On Sep 6th, 1946, an Airliner flying from New York to San Francisco unfortunately crashed,
killing everybody onboard except a two-year-old baby boy called Peter Link… therefore, an
all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful god impregnated a virgin with himself, so that
he could later sacrifice himself to himself to save you from a sin that you didn’t personally
commit… makes sense right?
Jokes aside, The Argument from Miracles is one the most requested videos that you’ve
asked for, and so, here it is – the Argument from Miracles – Debunked.
So lets begin, as we always do, by clearly presenting the argument.
Simply stated, the Argument from Miracles asserts that the occurrence of miracles prove
that a very specific god exists (normally being a variation of the Abrahamic god), and
it defines a miracle as, “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by
natural or scientific laws, and is therefore attributed to divine agency.”
Or, in the eternal words of David Hume, “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature”,
and as such, it’s necessarily supernatural… it’s an intentional supernatural intervention.
A few examples of asserted miracles include: Jesus Christ rising from the dead; Muhammad
splitting the moon; Moses parting the Red Sea; Zeus defeating Cronus; Thor defeating
the Frost-Giants; Statues of Ganesha drinking milk offerings; And of course, the classic
almighty creator of the universe imprinting himself upon some dude’s toast… because,
you know, reasons…
Now there are only really two ways to refute a miraculous claim; the first is to address
the specific miracle being asserted; and the second is to address miracles as a whole.
The problem with the first approach, is that even if you’re able to debunk the assertion
and convince the proponent that they’re mistaken, the mode of thought that caused
them to believe in the miracle in the first place remains, and so they’ll almost certainly
ram another miraculous claim down your throat within seconds, normally primed with the words
“okay… well what about this miracle?”
But if, on the other hand, you’re able to successfully convince the proponent that “extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence”, and that no amount of anecdotal testimonies
would ever be enough to prove that a certain miracle actually happened, you would’ve
essentially chopped the tree at its roots, and in doing so, likely purged their religious
beliefs entirely (let alone their belief in miracles)… and that, my friends, is actually
the problem…
Miracles are to religion what pens are to paper – they are predicated on one-another,
and so the chances of you convincing a proponent that as of yet not a single suspension of
the laws of nature has been scientifically documented, is remarkably slim, but hell to
it – let’s give it a go anyway!
So the first flaw to reveal, in my not so humble opinion, is that the vast majority
of miracles wouldn’t prove the existence of a god even if they were indeed true…
Or in other words, they don’t support theism.
For example, even if it were unimpeachably true that a man called Jesus resurrected,
this would not, in the slightest, prove that the universe had a creator!
Nor would prove that Jesus turned water into wine; that he healed the blind; that he walked
on water; or that he was born of a virgin… all it would prove is that a man called Jesus
respawned, and that he had terrible lag, because it took him three days!
Likewise, even if it was unimpeachably proven that Peter Link was indeed saved by a divine
intervention, it would not logically follow that a man called Jesus resurrected… nor
would it logically follow that a man called Muhammad split the moon, or that a god called
Zeus defeated Cronus… this just isn’t how logic works… but unfortunately – most
proponents of miracles implicitly do think that this is how logic works, and to demonstrate
this, here’s but one example from Frank Turek: “And if it is true that Jesus really
did come and say and do the things that the New Testament writers say he did, then whatever
he teaches is true because if he rose from the dead he was god; [No] if he taught that
there will be an intervention then there will be [No]; that’s the argument – I don’t
have time to support it [I bet you don’t].
Anyhow, to reiterate, even if true, the vast majority of miracles wouldn’t prove the
existence of a god, let alone the existence of a very specific interpretation of a very
specific god.
With this acknowledged, the second and perhaps most obvious flaw with miracles is that they
almost always commit either an Argument from Ignorance or a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.
To illustrate this, consider the following: Throughout history there have been numerous
accounts of flightiness animals raining from the sky – and needless to say, on just about
every occasion, someone somewhere has asserted that a miracle has occurred, because, “there’s
no other explanation”.
Now of course, it’s fair to say that flightless animals don’t just fall from the sky, but
one can’t simple assert that a miracle has occurred simply because there’s “no other
explanation”… that would be, and is, an outrageous Argument form Ignorance!
It is, in essence, “we don’t know, therefore god”.
Anyhow, as it turns out, we now actually do have an adequate explanation (which, by the
way, perfectly demonstrates why Arguments from Ignorance are flawed).
This explanation is, quite simply, a tornado that’s formed over a body of water (otherwise
known as a waterspout), that’s then hurled water and aquatic animals over land… it’s
is a bazar phenomenon, incredible even, but it’s not a miracle, because it doesn’t
violate the laws of nature.
