petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance



  • @petrapark3r is taking the position that God exsists

    @ScruffyMutt is taking the position that God does not exist.

    Rather than jump between multiple posts for this public debate we will hold the debate in this thread.

    We MIGHT respond to short questions or counter points posted by you, our third party audience, however if you post a giant wall of text then it is likely that @petrapark3r and I will just not bother reading it.

    Rather than debate all relegions, I propose we contain the debate to the existence of a Christian God.

    I'll try and start this debate in the shortest and simplist of ways:

    There is no evidence that God exsists, therefore he does not.

    Do you accept the debate guidelines, @petrapark3r?



  • It's possible that something can both exist, and not exist at the same time. As postulated by Schrödinger - and observed in photons. They may only exist when the person observing it actually believes it exists. As far as some all knowing all loving sky-daddy, it's also easily observable that this probably either does not exist, or is untrue - as there are literally millions of scenarios where divine intervention could have prevented some of the worst instances of suffering, on some of the least deserving of people, including children. So my thoughts are, God might exist, but it definitely is not the God that Christians believe exists.


  • Global Veteran Hella Assassins

    Bravissimo, my friends! :clap: Really interesting to read
    But after all.. Don't you think that this debate has no sense, as despite all of the conclusions that you found and that you will find, each of you will remain unconvinced?



  • @spacegirl said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    Bravissimo, my friends! :clap: Really interesting to read
    But after all.. Don't you think that this debate has no sense, as despite all of the conclusions that you found and that you will find, each of you will remain unconvinced?

    I enjoy a good debate 😊
    I don't think either of us expect to "convert" the other, so to speak. Only to pick each other's brains and move our last bishops around the board until we are both satisfied we explored all options.



  • Evidence: verifiable facts from reliable sources which can withstand scrutiny.

    (Such evidence excludes the obvious blogs, opinion articles, and hypothetical postulations.)

    PS: I too am only on here intermittently



  • @ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    Do you accept the debate guidelines, @petrapark3r?

    I like it. I have to apologize however, that this debate will in all likelyhood span multiple days, for I am not constantly online.

    There is no evidence that God exsists, therefore he does not.

    If you had said, that there was no proof (as in mathematical proof) of God I would have agreed. However I assume we might differ on our definiton of evidence. I think there is quite some evidence for the existence of the Christian God. I will list some in a later post, for I don't have very much time rn. For now I would to ask you for your definition of the term "evidence".



  • @ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    Evidence: verifiable facts from reliable sources which can withstand scrutiny.

    I would propose a more differentiated definition. Let's take a criminal investigation for example. You might find the murder weapon, traces of tires, a bit of hair on the crimescene, eye witnesses who put a suspect in a certain place at a certain time, surveilance footage and so on. All of this, as long as the camera does not show the suspect commiting the crime, is commonly called evidence, and I agree with this definition.

    Ergo there is stronger evidence and weaker evidence. There might of course also be planted evidence and random (=false) evidence. When we talk about evidence I propose a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being circumstancial and 10 being almost proof. So a 10 might be someone inventing a measuring device for God's actions, which is highly unlikely. So at best I assume we might find evidence at level 9.

    (Such evidence excludes the obvious blogs, opinion articles, and hypothetical postulations.)

    With this I obviously agree.



  • @ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    Evidence [...]

    So first of all lets start with some philosophical evidence. It is possible to show, that thinking the absolute God necessarily requires us to think Him with existence. Now of course this does not prove anything in the real world. But I would certainly call the fact, that this is how our mind has to think evidence.

    Measured by your criteria it is verifiable, and comes from a reliable source (your mind).

    But what level to give? It is not circumstancial, but neither is it anything close to definite. Maybe give it a 2? Or maybe not, for it might rather be called a broad hint...


  • 666_Satanist_666 🍋 Lemon 🍋 over limes tws gay club but no homo Fake Moderators We Are Groot! Movie Buff Global Moderator

    Y’all made this debate look so formal damn 😂
    That was an interesting read too, thanks



  • @WtfJudith said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    Y’all made this debate look so formal damn 😂
    That was an interesting read too, thanks

    Sure :grin:

    It's not over though :yum: (I hope @ScruffyMutt)



  • Respectfully, @petrapark3r you post way too much for me to reply with anything less than a book. So instead of replying to all points I will just reply to a few points (and perhaps you may wish to resubmit an ommited item in another reply)

    Also, my interface product is the TWS Android app. I cannot read or review a post while replying.

