petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance

[pe7erpark3r]

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

@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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes, we did. Most people did. But many of the early greek philosophers already suspected that those things were actually understandable. And we both agree that they are, we agree that all things in nature are understandable by science. With this one exception above and maybe the contents of consciousness and consciousness itself which is also a very curious case, but that would lead us astray too far.

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.

As I tried to explain understanding this conundrum means understanding that it cannot be understood and understanding why it cannot be understood. Thinking it through is a form of education and discovery.

It also means understanding that the first cause is special in nature for it must be its own cause, and this property alone already makes it seem godly to us. This fact I call evidence. (No proof. Please stop mentioning the word :sweat_smile:, it seems to trigger me :yum:)

Please convince me you have understood the conundrum. I will still disagree with you saying it is no evidence at all (scale = 0) once I am sure you have understood it, but then I'll be happy to continue to less abstract more historical evidence.

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

It is not really relevant to the discussion for it does not qualify as evidence even to me. However I'll try to explain in a way that might be a little more clear:

• God is higher than anything we can conceive of (= Definition of God)
• if God was not existing we could conceive of something higher:
• God who exists
• Conclusion: God needs necessarily to be thought as existing

This is true, but it is only true in thought. There is no basis on which you could conclude that something which is true in thought has to be true in the real world, if you don't base your thinking on facts you perceive in the real world.

[Indrid Cold]

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?

[ScruffyMutt]

@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.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

@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.

Not exactly, it doesn't have to be the point of the beginning of this universe that we'll never understand. The beginning of the universe, the big bang, is just the least abstract instance, the easiest to talk about.

@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.

Yes. Which is why this cannot be called proof.

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.

Yes, this happens. However it has not been proven, that they appear out of nothing, just that they appear in what we define to be "nothing", and that they are – mathematically – a zero sum game. We have no complete understanding of the natural world yet (we have no quantum-gravity theory yet). What I want to say is, that our definition of nothing and our knowledge of the quantum world is very incomplete as of yet. But that is just on a side note, please don't feel obliged to answer to this relativization.

To the actualy point I want to answer this with: these particles appear all the time. Which means there is a rule to it. There is a reason to why they can appear. The possiblity for them to appear is real and they are quite propable to appear, because they do so all the time. Why is there the possibility for them to appear?

Now the answer to this question of course lies in the nature of the universe. There is some thing (like gravity is a thing) that makes them appear. And this something is also there for a reason. The universe makes sense after all, none of us doubts that.

So can you understand why something like "quantum particles just appear out of nothing" or "universes just appear out of nothing" is not an answer in itself? Since it very much seems to me, that quantum particles indeed appear for a reason (because they do so all the time in the same kind of fashion. there is a pattern to it, a nature), and so do universes (if they do).

The quantum particles that appear out of "nothing" are not their own explanation. The quantum nature of the universe is not an explanation for itself, it is not its own reason. Gravity does not explain why there is gravity. So I, just as you, assume there is an explanation for everything. There is something in the nature of reality that explains why there is gravity. For everything there is a natural reason. We agree on this.

The idea now is that you can trace the chain of explanations, of reasons back and back and back. You can reduce it to the fact that there is something. Do you agree with me so far? And you should also be able to agree with me, that this something cannot be its own reason, since it is part of the natural world – where nothing is its own reason and everything happens for a reason... (or else we should stop doing science...)

And since nothing that is real in this world can be its own reason, you need a reason, that is not like anything in this world. And what is not like anything in this world?

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.

Yet again, we have found a property that seems indeed godly to us. I do fully agree, that this is no proof, that we might just simply be incapable of even thinking about this properly. But it eludes me why you believe that something like this could not be called evidence by a rational thinker...

[ScruffyMutt]

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

[pe7erpark3r]

I see that you understand that there is an open question which is difficult to answer and hard to understand. I don't quite feel understood however about the implications of the question, which I see.

How can the fact that our mind (the thing we do science with!) demands a reason that is not like anything in this world only be evidence that an event occured?

I believe we do have a different definition of evidence after all. Evidence to me is something that points in a certain direction. It is not something that proves anything. It is not something that has to be conclusive.

To me the fact that through deduction we arrived at attributes that appear godly to us, does point in this direction. Its nothing more than that. It doesn't have to be. And since it is just evidence it might also point in the wrong direction, like all evidence can and often does. But that doesn't take away the fact that it does indeed point into this direction. It doesn't take away the fact, that it is evidence.

[ScruffyMutt]

The apparent evidence of the universe having a beginning does not point in the direction of a greater being. It only points to "The universe had a beginning".

This does not appear godly to me. Instead, I feel you are reading into it what you wish to see.

[pe7erpark3r]

Fine, I give up. But I will summarize the viewpoint on which I will remain, disagreeing with your conclusion.

You refuse to think further than "the universe had a beginning".