Yet, despite the fact that we now know exactly how flightless animals can rain from the sky,
many people still assert that the only explanation is divine intervention, because they either
don’t personally know about waterspouts, or they don’t understand them, which, as
you may or may not know, isn’t an Argument from Ignorance, but rather, it’s a Personal
Incredulity Fallacy.
And this brings us comfortably to a necessary question that is extremely effective at exposing
a third fallacy that ravishes miraculous assertions – this question is, “how exactly can we
distinguish a miracle from an unlikely natural occurrence that we are yet to comprehend?”
It’s a very simple question, but it’s a brilliant one (if I do say so myself) – because
it forces the proponent to bare their Burden of Proof rather than allowing them to shift
it to you by appealing to ignorance.
It indirectly emphasizes that they are the one asserting that an event has violated the
laws of nature, not you, and so they bare the burden to prove this.
And if they can’t, and instead they either attempt to shift the Burden of Proof to you,
or they simply appeal to ignorance – then guess what – their assertion is unsubstantiated,
and therefore their argument is too – meaning that it’s game over; no ifs, not buts, it’s
over.
And finally, the last aspect of miracles we’ll briefly cover is low-hanging but incredibly
popular fruit that is faith healers… or more accurately, reprehensible charlatans!
To do this, I’m going to show you a clip from Darren Brown’s Miracles For Sale, which
is a fantastic show that I highly recommend: If you are in here and you are hard of hearing,
I want you to come up here – you, come up here.
You hard of hearing?
This man says he’s partially death in one ear, which pastor Shaun is quick to express
as a more major affliction.
You can’t here nothing?
Oh my god!
Somebody shout ‘be open’!
Be open!
After the healing moment it seems like something miraculous has occurred.
To prove that the death man’s ear had been healed pastor Shaun had him face away so he
couldn’t lip read and had his assistant block his good ear – but from this camera
angle you can see that the man’s good ear isn’t being blocked at all.
So maybe it’s not such a miracle.
Now the point of me showing you this clip is to predominantly point out two additional
fallacies that are rampant in miraculous claims.
The first is the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy, which occurs when pastor Shaun manipulates
both the recipient’s and the crowd’s emotions by shouting and invoking their deeply held
beliefs; and the second is the Anecdotal Fallacy, which occurs after the show when a crowd member
asserts that they witnessed a miracle, when they didn’t… the charlatan simply lied
about the extent of the recipient’s condition and then presented evidence of things that
the recipient could already do as if he couldn’t…
Now we could go on here, but I’m going to save Faith Healers for an entire video later
down the line.
Until then, if you want more information, be sure to checkout Darren Brown’s content
– he’s simply marvelous!
So, to recap, the Arguments from Miracles is flawed because: Even if true, the vast
majority of miracles don’t support theism, let alone a specific religion; Most commit
either an Argument from Ignorance or a Personal Incredulity Fallacy; Most attempt to shift
the Burden of Proof, and; Many, but not all, commit an Appeal to Emotion and / or an Anecdotal
Fallacy.
Now just before we conclude, I have a few awesome announcements to make!
The first is that I have this brand new laptop, which has been half paid for by myself, and
half by my very generous patrons – and so I just want to say an enormous thank you – this
beast makes editing much more enjoyable for me – so thank you.
Seriously, thank you very very much.
And the second announcement is that there are three winners to this month’s giveaway
rather than one, to makeup for the fact that I’ve been a bit remiss over the last few
months – sorry, by the way.
The first book is The Origin of Species, and by random draw it goes to Cosmic Skeptic – congratulations…
you’ve probably got this book; and the second book is Predictably Irrational, and it goes
to Joseph Walsh – congratulations bud, one of my first patrons, thank you very much Sir;
and the third book is Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion – classic (which you’ve probably
all got), anyhow, the winner is Benjamin Marty.
Congrats bud, also someone who’s been with me for a long time.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and this time I’m going to leave you
with some of the most impactful words I’ve ever heard on the topic of miracles, and they
come from one my favorite people on this planet, Matt Dillahunty – enjoy!
Your position, to the extend that I understand it (because I haven’t got kind of a straight
answer yet) is one where there is a god who has an important message for mankind, and
somehow he only reveals it to certain individuals, who then write this down, and thousands of
years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations
of copies by anonymous authors with no originals, and a textual testimony to a miracle, for
example the loaves and fishes; there’s no amount of reports - anecdotal testimonial
reports - that could be sufficient to justify believing that this event actually happened
as reported.
No amount.
And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this, and if it wanted
to convey this information to people in a way that was believable, would not be relying
on text to do so, and this for me is the nail in the coffin for Christianity."