Another strawman . Let me try make it simple for you
I am not arguing A or B are true/false. We cannot prove either
I'm saying that one hypothesis fits the data a lot better than the other , basic statistics
Let's say hypothetically there was a magic fruit. 0.0000002% of all accounts show that it gives you superpowers , and the rest say it kills you
Now there's no real way to prove what's going to happen until you eat it, but your hypothesis should favour not eating it as this fits the data better
Side note
Imagine if we could democratically elect a god. I'm hoping people would choose me, because I will actually help those in need (as would anyone else with a bit of common sense)
Current god is not doing much for those in poverty lol
Another line of reasoning
P1: Animals are sentient beings
P2: it is cruel to needlessly harm a sentient beings
P3: Jesus permits such cruelty, even when he is able to stop it (see quote about pigs)
C1: Jesus is cruel
And if you don't think animals are sentient, have a read / google search
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...eclaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending?amp
https://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-sentience.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness
1. You have a round-the-bush way of saying exactly what I think you are trying to say. You are implying not arguing.
Unfortunately the way you construct the hypothesis is flawed. You are dealing with two different categories of events:
- one is meta-physical
- one are natural events.
The scientific method by its very design only is able to investigate the latter.
So your hypothesis is flawed, it cannot include/consider miracles as part of it.
However the fundamental conclusion is also flawed.
P1: Scientific method is the only way we study/prove things (postulate)
P2: Most things happen according to laws of nature. (undisputed fact)
C1: Miracles probably didn't happen or we shouldn't believe in them (to account for the unclarity on what you are actually trying to acheive)
P1 is presumptious, it presumes that all there is, is the laws of nature, which is the result; or uses the implausibility fallacy.
For instance, your example isn't great because it introduces factors, such as risk of death/consequence, which in the miracles/laws of nature logic of reasoning doesn't have.
It is inherently biased/skewed towards a particular outcome.
Lets use a more neutral example:
Lets suppose for some $\varepsilon >0$ cases, in a total population of $N$ where $N$ is massive, there exists a disease with two symptoms.
For 99.999999% of people, they have the symptom of X
For the remaining 0.000001% of people, they have the symptom of Y.
Now of course your hypothesis for a finite small sample of N, would favour symptom X.
But now let me demonstrate the inherit problem. What actually is your sample size? If N is sufficiently small, then yes you are going to have problems.
But what if N tends to infinity? When we consider the number of events since the inception of the universe, it would some really really large unimaginable number. And there lies the problem. The methology appears to be problematic.
We have two categories:
A - meta physical
B - physical
C - subset of physical $C \subset B$
====
(On your side note: actually you wouldn't. If you had the undiluted power to, you would use it for yourself. Why do you think the issue of poverty exists in the first place?
Because of humanity. But tangent of course.
Also God is doing more, in the sense that many have hope of eternal life to come, that is certain and sure; and a sense of happiness/purpose that giving them money cannot achieve.
)
=====
lets suppose P1 is well-defined.
So sentient: able to perceive or feel things.
P2 is the faulty premise.
How do you prove that something is needless? Ignorance about purpose or assertion that there is a purpose, is a poor justification, to claim "needless".
How do you define cruel?
Both of these are unscientific questions, these are subjective opinions. If you don't believe that God exists, obviously you will think that everything he does, that isn't what you would/wouldn't do is needless.
P3: Just to throw a question, in your ethics/line of reasoning.
Are pigs > humans?
The context of that quote, ironically Jesus has just freed a man from being enslaved/possessed by demonic spirits.
But widenning the context to see the underlying issue
Q: Why does God allow evil/suffering if he is able to stop it?
C2: If he doesn't stop it and he allows it, he must be cruel.
I summarise P3 & C1 with C2, and I reject C2. (that is the link between P3 to C1 needs further justification)
And this is where I think your side note, actually sheds some light.
We approach God, with a list of demands and expectations:
Q Line of reasoning
We expect God to work in X manner (miracles/dreams, speak to us directly, heal sick people, fix poverty - all in the one mega-category) for instance.
Or if I were God (I would do this, this and this).
And so when he doesn't operate in that way, we conclude he doesn't exist, or that he must be a jerk or not a very powerful God.
1. Why is God under any obligation to do anything extraordinary for his humans/animals?
2. What do you think the purpose of the miracles (I would include both sides of the 'demon-possessed man & the pigs story) is to demonstrate?
Why do you think he allowed it?
lets give the classic example
https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
"For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.
Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person.
I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him.
Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.
If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.
What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible."
So I have highlighted in red, what I think is the fundamental problem with the line of reasoning. Several issues:
1. Does God answer every prayer with yes? No, but they assume yes.
2. Does God work in miracles? Most of the time he actually doesn't; when there is a miracle it serves a particular purpose.
To address the rationalizations used:
# (1)
problematic rationalisation used by the theist
God's plan is not some much in the scope of healing. The emphasis in the Scriptures is on the preaching of the good news of the kingdom.
(1A): God's plan was ultimately to send Jesus, to die on a cross and rise again; so that we could actually be friends with God.
There is a sense which this plan was both accomplished then and there, but also is still being accomplished.
Miracles in the Bible weren't just random acts of kindness by God, or party-tricks (God just showing off), they were signs (even the demon-possessed man & pigs instance) were signs, to show, there were designed to point forward to the character of God, but especially the ones in the New Testament, to the character of Christ.
Also the miracles were very specific, related and linked to prophecies about, in this pattern: when X happens, then situation Y has begun.
aside: If God were to do as you wished, heal all people and heal poverty, then the end of the world indeed would come; and the time for all to give an account is then or as Christians call it "J-day or judgement day".
#(2) The rationalization quoted is over-simplied, see (1A)
#(3)-(5) I reject these rationalization as well, although for different reasons. I think they are inheritant misleading.
#(6) I would agree with the logic behind the original rationalization. I would question again, why such demands on God to work instantly by the respondant.
#(7) Rationalization is faulty
#(8) It is not just amputees. In fact in most of cases, a lot of particular diseases. To make that argument of the respondant work, you have to reject rationalization #(6) and (1A).
Jesus never promises healing in this life.
#(9) Scripture out of context.
# (10) Wouldn't use that one.
# (11) I get why the respondant feels that way. But if there really is no way of knowing the answer to that question, how can the respondant claim God is imaginary?
Yes, the Bible doesn't mention amputees, or cancer or a lot of diseases. Again what is the purpose of a healing in the Bible or a miraculous sign? (hint 'sign')
Side Note 1:
All will be given new bodies at the resurrection, and only Godly character will carry on.
Side note 2:
When Jesus teaches about prayer, the gifts he focuses on, aren't material gifts (contra prosperity preaching), miracles; but actually the Holy Spirit.
Our Father in Heaven ==> A statement of faith to be adopted into God's family, only possible by the Spirit.
hallowed be your name ==> let God's name be honoured. Only God's name be honoured by his Spirit.
your will be done ==> Christ to suffer and die, only possible by God.
on earth as in heaven ==> Already done in heaven
give us today our daily bread ==> Provide for our needs, but in Luke's account, seems to refer more closely to the Holy Spirit
forgive us our sins...
Side note 3:
When James teaches about prayer. Praying for the sick person, that would be saved and raised up (at the last day).
