Sigh, I've been having these kinds of discussions a long time now. Why do I still get duped like this? I want my time back.

No.

Stop spin doctoring.

Christianity is about justifying it's reasons for contempt of the liberty of individuals. It preaches that people should be slaves to a master.

Nice apologist word salad, there.

Why take 13 words of obfuscation to communicate "sinners are condemned" ?

And the KKK doesn't threaten white supremacists. But, much like the KKK, Christians are a militant group of bigots.

We have civil liberties that your scriptures would wish to punish people or put them to death for, and then wish for an afterlife of eternal suffering for them, after their death.

That's the problem with cults and sects like yours. And why humanity is steadily evolving away from such dogma.

The focus isn't on individuals like you, who are so off the deep end. You'll die off soon enough.

The focus is on the moderates, and the ones who haven't been completely brainwashed by this insidious agenda of bigoted, fascist, totalitarianism.

You all desperately project a 'unified front', but you're not, actually.

Your different 'divisions' are in conflict amongst yourselves over morals and ethics, because people like to cherry pick, what resonates with them, and reject what doesn't, which undermines the whole 'crusade' against the ones who can live together in a mostly civil fashion, without living out a 2000 yr old comic book fantasy. 

You people never were, and never will be the pinnacle of moral development. That cat's been out of the bag for millenia.

Christians are joint heirs with Christ by adoption. We cry out "Abba", which is like saying "Daddy" in English. (Romans 8:15-18)

do you have for believing the assertion outlined above? It's in an old book and you accept it as an undeniable truth about reality? You can imagine how improbable it sounds. The master of the universe is your daddy. I really don't know what to say.

Personally, I prefer to be a direct descendant of the first RNA threads on the planet, a creature who's ancestry includes chemical as well as biological antecedents. My history, Wows, is firmly anchored to this planet and the history of life on earth.

Meanwhile, your assertions, utterly devoid of proof as they are, make no conceivable headway.  

Who said anything about undeniable other than you? I didn't... And I base my beliefs on the resurrection of Jesus.

Okay...If you prefer that, that's fine and I don't deny my "biological antecedents" either.

The "proof" is in the person of Jesus.

I feel this thread has died because no one (including me) is posting per the OP anymore... It's devolved so something else. So unless someone wants to post something of substance related to the OP, I think I'm going to let this rest.

Yea I'll give this one more go myself:

A tautology is 'always true', in that all its rows in its truth table are true. A statement is valid, if when the premises are true, then so is the conclusion (and false otherwise). Since both 'true ⇒ true' and 'false ⇒ false' has in all its rows 'true', then all tautologies are valid.

And for one, I'm saying, within your second, conclusive possibility you are simply restating the necessity that is your 2nd premise. You must have missed one of my earlier rebuttals:

Let me try one more time: supposing you never told us merely that your grandmother was healed, but instead out of the clear blue the first and only thing you said to us instead was, "It's possible God healed my grandmother", or "It's possible Advil stopped my headache". Even if I don't believe in a god, much less one that heals, am I supposed to take from what you said, that your grandmother didn't heal, and your headache didn't stop? If you knew your grammar, you'd know you don't distribute the quantifier 'possible' across your sentence like that. You ARE saying those things happened.

Secondly, I realize you cannot generalize a particular, no. But we are talking about a hypothetical sentient being with capabilities, right? Then if there is a being who is capable of healing one, then that being should in general be capable of healing many, yes?

But I have 2 other problems: you're using the word possible. Which is why the following seems to work:

If it's possible that god healed one person, it's possible god heals, in general. Which leads me to my other problem, way below:

Which is what I've been saying. Your tautology is valid, but useless. Again, I'll explain way below:

Again, I apologize for my lack of research. I mean, I believe you when you say that you find options T (teapot) and U (unicorn) too unlikely to posit, hell much less F (flying sp. monster), but G (god) and N (nature) as worthy considerations. I just didn't realize you had eliminated options A, B, C, D, ..., A₂, A₃, ... etc.... already, as you say you 'precluded' these others, right?

How/why did you preclude other possibilities? On what grounds? (Btw, teapot and unicorns are already "mitigated", no need to bring those up again).