    You are quite correct, @petrapark3r , in regards to the Schroeder's Cat example place forward by @Neeko . Schroeder's Cat hypothetical example of quantum state does not declare that something may both exsist and not exsist at the same time. Instead it demonstrates that something may exsist (exsist) in multiple states until it is measured and that the act of measuring would be the force that places the "Schroeder's Cat" into one state of existence or the other. In no scenario of the Schroeder's example do you open the box to find the cat vanished and never existed.

    In regards to the proposed debate rule that we accept conclusions based on fact as facts themselves (eg: criminal investigation - a dead body and a gun in the other man's hand. The other man must be guilty) I will accept this as an evidence based conclusion provided that we both can agree on the same conclusion.

    This brings us to what I believe is your first arguement. To attempt to paraphrase this from what I recall of you writing:
    "Because God is, by His very nature, unpredictable, random, and mysterious in the manner of which He interacts with us (God works in mysterious ways) then one must disprove His existence rather than be burdoned by proving it."

    I can easily display why the burdon of proof falls on the "He Exsists" side of the debate:
    You are stating that because you cannot disprove there is an invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car then it must be real.
    -The troll reacts randomly by stalling my car.
    -The troll is mysterious because he won't speak directly to us and can't be herd by us.

    I'm sure we can both agree there is no invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car by the confession that I made him up as an example. But other than that, by your argument we MUST accept that such a troll exsists because it is impossible to disprove.

    For this reason I find that the burdon is to prove rather than disprove. Much as a criminal prosecution must prove that one did infact fire the weapon (witnesses, powder burns, ballistics forensics, etc...) rather than be found guilty until proven innocent.

    This logically leads to the reply: what is your first submission as proof that God exsists?

    And @WtfJudith , @petrapark3r and I click real good this way. I think we are both intellectuals.



  • @ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    Respectfully, @petrapark3r you post way too much for me to reply with anything less than a book. So instead of replying to all points I will just reply to a few points (and perhaps you may wish to resubmit an ommited item in another reply)

    Np. And no need to reply to something you would agree with.

    This brings us to what I believe is your first arguement. To attempt to paraphrase this from what I recall of you writing:
    "Because God is, by His very nature, unpredictable, random, and mysterious in the manner of which He interacts with us (God works in mysterious ways) then one must disprove His existence rather than be burdoned by proving it."

    I can easily display why the burdon of proof falls on the "He Exsists" side of the debate:
    You are stating that because you cannot disprove there is an invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car then it must be real.
    -The troll reacts randomly by stalling my car.
    -The troll is mysterious because he won't speak directly to us and can't be herd by us.

    I'm sure we can both agree there is no invisible , non-corporeal, tone-deaf, Trump voting troll sitting on the hood of my car by the confession that I made him up as an example. But other than that, by your argument we MUST accept that such a troll exsists because it is impossible to disprove.

    I do agree, that this whole conversation would be completely senseless, if we had no reason to assume, that there might be a God. As is the case with the troll for whom nobody has any reason at all to assume he's sitting on your car.

    However I am not arguing that we MUST accept God's existence based on the lack of proof of his non existence. I'm simply stating, that a lack of evidence would leave us with an undecidable question.

    This logically leads to the reply: what is your first submission as proof that God exsists?

    My above argument should have made clear, that there can be no such thing as proof of God's existence, there can only be evidence. My first submission was the fact, that we cannot think God without existence. But I assume to you this qualifies as a hint rather than evidence. Hence I will present the second philosophical way to God:

    Causality. Everything in nature – everything that science deals with – appears to be causal.

    Now don't throw in the seeming randomness of quantum mechanics, because it is indeed an unresolved mystery how the random quantum world allows for a clearly causal macrocosm. And yet it clearly does, so causality is real.

    Hence every plant we see, grew because there was a seed, and the seed because there was a plant and so on. And the earth exists because immense ammounts of material created at the time of the birth of the sun collided. So the sun is there, because there were stars who died before it. Everything seems to be causal up until the big bang.

    So if everything there is causes whatever follows, then we have a causal chain. And this chain needs a beginning, it needs a first cause. And even if the chain was eternal, if it had no first cause, it would still need a reason to exist in the first place. Why would the chain exist?

