack on induction is not an attack on empirically-observed laws of nature

Yes, it is, or at least it is in the application, including Hume's own application: “the bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me… but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time?”

In short, if Hume's inductive skepticism (i.e., his critique of the logic undergirding the inductive move from specific instances to a generalized conclusion) is broad enough to cover exceptions in the eating of bread from one day to the next - and it is, according to Hume himself - then it is broad enough to cover miracles as exceptions to perceived laws of nature.

>>19174449
>Hume's attack on induction is not an attack on empirically-observed laws of nature
Yes it is lol, because those empirically observed laws of nature are inductively supported. Induction is invalid implies they are no longer supported. It doesn't matter what Hume intended to do. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.

>>19172799
>Logic isn't for everyone
Logically speaking, you are wrong.

>>19174605
>Yes, it is, or at least it is in the application, including Hume's own application: “the bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me… but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time?”
Again, you misunderstand Hume. This is a criticism of a priori analysis of causation. It can be demonstrated through experience that eating bread nourishes. Experience of constant conjunction allows us to form laws of nature.

Hume was a moderate sceptic. He criticises radical scepticism of causation in the Enquiry.

>In short, if Hume's inductive skepticism (i.e., his critique of the logic undergirding the inductive move from specific instances to a generalized conclusion) is broad enough to cover exceptions in the eating of bread from one day to the next - and it is, according to Hume himself - then it is broad enough to cover miracles as exceptions to perceived laws of nature.
This is even worse for the defender of miracles, because if the problem of induction proves there are no laws of nature then there is no reason to believe that any act is a miracle, rather than a unique natural occurrence. Therefore miracles can never be proven. So by bringing Humean scepticism into the picture the person defending the validity of miracles only disproves his own case.


>>19174692
See above.

>>19174598
>The point is that violations of these laws are so improbable that we can never accept testimony of them.
Again, this is a baseless assertion. What criteria are you using to determine the threshold of acceptability?

>>19174163
It works, unlike prayer. Even religiotards know this, since they go to a doctor when they're sick, and not a church, almost like they know they're full of shit or something

>>19172882
this

>>19175030
>Again, this is a baseless assertion. What criteria are you using to determine the threshold of acceptability?
Because laws of nature are how reality operates. If I said to you "X happened which contradicts how reality operates!!" then you need an extremely strong reason to rationally believe my testimony.

>>19175041
I did experience a miracle once. It was truly a blessing of Odin

>>19175059
based Odin
they really don't disappoint, the gods

>>19175044
So you are again presupposing that miracles do not exist. You can assert all you want that only events in accordance with laws of nature ("non-miracles") can occur, but you have not provided any basis for such a belief.

>>19174181
>christcuck tries to refute logic
like pottery

In order to refute logic you must first accept it, after which you can no longer refute it.

>>19175521
>So you are again presupposing that miracles do not exist.
No? Can you fucking read? The argument is that there is no possibility of testimony giving us a reason to believe that a miracle occurred, not that it is impossible for miracles to occur.

embarrassing thread

>>19175842
In that case all that happens or can happen is in terms with "natural laws" and anything that can't is rejected by them. Natural laws then can't be defined by anything other than "is" containing no multiplicity and reflection of itself. In this case what's the point of your "natural law" which refers to pure being only in relation to itself which doesn't even exist in relation to the process of reality. Yes I agree that miracles isn't excluded from your concept that is functionally nothingness.

>>19175643
Logic is normative and dependent on ethics.

>>19172785
Some Germans resolved all of this 200 years ago. This isn't an original point.

>>19174941
>Experience of constant conjunction allows us to form laws of nature.

Again, you misunderstand Hume's argument against the rationality of induction. As summarized by the Stanford analysis* of the issue:
"The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods... Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in ... everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively... Nor can it be supported inductively...for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved."

> This is a criticism of a priori analysis of causation.

You draw a distinction without a difference. Thus, Stanford again:
"First a note on vocabulary. The term ‘induction’ does not appear in Hume's argument... Hume's concern is with inferences concerning causal connections, which, on his account are the only connections “which can lead us beyond the immediate impressions of our memory and senses” (THN, 89). But the difference between such inferences and what we know today as induction ... is largely a matter of terminology."