I'm having trouble reading this, are you saying that b/c modern medicine is usually so useful and 'awesome' that if there is one instance it hasn't worked or given our understanding of modern medicine we weren't able to see a natural cause, then it must most likely be something else i.e. god? Disregarding the false dichotomy, all this means is that our knowledge thus far i.e. modern medicine of nature wasn't able to work in this instance. Nothing more.

If by 'found' you mean, the opportunity to have found a natural cause had been passed up b/c the cancer/disease or whatever has already passed, in this one instance, then yes you are correct, it's unlikely to be found for this one instance.

That doesn't mean the cause was less likely to be natural, and if other rare events like that are found to have been caused naturally in the future, then parsimoniously natural cause was the most likely in this instance.

Until then, you either have 'I don't know' or the only possibility that has worked best thus far, is a natural cause. Remember, track record.

No, it means you have a confident model that explains a large sample of circumstances, but not the outlier circumstance (which is why, in science, models are never 'absolutely true' anyway - there's always a possibility it's wrong, even slightly, for some reason; why we can only be confident). The outlier should then be prone to further investigation, not "x did it" with no regard to an intent on investigation or being open to others' investigation of it. Nothing was 'mitigated'. It's just an open question, nothing more.

Good example: Newton's theory of gravity had a lot of confidence backing it up, b/c when applied to the world it worked... until applied to the orbit of mercury, an outlier in this case. Many considered Newton's theory 'normal', up until then and even afterward. Mercury didn't 'happen against a greater confidence' - that would be absurd. It means there is clearly doubt in what one considers normal, or there should be such doubt unless you're ignorant or uneducated.

Then, Einstein came along: his General theory of Relativity, a model of gravity, accurately predicts Mercury's orbit. See how further investigation yields its rewards?

Oh, so 'practicing your religion in light of rare events' is not one of your "mitigating" factors? OK, I was mistaken.

Tell me, do you believe rare events happen naturally at all? If so, what's the difference when you can't tell?

Remember when far up above, I twice said 'explain way below'? Keep going:

No, I'm not:

Asking for the causal mechanism for how the jar fell, is different from asking for the causal mechanism for how the cat knocked the jar off the shelf. I don't need to know the anatomy of a cat, to know how the jar ended up on the floor.

The good thing about science: is answered questions lead to more questions. What you're confusing, either unintentionally or intentionally to obfuscate the thread, is the research based on prior research i.e. jumping the gun. Again, you fail to understand scientific concepts.

You again fail on science. First off, I don't know if you're being disingenuous or just didn't think of it, but 'miraculous cures' happen, allegedly, all the time. People from all over the world, even in developed countries, claim cancer and other problems, were miraculously cured. There is enough variation and distribution throughout the world to investigate these events as an observational science.

Second of all, what makes complex, particular circumstances prone to investigation, is their relation to many repeatable phenomena. Your examples can be 'reverse engineered', if you will, due to how we understand how they were built up. Battle of Waterloo, through the time and social events occurring. The Challenger disaster, due to how we build shuttles. (Which is why your two examples are crappy analogies, but I digress).

Even if the entire event itself is not so similar to other situations due to its complexity, the 'pieces' making it up, usually are. They're prone to investigation. You don't need all the 'controls good repeatable tests [have]' to investigate historical/particular events.

Battles and explosions, in general, are prone to cursory investigation anyway, so why wouldn't miracles be in general?

Never said they were. There's a lot we still can't predict, but can investigate scientifically.

And it is normally the case that people have an abnormal misunderstanding of science, too. I doubt rare events are ever 'recognized' as miracles, but are supposed to be. Again, what's the difference, between a genuinely rare event and a miracle?

Yes, but again, not finding it doesn't mean it wasn't there. So what? Just going to shrug your shoulders and be like, 'thor did it!' when the lightning strikes?