    Think this through well, because this is not a problem that science has not yet found an answer to. It is a problem that will always be there, that no (mathematically based) theory could ever solve.

    This reason is what people would call God (at least the God of the philosophers). This question IMHO is enough reason, to give this discussion a sense, e.g. to allow us to assume that there might indeed be a God (in contrast to the troll).

    And @WtfJudith , @petrapark3r and I click real good this way. I think we are both intellectuals.

    An interesting observation...



  • @petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    It is not a "we don't know" it is a "we can never understand". This is the one gap, that science can never fill!

    Much of your arguement falls away at this section.
    You are saying we can never understand, therefore we shouldn't try to and instead should turn toward God as being the answer.
    Yet we once felt the same way about Planets (a word that originally ment "Wandering Stars"), electricity and lightning, and illnesses such as The bubonic plague.

    Because we "do not" or "can not" understand something does not mean a greater being is responsible. That is an assumption that discourages education and discovery. It is not evidence nor proof of a god.

    The parts about thinking god and thinking god- i do not understand.



  • @ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    @spacegirl said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    Bravissimo, my friends! :clap: Really interesting to read
    But after all.. Don't you think that this debate has no sense, as despite all of the conclusions that you found and that you will find, each of you will remain unconvinced?

    I enjoy a good debate 😊
    I don't think either of us expect to "convert" the other, so to speak. Only to pick each other's brains and move our last bishops around the board until we are both satisfied we explored all options.

    Very true! :blush:



  • I greatly enjoyed this. Enjoyed may be wrong word, I don't think anyone actually enjoys this kinda run-in -- it's a compulsion. Just a nervous, dirty, dirty, scratchy, itchy, dirty compulsion, innit.

    What I would say, both sides have carried themselves well. I'm a veteran of the perennial atheist v theist debates, on a coupla different sites. The argument is particularly weird and bitter on Unexplained Mysteries, where the atheist debaters have been so comprehensively stymied by the cheeky, all-pervasive humanity of the theists, that they've been forced to divide themselves into ever more subtle and nuanced branches of atheism, and now you can't actually discuss anything without a complex algebra of agnosticism -- which takes days on end to establish.

    I'm a housefly. I only live for a month!

    Thank GOD were on such a young, hip site as this. I like the crime scene analogy, I like the gradation of evidence. I like the roping in of Schrodinger's Cat (on Unexplained Mysteries, there's a collective rolling of eyes whenever anyone 'goes there'). But whereas @ScruffyMutt is right to point out that the Schrodinger model doesn't necessarily establish whether things exist in the first place, I'd say it's the greatest archetypal image (ironically) since Jesus himself, and we shouldn't be shy about trying to rope it in to our agendas.

    For me, Schrodinger's cat might be less about the positioning of discreet units of energy, and rather (maybe) a kind of carefully seeded intellectual gambit, speaking of the need for consciousness to weigh all things in the balance. Think of it on a macrocosmic scale.

    @petrapark3r seems preoccupied by the de facto existence of all things per se. I guess this is a valid thing to be preoccupied by. I'm the opposite, tho. One of the things I've been accused of is that, in my religious thinking, I'm 'chasing the god of gaps'. I'm seeing a gap in things and I'm shoe-horning God in there, whether He's applicable or not.

    But He is applicable. We've just got to have the courage to go very dark and admit there's something gnostic going on. There's massive gaps. For instance, capitalism. No one can quite justify its existence on a personal level, yet still it rules our lives. And in as much as @petrapark3r wants to confine this to a debate on the Christian G, think on how much emphasis the New Testament puts on trade: Judas with his silver, the fact that half the disciples were fishermen, the Prodigal Son, etc.

    Anyway, that's what I think. What do you think, Fortnite John Wick?

    john wick.jpg



  • @petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    I am not saying we shouldn't try understanding it. What I am trying to say, is that the moment you understand the problem, you also understand why you cannot understand it, why it does not make sense to reason and never will.

    You are assuming we will never understand the beginning of the universe.

    @petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    I am not convinced you have understood me. I very much wish you would understand this point, before we continue to further evidence. Could you maybe say in your own words why this problem might be unsolvable?