>Hume was a moderate sceptic.
Some so hold; but it can be plausibly argued that his arguments, at least, are radical in their implications:
"Now as concerns inductive inference, it is hardly surprising to be told that the epistemological problem is insoluble; that there can be no formula or recipe, however complex, for ruling out unreliable inductions. But Hume's arguments, if they are correct, have apparently a much more radical consequence than this: They seem to show that the metaphysical problem for induction is insoluble; that there is no objective difference between reliable and unreliable inductions."

>This is even worse for the defender of miracles
But it's not a question of defending miracles, as such. Rather, I am pointing out that Hume is inconsistent: if the problem of induction arises in the context of eating bread from one day to the next - an exception to a perceived law of nature - then Hume's induction analysis likewise covers the circumstance of a miracle as an exception to a perceived law of nature.

Now Hume, it appears, wants to have it both ways. He argues against the rationality of induction, on the one hand, and against miracles on the other. But he advances his argument against miracles as if his skeptical analysis of induction did not apply -- but it does apply, for the very "laws of nature" that Hume hold out as the standard against which the rationality (or possibility) of miracles must be judged rests on the very same principle of induction that Hume has dismantled.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Accordingly, Hume's argument contra miracles fails when it is judged according to Hume's own standard.


*https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2016/entries/induction-problem/

>>19175947
not untrue

>>19172872
>>19172929
Who are you working for

>>19172785
Isn't he just saying that miracles are, by definition, events that cannot be rationally explained? Why would anyone, even religious people, disagree with that?

>>19175931
What the hell are you talking about? Natural laws are just descriptions of the regularity of reality. It's not complicated.

>>19175982
>Again, you misunderstand Hume's argument against the rationality of induction
>You draw a distinction without a difference.
You're just restating your original position without responding to anything I said. I am aware of the problem of induction. Neither Hume nor anyone else seriously denies that laws of nature exist, the constant conjunction we observe is good enough empirically. It is not unreasonable to expect, contra the radical sceptic of causation, that if I put my hand in the fire it will hurt.


>But it's not a question of defending miracles, as such. Rather, I am pointing out that Hume is inconsistent: if the problem of induction arises in the context of eating bread from one day to the next - an exception to a perceived law of nature - then Hume's induction analysis likewise covers the circumstance of a miracle as an exception to a perceived law of nature.
What about eating bread is an exception to a law of nature? I'm not sure what your point is.

Hume is not objecting to miracles based on a logically-necessary ironclad inductive as you seem to think he is. He is merely comparing miracles to empirical observations of regularity in nature that can be explained by natural laws. There is no problem here.

>>19176129
>>19175982
Furthermore, if your attempt to get out of Hume's no miracles argument is a radical sceptic move of "well we can't logically prove causation about anything" then one is admitting that proving miracles is impossible. We are faced with a radically disordered world where at the same time everything is a miracle and nothing is. There is no reason for anyone to accept any testimony about miracles at all.

since no one has ever seen a miracle, i'd say he's right.

in b4 "durrr... what about all the written reports of miraculous events?" ya, there are plenty of written reports of spider-man swinging over new york, but that doesn't make it real

>>19172785
>Filtered

>>19172799
Ignore the gate. This is a clever and nuanced post with a clever degree of inferential insult in the eye of the beholder.

>>19176302
>in b4 "durrr... what about all the written reports of miraculous events?" ya, there are plenty of written reports of spider-man swinging over new york, but that doesn't make it real
"People" will seethe because of this but it is true.
Pre-colonial India was brimming with gurus that claimed that the basically had superpowers, and millions of people there, even kings and learned scholars, took it seriously. Then, the second the first camera made landfall on the subcontinent, their powers stopped working.

>muh laws
>NOO I’M NOT A DOGMATIC METAPHYSICIAN

>>19176415
>the law of gravity is dogmatic
>I enjoy using random words without knowing what they mean

Deleuze and Quentin Meillassoux btfo this dogmatic retard

>>19176478
All Deleuze blew is Guattari's cock. And I bet $1000 you have never read Meillassoux.

>>19172785
holy shit Hume is peak midwit

>>19176478
>Meillassoux argues that in place of the agnostic scepticism about the reality of cause and effect there should be a radical certainty that there is no causality at all. Following the rejection of causality Meillassoux says that it is absolutely necessary that the laws of nature be contingent. The world is a kind of hyper-chaos in which the principle of sufficient reason is not necessary. But Meillassoux says that the principle of non-contradiction is necessary.
Holy shit lmfao
>we should all just pretend that nothing makes any sense!! why? cuz muh feels!!!
Continental philosophy is utterly embarrassing.