OK we are in agreement... just b/c you didn't find it, doesn't mean it wasn't there right? And that doesn't mean you must insert an arbitrary hypothesis, right? No? Oh ok:

With all due respect, both events are only 'weighty' toward religion, to you and your family, most likely due to a lack of understanding of science and the necessity of peer reviewed, repeatable demonstration. But here is the punchline, the problem I see, that I've been putting off: you keep saying it's possible god heals. As if that means anything. This is, in some sense, why your syllogism is virtuously tautologous: it's b/c you haven't demonstrated either possibility, much less your premise. Yes, it's possible god heals: evidence? Yes, it's possible god was involved in your grandmother's healing: evidence? Yes, anything is possible: so what?

And as for your jesus claims: damn it all I didn't see this sooner.

Again, granting there was a man in Palestine about 2000 years ago who actually rose from the dead, so what? Let's say this jesus creature is a historically real person, verified; what evidence is there for this god of yours that heals? That it was god in this instance? For all we know, it was another outlier. Again I'm not arguing with you the historicity of jesus. It's just irrelevant to this god hypothesis, who allegedly heals. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, then much of Christianity may still be a fluke. Or any amount of it may.

You need evidence to connect the dots of all the myriad claims of christianity, much less, "jesus, who rose from the dead, was real "and "it's possible god can heal". Or in general, for that matter. Even if this jesus character was 'healed' in being raised from the dead, that still does not suggest a god who can heal.

You were surrounded by many people putting Jesus stuff in your head and therefore would be suseptible to explaning events in your life to this religion. If you were in chanai, you might honor a Hindu god. I have read just such stories. The other part of this after the accident you started looking for things to attribute to your god. People have a sixth sense about others. We evolved that way. We pick up clues from others and can tell them stuff they are impressed by. I have had it done to me and also done it to others and not in a religious context. You have to believe first is just falling into self-fulfilling prophecy, extremely common for humans.

on the literary historical method (aka, the bible) then my original point still stands? jesus is true, you clearly believe. You could direct me to non-biblical sources that reveal him?

Have a safe trip, btw. 

Circular arguments are not valid, even if they are tauta

I cannot infer a general possibility from a necessary particular. "My grandmother was healed" does not imply "it is possible that God heals". The facts are that my headache stopped and that my grandmother was healed. The possibility of whatever general belief is  being stated is formulated independently, prior to the the particular case of my headache and my grandmother's healing. "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache" is not the same as "Advil stopped my headache". "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache." is stated as a conclusion from the two aforementioned premises after the events take place. Of course you wouldn't say it it, but reasoning is from the general belief to a particular. To me, this is really kind of a moot point, because it seems to be trivializing the the inference. Even if the only thing ever stated was the conclusion, the conclusion follows the pattern of a categorical syllogism.

A particular is still not enough to make the general statement... You'd need more than that to formulate a more general belief with any kind of confidence.

The causal connection was established by praying to the Christian God. The inference from this God. If there is another god healing on the Christian God's behalf, then it creates a Gettier Problem. And unless you want to propose that there is some other causal agent involved, then by all means propose it as a genuine option.

False dichotomy? There's the natural option, and there is the supernatural option... Do you have another? If one wanted to suppose that God worked through natural means, then I don't think there would be any reason to infer God then because the cause is natural.

Modern medicine has more knowledge as to what natural causes there are. Given this, it makes the inference to God less likely because the probability for finding a natural cause is higher. That's all.

But "this one instance" is the matter at hand. I'm not trying to make a general belief, but a particular belief about a particular event. If there is a natural cause is found in other instances in the future, then one would need to search for patience of a previously similar states to look for the same natural cause. In that case, I'd be more than willing to recant that it was possible that God healed her.

"I don't know" does not fit the facts though. It requires a revision or reinterpretation of the the facts to make the "I don't know" compatible. I think any such attempts are likely to result in circumstantial ad hominem fallacies though.

Open questions are fine when one is doing scientific investigation using reproducible tests and creating predictable models. Outliers (the precession of Mercury, etc) in these tests are either affirmed as error or something of an anomaly that requires further investigation. I'm willing to grant the possibility of a natural cause and leaving the question open. But "I don't know" is not a valid inference given the rest of the facts though.

Rare events do happen naturally. But I'm not inferring they are miracles either.

But that's precisely what was being said...that is, without a plausible mechanism, the explanation is not valid even if the inference to the cause is. I think what's happening is you and others are attempting to use science were science does not tread, which is an abuse of science.

