AB,
I truly believe they are valid arguments. I can't understand why you say they are not valid.
Why not? I explain to you various logical fallacies and I show you where you’ve fallen into those logical fallacies. Your then routinely ignore the problem.
What’s odd is that at some level I suspect you do have some understanding at least of fallacious reasoning – you wouldn’t for example accept as true claims I made about leprechauns if I justified them with the same fallacies you try to justify your claim “god” because you’d see where my reasoning is wrong. Yet somehow you think the same wrong arguments are legitimate when used to justify your faith beliefs.
Why is that?
I truly believe in the evidence I give. I can't understand how you can dismiss it.
You haven’t provided any evidence. What you post are
claims, but not evidence. It’s all “whats” and no “whys”. Perhaps the problem here is that you don’t understand the difference?
If, say, you asked me to justify with evidence my claim “leprechauns” and I replied, “the existence of rainbows is evidence for leprechauns having somewhere to leave their gold, therefore leprechauns” you’d recognise that as not evidence at all wouldn’t you. And yet your claims to having evidence for “god” are just as wrong.
Can you see why?
Validation of miracles involves looking at realistic probabilities or improbabilities.
“Validation of miracles” actually involves arriving at a “don’t know” for your explanation of an observed phenomenon, and then diving headlong into “therefore miracle” with no connecting reasoning to get you there. How on earth would you even begin to assign probabilities either to a materialist but unknown explanation, let alone to a (supposed) supernatural event?
I believe that God's miracles come about by intentional manipulation of forces and elements to bring about a desired result.
I know you do, but I don’t know
why you believe that and, so far at least, you haven’t provided the valid arguments you claimed to have to tell us.
Any scientific investigation will identify what appear to be "chance" events which just happen to coincide with prayers.
Actually basic logic will tell you that. The plural of anecdote isn’t evidence, which is why you need larger sample sets to arrive at meaningful conclusions.
[quotye]To explain further:…[/quote]
Oh-oh…
If I won the national lottery, it would be regarded as a chance event.
If I won it twice in succession, it may be regarded as perhaps a freak occurrence, but still just attributed to random unintended events.
If I won it every week for the rest of my life no one could possibly attribute it entirely to random unintended events.
1. But that’s a false analogy. If religious types prayed for critically ill people and week after week the prayed for ones recovered and the not prayed for ones died you might have point. That’s not what happens though is it?
2. Actually dumb luck does lead to multiple very unlikely events. Here for example:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/31/harvard-prof-on-odds-of-winning-multiple-lotteries-like-these-people.htmlEven a cursory knowledge of statistics will tell you that very unlikely things happen all the time.
The succession of apparently random unintended, but essential events needed to bring us into existence far exceeds the improbable odds of me winning the national lottery every week. It offers undeniable evidence for the hand of God being intimately involved throughout time to create and sustain life as we know it. We are all living proof of God's miraculous work.
No, it offers only undeniable evidence that you’re too dim-witted or too dishonest to address your circular reasoning mistake here. I’ve explained it to you several times and each time you’ve ignored the explanation. I’ll do it again if you like, but only if you agree to address it this time – otherwise there’s no point.
See above
See above.