>>19173188
>find fault with the statement I gave
Theres no substance to your statement. How can you fault an unsubstantiated assertion?

>>19176428
What is a law of nature?

>>19176581
Fuck off Socrates. Either make an argument or don't.

>>19176129
>You're just restating your original position without responding to anything I said.

Your argument is bootless, mate. You haven't even really made an argument. You obfuscated about terminology. I addressed your obfuscation here: >>19175982

>What about eating bread is an exception to a law of nature?
Ask Hume. It is Hume, not me, who raised the example of bread. He is the one who wrote: “the bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me… but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time?”

>>19176155
>Furthermore, if your attempt to get out of Hume's no miracles argument...
I'm not trying to get out of his argument. I'm simply pointing out that his skepticism respecting induction undercuts his argument contra miracles, because the latter argument RESTS on an inductive inference: "the laws of nature."

Again: Hume's argument contra miracles fails when it is judged according to Hume's own standard.

Simple as.

>>19175643
This post is like meta-pottery. Literally did not get it and replied sayings it’s pottery.

He is precisely justifying logic, genius. You are not and cannot.

>>19176645
>Ask Hume. It is Hume, not me, who raised the example of bread. He is the one who wrote: “the bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me… but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time?”
Er, Hume didn't think anything about eating bread contradicted or disproved the laws of nature, so I'm not sure what you want me to ask him. Why do you think this example is relevant?

>I'm not trying to get out of his argument
>I'm simply pointing out that his skepticism respecting induction undercuts his argument
Ok lmao.

As explained for the 1000th time, the problem of induction doesn't prevent us from observing regularities in nature that can be classified as laws. It is reasonable for me to expect that if I jump off a building I will fall due to the law of gravity. This is an inductive inference and a sound one. If someone told me they jumped off a building and started to fly, it would also be reasonable for me to disbelieve that claim. Nothing is effected by logical problems with causation.

>Again: Hume's argument contra miracles fails when it is judged according to Hume's own standard.
The no miracles argument succeeds even if one wants to disregard Hume's own standard and argue a radical sceptic position, because such a position destroys the possibility of rationally believing in miracles (or anything in nature). So I'm not even sure what the point of your argument is because it's doubly self-defeating.

>>19176653
Justification is a logical action. If you don't start with logic you can't justify anything.

>>19172785
He's not wrong
Quit being willfully stupid and do something useful with your time

>>19174449
>Hume's attack on induction is not an attack on empirically-observed laws of nature, but a priori metaphysical reasoning
imagine not understanding one of the easiest topics in philosophy
absolutely embarrassing

>>19173124
Reddit is that way, fag

>>19177209
So easy you're misinterpreting it, apparently. The intellectual context of Hume's induction problem is to cause problems for the rationalists like Spinoza who were building huge systems out of chains of causation a priori. Not science, which can be tested experimentally.

>When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Note how Hume specifically excludes "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existing" when he commits 'school metaphysics' to the flames.

>>19174449
You obviously didn't understand Hume. I doubt you read a word he wrote firsthand. In fact Hume said, which is even quoted by Kant, that metaphysics and morals are the most important fields.
The problem of induction itself is an epistemic indictment of science as true, a culmination of sceptical thought, not just metaphysics. By making these scientific laws, or even common sense kinds, you are making a presumption of regularity that is conditioned by experience. That is, your sense of causality is conditioned to you by experience, per Hume, rather than a present feature.
This is what inspired Kant and the German idealists towards transcendental philosophy. This would not have happened if Hume was just tipping his 18th century fedora.
I find it funny how so many physicalists read this into Hume, because it shows such a gross ignorance of the basic history of western philosophy, and western history in general.

>>19177312
https://youtu.be/Q2WgUUNB7Wo

MORDINACLE

https://youtu.be/Dfm0-ElfrUw

>>19172785
>questions the validity of induction and our understanding of cause and effect
>goes hardcore on skepticism
>appeals to the laws of nature to refute miracles
Wtf, how does this make sense?