    The first event in our universe may not be understood in our lifetime. But even if we NEVER understand it that does not mean it can only be due to a god.

    Going back to the causality chain, you essentialy state that the universe, or basically anything, can't come from nothing. That something must exsist (in your postulations, a god) to create that something.

    Something comes from nothing all the time. Astrophysicist Stephen Hawkings has proved it and it's a wildly accepted fact the has been tested and proven in laboratory environments. (It has to be done in a lab because there is no vacuum on Earth).

    Hawking has shown that matter and antimatter particles appear out of nothing, annihilate each other, and disappear all the time all around us.
    For a very boring explination on Hawking Radiation and Virtual Particles I point you to this PBS video:

    It eludes me as to why you believe failing to understand something means a greater being is responsible. Failure to understand something doesn't prove a god, it only proves we fail to understand it.



  • It is only evidence that an event occured.
    It is not evidence of a greater being.



  • @Indrid-Cold said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:

    I greatly enjoyed this.

    I am deeply astonished, by your creativity and your wit. Whenever I read one of your longer replies I wonder if the reason why I fail to understand some things are because of my lack of education, imagination or because you are not actually serious in that.

    I could never even think what you think or maybe even dream.

    Hehe, there are massive gaps indeed. Did you know we dont even know why warmer water freezes faster than colder water? It's prolly because God loves us :blush:



  • We both agree Jesus lived. He is a historical fact.

    As far as his disciples being reliable eye witnesses:

    David Koresh claimed to be Jesus returned.
    His disciples STILL claim he performed miracles.

    And I worked with a fellow that INSISTED that a UFO hovered over his car one night and made it levitate. (This being metro Phoenix - similar to a UFO going unnoticed in downtown New York). My own sister INSISTS she saw princess Diana in line at the motor vehicle department.

    If you stand firm that the testimony of his followers should count as valid fact, then you would also have to believe David Koresh was Jesus returned, a UFO can hover over a car and levitate it in a densely populated area and go unnoticed, and that Princess Diana has returned from the dead to drive in rush hour traffic.

    Human testimony is THE LEAST reliable form of evidence dispite how our courts treat it.

    Now I'm going to counter:

    The cornerstone of the Christian faith is Jesus was son of God, born through Virgin Mary, wife of Joseph. This birth occurred at year 0 A.D. in the settlement of Bethlehem, a minority Muslim and majority Hebrew region at the time.

    Gospels of Matthew and Mary say he was born in Bethlehem, but the Gospel of Mark says he was from Nazareth.

    In 0AD a single pregnant woman would have been viewed as a harlowton and unworthy of marriage, and no wedding would of been valid without consummating the marriage.

    So, according to witness testimony, Jesus was born in two separate locations. And she was somehow married without consumation of the marriage which invalidates the marriage.

    So, no, the testimony of his disciples is not valid evidence.

    If a scientist stands up and says "I discovered perpetual motion!" The reply by the community is "Prove it" not "You say you did so it must be true!"

    And no, warmer water doesn't freeze faster than cool water. It's a myth. The first water to reach freezing temperature will freeze first. Just as it's a myth that microwaving cold water boils faster than microwaving hot water. And dogs can look up, gullible is in the dictionary, and there is no antifreeze in Dr. Pepper.



  • You can not verify an unexplained healing unless the test subject was tested and studied during, before, and after the event.

    IF a miraculous healing occured after visiting the spring it could be because there was a mosquito bite on the individual by the Jalo Julie fly, an undiscovered insect whose bite cures cancer.

    This is why scientific experiments are conducted in "Controlled Environments" to remove unaccounted for variables. The individuals running The Lourdes Medical Beureau are NOT impartial observers and researchers. They benefit every time they declare a "Miracle" occured.

    And who says the Virgin Mary appeared to this girl/woman to dig up this spring? The girl/woman herself which probably also saw Princess Diana in line at the motor vehicle department? Or maybe she smoked too much peyote? Why do you so redibly believe these weird people that claim they personally saw a god but have yet to get his phone number?

    If I say "I saw god on the bus. Wearing a pink fedora." you would think me a nutcase. If you DIDN'T think I were a nutcase then you'd be one too. How is this cult of Lourdes any different?






By using TalkWithStranger, you are accepting our privacy and usage terms . You must be 18+ or 13+ with parental permission to use our online chatting site.