I'd agree, there's a lot of alleging going around. I don't know that I'd would consider miracles, even alleged miracles, to be observational science as there does not seem to be anything scientific about miracles. At the end of the day, what kind of predictions could be made about such things? What kind of testable models could be constructed? I don't know of any such things.... The most research that has been done has been on the effects of prayer on healing, but even this I don't think is that relevant to miracles.

But my concern is not with other alleged miracles, but the one at hand, and I'm staying open to the possibility of a natural explanation. I do not know the circumstances of other miracles, and as I said earlier, the further one is removed from it, the less weighty it becomes to that person. A personal healing such as the one with my grandmother is very compelling to those closest to her, but to ones that don't believe in God or don't even know her, it probably carries no weight at all.

"Reverse engineering" is what I'm talking about: ascertaining the facts of the matter and making to best inference from the facts. But given this, testable models about explosions might explain how it blew up, but they themselves are not the explosion. Ascertaining the events leading up to a battle would be no different. Miracles better fit this model in that one looks for the pieces and infers the best explanation from them.

Investigating things scientifically is to ascertain facts to support a hypothesis and the like. I think it is the difference between finding the remains of a dinosaur to support the general theory of evolution verses the particulars of that dinosaurs life. History would be the latter, while science would be the former.

The difference is the circumstances surrounding it. In the case of my grandmother, there was people praying for her healing because they believed God could heal, then she was healed. A rare event very well could be a miracle, but it is likely that it would go unrecognized as one.

But you're trying to turn into some thing of science, which is where I think you are erring...

I grant that... I'm open to the possibility there was a natural explanation. I've said that numerous times...

I have reasons to believe that Thor didn't do it... I understand how lightning works and others.

I think we agree. I'm not trying to insert an arbitrary hypothesis. I'm trying to ascertain the best explanation for the facts.

I was mitigating the probability that it was natural. I think the best inference in that case is to God given the facts. As I said, the weightiness of such things is only to those closest to. My problem with statements like "most likely due to a lack of understanding of science and the necessity of peer reviewed, repeatable demonstration." is that such things are circumstantial ad hominems and what I think to be an abuse of science rather than a use of science.

Among many other things, I don't find the Christian claims to be a "myriad". I think they are enumerable, but not something that is reducible to sound bytes. But you're not going to find such things in scientific journals. You'll have to read historical research on Jesus' resurrection -- and there is plenty of it too.

Glad you had a good, safe trip.

Not that I'll eventually have any option in the coming days anyway as I'll no longer have access to internet, but I can't see myself posting too many more replies unless substantial progress is made. I just figured it was possible you would get my argument based on truth tables, but I guess I shouldn't take possibilities too seriously.

I believe, that what you're saying is invalid, is not what you probably think is invalid. When you say circular arguments are invalid, you're actually referring to something else - the use of a circular argument - as invalid. I'll explain:

Would you call 'P' = "A ⇒ A" a circular argument?

How about, 'Q' = "(A ⇒ A) ⇒ A"?

Before proceeding, may I suggest you fill out a truth table on paper to both of these well formed formulas (wff).

In fact, don't even skim my reply yet, just do the tables before moving on.

Now, don't look at the answer.

The answer will be posted below.

I think you should fill their truth tables out, before seeing the answer.

Here is the answer:

P should be filled with 1's (or T's, or whatever symbol you use for truth)

Q should be T where A is, and F otherwise.

P is: a tautology, valid, a circular argument. P is just an argument, a statement, perhaps in an attempt to argue something.

Q is: not a tautology, invalid, circular reasoning. As an attempt to convince others that A is true, Q is an invalid argument. But as far as wff's go, P is certainly a valid statement. It's valid, b/c the conclusion is not false when the premise is. Because they are the same.

Circular reasoning is fallacious, b/c it's use in an essay is technically of the form, Q.

P, all by itself however, is ok, just useless.

In case you don't like symbolic logic: circular reasoning, such as Q, is where the implication of a statement from itself, implies itself; which is fallacious and invalid.

A circular argument, such as P, is where a statement merely implies itself, which is actually valid. It's just a reiteration, bland in my example but usually and confusingly not as such in others' failed arguments, which on its own doesn't 'hurt' anything.