>>19172785
>miracle is a violation of nature
He just did the
>let me change some definitions around ok now miracles are impossible

>>19177347
>You obviously didn't understand Hume. I doubt you read a word he wrote firsthand. In fact Hume said, which is even quoted by Kant, that metaphysics and morals are the most important fields.
Yes, because Hume is trying to build a new empirical metaphysics (in his understanding of the term) that eventually would become (in our understanding of the term) scientific.
>The problem of induction itself is an epistemic indictment of science as true
No. Nowhere does Hume argue that our empirical scientific discoveries are falsified by induction. Quite the opposite. The problem of induction is not a problem for scientific knowledge because conjunction can be the subject to experiment by observation if need be. It is mainly a problem for rationalist metaphysics that builds chains of a priori causation that can only depend on logic for confirmation.
>By making these scientific laws, or even common sense kinds, you are making a presumption of regularity that is conditioned by experience. That is, your sense of causality is conditioned to you by experience, per Hume, rather than a present feature.
Yes, and for Hume this is a feature, rather than a bug. All we can know, we know empirically. It is not a problem if it is only known and confirmed experientially, because that is good enough for knowledge.
>This is what inspired Kant and the German idealists towards transcendental philosophy. This would not have happened if Hume was just tipping his 18th century fedora.
Kant was not a good interpreter of Hume. His entire project was trying to rescue rationalist metaphysics because, unlike Hume who was happy to be a conventionalist atheist moderate sceptic (or an "18th century fedora" if you want), Kant needed to believe in the primacy of reason in order to secure religion, morality, rationality and basically the entire Enlightenment project as he saw it.
>I find it funny how so many physicalists read this into Hume, because it shows such a gross ignorance of the basic history of western philosophy, and western history in general.
It's even funnier having to reply to someone with a halfbaked reading of Hume only through German idealism. Imagine taking Hume's position to be the Pyrrhonist one he repeatedly criticises throughout the Enquiry! Embarrassing.

>>19176653
>He is precisely justifying logic, genius.

No he isn't, retard. He's trying to justify miracles based on his claim that it is more justifiable than logic. These are his words (brackets mine):
>That [the acceptance of logic] sounds an awful lot like religion [ie. a violation in the laws of nature, and therefore of logic, as stated in the OP], and more than a little like a miracle...
Where from these or his other words any justification of logic?
Unless you are saying that his post is satire. It isn't though, this is actually how christcucks think.

>>19173984
Ah ok, that makes complete sense then

>>19174521
I see what he's saying. No true comparison exists because they are different things. I could explain to the hot-environment person that he himself is solid (mostly) but that if he got enough his flesh would turn to liquid. I would ask him if he's ever noticed his sweat or saliva evaporating and explain why that is, then explain why we would have ice if water got cold enough, but it simply never got cold enough where he lives. I could extrapolate the experience that he himself is aware of to make a plausible path for him to something he might experience but hasn't yet. But that can't be done with a miracle, a miracle is by definition a rebuke of the laws of nature, not merely some new phenomenon that simply has yet to be experienced.

>>19173210

Basing your entire worldview on a falsehood is always a net negative, becuase you do contortions to keep the lie/cope going. The basic problem is that reality itself sucks and apologists justify established religion with secondary observations that prayer has health benefits, human community is great and healthy for the individual organisms, all of which is true. But this still misses the point.

The point is not that human beings should just go along with religion in order to live healthy lives. After all, there are different cultures which clash with each other on account of their differing and arbitrary religious traditions. Rather, human beings must become such that they are able to be fully in the truth of the world (its godlessness) without coping and without killing themselves, i.e. literally become inhuman (and better), without any unintended consequences, of which going to hell is not one, the adults are talking now. That's what has to happen. I don't know much about Nietzsche but I'm guessing that he has observations which are in pretty similar territory.

>>19178170
>This long ass essay

That's probably the most nihilist thing I have ever read on this website, Anon. You sound really depressed.

>>19178170
>the adults are talking now. That's what has to happen.
Why are you talking like a twitter Karen? Being condescending and dismissive doesn't make you more correct

>>19176797
>Er, Hume didn't think anything about eating bread contradicted or disproved the laws of nature

Gosh, you really don't understand his point, do you? As the Stanford article explains:
"There are, [Hume] says, two possible types of arguments, 'demonstrative' and 'probable', but neither will serve. A demonstrative argument produces the wrong kind of conclusion, and a probable argument would be circular..."

"In the Treatise, Hume says that
>if Reason determin’d us, it would proceed upon that principle that instances, of which we have had no experience, must resemble those, of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same.

"For convenience, we will refer to this claim of similarity or resemblance between observed and unobserved regularities as the 'Uniformity Principle (UP)'

"Hume then presents his famous argument to the conclusion that there can be no reasoning behind this principle...

