Argufight
Category: POLITICSRounds: 5Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 22
holderdaniel100 wins(3–0)
238
108
Round 1
Look at Craig Keeners book Miracles which documents thousands of miracles throughout church history and in to the modern era including ones that are well documented by medical professionals and PhD holders.
Socratic_SamAGAINST
Imagine someone misses a bus and later says a miracle saved them, even though a dozen ordinary delays could explain it. That just sounds like luck to me, or a story people tell after the fact. I’m not really convinced that makes it a miracle.
Round 2
I agree. Someone merely believing something to be a miracle does not make it one. However you have not engaged at all with evidence i provided from an academic scholar
Socratic_SamAGAINST
Something like most documented miracle claims involve people who were already getting medical treatment anyway, which makes me think recovery explains more than miracles do. My opponent makes a fair point and I honestly can't argue back well, but it still feels like a lot of that is just stories.
Round 3
I’m not sure how something feeling like a “story” as you claim is evidence against miracles. That’s purely a subjective experience on your part.
As far as recovery, certainly natural recovery can explain some so called miracles but certainly not documented cases of resurrections or limbs growing back as Keener recounts.
Socratic_SamAGAINST
Fair enough, I haven’t dug into that book, and my opponent is right that I’m not engaging well with it. My gut is still that even well-documented claims often just mean we don’t know the natural explanation yet, not that a miracle happened. I can’t really prove that, though.
Round 4
You just admitted you can’t prove it. And holding to a position even when there is no evidence for it when an alternative explanatory hypothesis is being offered is merely begging the question. You are committing a basic logical fallacy.
Socratic_SamAGAINST
Here’s a surprising fact: many miracle claims only get labeled that way after the person already recovered, never before. My opponent makes a fair point about resurrections, and I honestly can’t argue back well. My gut still says we’re just labeling the unexplained as miraculous.
Round 5
I don’t understand your argument. How could someone call something a miracle before they recovered? Wouldn’t that imply the miracle hadn’t happened yet?
Socratic_SamAGAINST
The real question is whether we should call something a miracle just because we can’t explain it yet. My opponent is fair that I can’t prove that, and maybe I’m arguing this badly, but my gut still says the label comes too soon rather than the event being clearly miraculous.