And btw, just so we're clear, I'm not saying what you said was invalid. I know you're not saying anything like Q, you're not using your whole argument to express anything further.

Get it now?

And I know you'll disagree with me that your statement was circular, but possibly more on that some other time.

I never did either. Why was this brought up?

No one ever said that, no one ever said anything about one premise implying the other. Why was this brought up?

No one said they were the same. Why was this brought up?

Particular examples of a general statement, are implied i.e. reasoned, by the general statement. There I said it, and I never disagreed with this to begin with.

In regards to what you're specifically responding to above:

Hey everyone (who's still reading any of this, if you are kudos then as per the above complaints from others):

I want to conduct a little test here at the forum, one that surveys others' ability to translate a given sentence into a more concrete, explicit, drawn out form. Hey maybe I don't understand grammar myself, and I'll retract the statement with which I first engaged with you, Wowzers1!

1) It's possible the ice caused me to fall.

   A) It's definitely the case I fell, and it's possible ice could have been the cause.

   B) It's possible I fell, and it's possible ice could have been the cause.

2) It's possible the faucet dripping was the noise I heard last night.

   A) It's definitely the case I heard a noise, and it's possible water dripping was the originator.

   B) It's possible I heard a noise, and it's possible water dripping could have been the originator.

3) It's possible the storm shut the computer and lights down.

   A) The electricity definitely went out, and it's possible the storm caused it to happen.

   B) It's possible the electricity went out, and it's possible the storm could have caused it to happen.

Here are my answers:

1) A

2) A

3) A

Guys, what are yours?

OK, I understand it may look to you like I made such a claim, but I didn't quite say such:

And what I'm telling you, is that you did bring more to formulate. You're the one throwing around possibilities like they mean anything. Saying something is possible, is meaningless as something substantial. It might be an indicator for a hypothesis, but nothing evident. This is pretty much why, a possibly true generality is inferred from a possibly true particular. B/c it's all possible.

What I just said, is not actually equivalent to, in general, 'generalities being implied by particulars'. And neither is equivalent to, 'possible generalities being implied by necessary particulars'. I'm saying these 3 statements are not equivalent.

Get it now?

I think A -> A would be circular if one was arguing using something like this... i.e. If God Exists, then God Exists. This is a tautology and the conclusion is assuming the original position.

Here's the formulation in symbolic notation.

1) <>(G -> H)

2) (H| F ∈ H)

3) <>(G -> F)

<> is "possibly" or "it is possible"

H is set of healings

F is a particular healing, and in this case, my grandmother's

G is God.

I did the truth table... And most of the cases were trivial for my purposes....

I think I'm being very consistent in my application of the argument.... I think you're trying to apply terms in ways they cannot be applied....

It seems to me your concern is with semantics, not the logic. I'm not making a semantic case here -- I'm showing the logic used to come to the conclusion in which I did. No, I wouldn't "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache." If I never had a headache, but nor would I if I never had a belief in the first place that it was possible that Advil caused headaches to go away. I've made it abundantly clear that I'm using a categorical syllogism, so the point you a making, I think, is either trivial or you're trying to say I'm doing something I'm not.

The formulation is deductive from a general belief to a conclusion about a particular.

1) It's possible that people slip on ice.

2) I slipped

3) It is possible I slipped on ice.

or

1) It is possible that leaky faucets make dripping noises

2) Last night, I heard a dripping noise

3) It is possible that I heard a leaky faucet.

or

1) It's possible that storms shut the computer and lights down.

2)  My computer and lights were down

3) It is possible a storm shut down the lights and computer

No... I'm not the sort to think that because God heals one that he can heal many... That's bad induction. One would need more than one instance to make a general conclusion on the matter.

The substantiation comes from the facts... The confidence of possibilities is determined by their probabilities. That is, one is more confident something is the case of the probability for that case is high. Necessary entities have a probability of 1, possible entities have a probability 0 < x <= 1. Impossibilities have a probability of 0 -- this is the reason I use "possible" because I'm not certain that the probability of such things is 0 or 1. If one were to say that the probability of G -> H is 0 then my argument is void.