"First, Hume argues that the reasoning cannot be demonstrative, because demonstrative reasoning only establishes conclusions which cannot be conceived to be false. And, he says,
>it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change, and that an object seemingly like those which we have experienced, may be attended with different or contrary effects.

"It is possible, he says, to clearly and distinctly conceive of a situation where the unobserved case does not follow the regularity so far observed..."

Now, please note that it is in *this* section of the Treatise that Hume makes his remark about eating bread:
"The first horn of Hume’s dilemma implies that there cannot be a demonstrative argument to the conclusion of an inductive inference because it is possible to conceive of the negation of the conclusion. For instance, it is quite possible to imagine that the next piece of bread I eat will poison me rather than nourish me."

So, contrary to your claim, Hume did in fact cite the example of eating bread to exemplify and to make his point "that there cannot be a demonstrative argument to the conclusion of an inductive inference."

1/2

2/2

>>19176797
>As explained for the 1000th time, the problem of induction doesn't prevent us from observing regularities in nature that can be classified as laws.

No, it doesn't "prevent" us, and I never claimed that it does.

My claim in this regard tracks the claim of the Stanford article: "But Hume's arguments, if they are correct, have apparently a much more radical consequence than this: They seem to show that the metaphysical problem for induction is insoluble; that there is no objective difference between reliable and unreliable inductions."

Again, your argument, such as it is, fails; it does not even begin to touch the gravamen of my point:

To wit, Hume's argument contra miracles fails when it is judged according to Hume's own standard.

And no, I am not persuaded by your attempt to frame Hume's standard in an artificially narrow fashion, chopping off its feet, as it were, to fit the point you wish to make; rather, what follows from his argument against the logical bases for inductive inferences is the "radical consequence" that "the metaphysical problem for induction is insoluble."

>The no miracles argument succeeds even if one wants to disregard Hume's own standard and argue a radical sceptic position, because such a position destroys the possibility of rationally believing in miracles (or anything in nature). So I'm not even sure what the point of your argument is because it's doubly self-defeating.

You have the idea that I'm concerned to prove something about miracles, and are attacked that imagined argument, although I have never remotely advanced such an argument!

Again - not for the 1000th, but I think at least for the third time - this is my point: Hume's skepticism respecting induction undercuts his argument contra miracles, because the latter argument RESTS on an inductive inference: "the laws of nature."

Bu-bu-but, you say, sadly shaking your head, "the problem of induction doesn't prevent us from observing regularities in nature that can be classified as laws."

No one said it does prevent such observations, mon ami.

But what Hume *did* achieve with his argument "was to show that the metaphysical problem for induction is insoluble; that there is no objective difference between reliable and unreliable inductions."

Iow, on the one hand, Hume deconstructed (if you will) the logic that undergirds the very normal human impulse to make inductive inferences. But then, on the other, he held up the very principle he had deconstructed as a kind of shibboleth contra miracles.

But that will not do -- not so long, that is, as what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

>>19179889
>>19179897
Congratulations, you can post irrelevant pullquotes from an internet search. Please actually respond to my points.

>But what Hume *did* achieve with his argument "was to show that the metaphysical problem for induction is insoluble; that there is no objective difference between reliable and unreliable inductions."
Unless you think there is no possibility to reason about causation - that it is equally reasonable to expect me to fly as it is to fall if I jump off a building - then the metaphysical problem is irrelevant for the no miracles argument, which concerns practical reasoning about testimony.

If someone tells me they turned water into wine, it is still reasonable for me to doubt that this violation of the laws of nature happened, and if we bring the inductive problem into the picture it only poses a problem for whether we can ever know a miracle happened at all.


>You have the idea that I'm concerned to prove something about miracles, and are attacked that imagined argument, although I have never remotely advanced such an argument!
>But then, on the other, he held up the very principle he had deconstructed as a kind of shibboleth contra miracles.
Kek.

Look, if you really think it's impossible to reason based on natural laws then go ahead and walk into traffic, since there can be no reasonable expectation that it will kill you or not.

This is a bizarre radical sceptic move that no-one believes and doesn't even pose a problem for the no miracles argument.

>>19179400
>176 words
>long ass essay

Many such cases. Sad!

>>19172801
Sometimes I thin about the fact how retarded this website is. People are literally braindead. They can't even define anything before arguing. They have no idea how logic works.
Nothing.
WHy does this place even exist? Is this the intellectual elite of our time?
Oh, I know. Elite doesn't waste it's time sitting in front of a screen.

>>19178170
>Basing your entire worldview on a falsehood is always a net negative, becuase you do contortions to keep the lie/cope going
>Basing your entire worldview on a falsehood
So you demarc the world in to false and...true? Care to elaborate, you fucking baboon?

>>19179400
It's two short paragraphs, kys you fucking nigger

>>19172785
Name one (1) miracle that has occurred with legitimate documentary evidence.

>>19180884
The ressurection of Christ

>>19180907
>with legitimate documentary evidence

>>19180918
>show me documents
>NOOOO NOT LIKE THAT

>>19180418

>t. never lied as a child and never experienced the difficulties which crop up once you start lying and have to keep the lie going until it all blows up in your face

>t. doesn't understand the actual point being made, which is that a falsehood anywhere in a given worldview or model of reality (god, according to me) poisons the entire thing, whence a good portion of the suffering in the world (communism is just another species of god, equally in need of banishment from the human condition)

>>19180884
you not being a faggot?

>>19173329
>being so depraved as to attribute beauty to it in order to spare ego death
you wouldn't even know of the concept of "ego death" without religious mendicants who pioneered it as a part of their spiritual practice. further, your insistence that the theistic have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate the existence of God indirectly implies that the materialist-empiricist perspective is inherently correct as a pre-supposition (that the only evidence usable to prove the truth of a thing is physical empirical/material evidence), when that very proposition (that truth exists, or that empirical evidence can point towards a truth, or that your post is "true") is a non-empirical position based upon your own feelings and thoughts, rather than material evidence. pretty cringe brah

>>19172838
We can not observe miracles by empirical means, these things cannot be predicted. Therefore, no man can reliably set about observing a miracle, and so he can *reasonably* claim that they do not exist.

>>19174417
miracles happen all the time today, especially with direct connection to intercession of the saints and Christian holy places. Read "Medical Miracles" by Jacalyn Duffin.

>>19182048
>>19180884
The canonization miracle of St. Marie-Margaret D'youville. Canonized after a Catholic prayed for her intercession with a deadly cancer - led to a medically inexplicable cure of acute myeloid leukemia (deadliest and most aggressive leukemia known to man), after relapse. Currently, that cured woman is the only known long-term survivor in the world, having lived more than 40 years from a condition that typically kills people in 18 months. Testimony declaring that the miracle was medically inexplicable was offered in a single-blind clinical analysis by a secular scholar (PhD hematologist & Canadian Medical Hall of Fame inductee) who only later learned that her contracted testimony was used as proof of miraculous intercession.

>>19180119
>Unless you think there is no possibility to reason about causation - that it is equally reasonable to expect me to fly as it is to fall if I jump off a building -

You're responding to something you're imagining in your head, not anything I've actually written.

>then the metaphysical problem is irrelevant for the no miracles argument, which concerns practical reasoning about testimony.

The logical force of Hume's miracle argument rests entirely on a metaphysical induction: "laws of nature," i.e., the very same kind of inductive inference that Hume critiques in his Treatise.

>Look, if you really think it's impossible to reason based on natural laws then go ahead and walk into traffic, since there can be no reasonable expectation that it will kill you or not.

I have critiqued a metaphysical argument by using another metaphysical argument. I am not interested in miracles, per se. I am not interested in bread, per se. What I am interested in is the *metaphysical* argument Hume made about miracles. Your imagined retort about walking into traffic completely misses the point.

>This is a bizarre radical sceptic move that no-one believes and doesn't even pose a problem for the no miracles argument.

Thankfully I didn't make that move (although that doesn't seem to have stopped you from enthusiastically attacking something I never said or implied).

>>19175039
Logic works until it doesn't

>>19182110
>Marie-Margaret D'youville died in 1771
>Leukemia was first identified in 1827
So you're telling me that a woman was diagnosed with a specific type of leukemia, at minimum decades after she died, presumably based on written evidence, and this is somehow proof that a miracle happened. Spoiler alert: people make up shit all the time, and if you have no physical basis on which to make a diagnosis, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

>>19172785
What a baselss assertion
t. doesn't believe in miracles

>>19184551
baseless*

>>19181543
1.Decribe to me what a true, religion-free world means?
2.Decribe to me what is a "non-coping person"?