I on the other hand think: the beginning of the world needs a reason, (maybe even: the possibility of universes popping into existence needs a reason) which cannot be found in itself, or alternatively, the world does not actually have a beginning. In both cases the reason for being is irrational, non-understandable, is different than anything in the universe and cannot be compared to anything else that science deals with, it cannot be anything natural. And that isn't the worst philosophical definition of God I ever heard.

Yet you don't even allow me to call this evidence. I suspect you stop at thinking "the universe has a beginning" because you don't like where thinking further leads you.

From the point of view of my actual faith (which has little to do with this philosophical argument), I don't think there needs to be any proof of God whatsoever. I don't wish to see this kind of thing. I do see it however. But to put it into context for you let me tell you how I learned of it.

First of all I started to believe in God, which was quite the long process. And the more I relied on Him and acted how I believed He wanted me to act, the stronger my trust grew. Even after the moment, where one could have said, that I now believe in God, I was utterly convinced that there was no way to prove His existence to anyone. I mean I did believe that there was some historic evidence, but nothing definite. Just on a sidenote, I would have called historic evidence "evidence" (false evidence) before I believed in God.

It was only a few years later, when I encountered the philosophical ways to God. And I didn't believe they were evidence. It took me a few months to think them through... things like that don't let go of me. So it did take me a while to realize, that this one philosophical way actually points to God. Maybe you just need some time too. I did not wish it to point to God. I just realized it does after taking my time to really think it through. And I found that fascinating.

But to this day I believe that even definite evidence of God's existence would be meaningless, any proof of God would be meaningless. For to be with God is not about believing that God exists at all. It is something quite different. But I like a good debate, I like thinking, and this is why I'm even bringing it up. I really could not say, that I have a strong wish to see anything proving God. It would be meaningless...

[pe7erpark3r]

Let's continue to historical evidence then. Since we are talking about the Christian God, we have some historical facts to talk about. Jesus lived for about 30 years, died and then his disciples went and began to convert many parts of the roman empire. As you can see, here we are dealing with eye witnesses. Now lets assess them. I'll rely on you to point out, what speaks against believing them, I'll point out what speaks for believing them.

So lets begin with how things should have gone. Fella who claiming to be the messiah dies. His followers disperse. Or alternatively one of them claims to be the new messiah, and they continue to try and make their own kind of kingdom happen.

What really happens? First of all they disperse. But then, after some time, they come together again. And they let themselves be put into prison time and time again for saying that Jesus came back from the dead in the flesh and rose to heaven. They don't gain much glory from that. In fact they are being persecuted for the rest of their lives.

And yet those people, who for the most part started as simple fishermen, continue to travel through europe (instead of enjoying an easy life) without any security, and they tell people stories, that even back then were seen as absolute nonsense.

And then they go and get themselves killed for it. All but one of the apostles were killed. And they should have known. Even their master got killed for it. Reading the bible you realize, they actually did know. I for one think they make not the worst kind of witnesses.

[pe7erpark3r]

@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:

[ScruffyMutt]

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.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

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.

Not every eye witnesses testimony is as valid as any other. But yeah, they may be considered the least reliable form of evidence.

However neither David Coresh nor his followers nor your work fellow were in any mortal danger. It might even be possible that he performed things that seemed like miracles and thus his followers might actually be telling the truth about the miracles.

And your sister saw someone who looked like Princess Diana. This is not on the same level as seeing someone you know is dead appear to you (a group of 11 people together in a room), eat with you and basically walk through walls. And then to get yourself killed for teaching people something so unbelievable. None of your examples come even close to that level of strength of testimony.

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.

There were no muslims in 0 AD. Mohammad lived in the 6th/7th century. Jesus birth did not occur at 0 AD, but propably around 6-4 BC. That was just an (erronous) backtracking of the monk who invented our calendar.

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

The gospel of Mathew states: "And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene." Not all people are born where they live their life :shrug:

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.

Which is why St. Joseph decided to let her go instead of marrying her, until an angel appeared to him and told him that he should marry her.

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.

Not a jewish marriage of those days. In fact there was a custom, that couples who decided to not have sex, could take an oath and then live a celibate lifestyle. Actually let me add to that: something like this is possible in a catholic marriage too.

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

They were not giving testimony of those things. I'm not even too sure the apostles knew of that. And, the gospels were all written between 20 to 70 years after the death of Jesus. A few incoherences and little errors are to be expected. But obiously not about something as significant as eating with a dead person. Who could make a mistake about that?

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!"

We are talking evidence here and history. History is not science and cannot be. This would be applying the wrong scale.

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.

According to this article it does happen. At least under certain conditions: https://www.sciencealert.com/does-hot-water-really-freeze-faster-than-cold-water . It states that temperature might not be the real reason.

Just as it's a myth that microwaving cold water boils faster than microwaving hot water.

Never heard that one before.

And dogs can look up, gullible is in the dictionary, and there is no antifreeze in Dr. Pepper.

Don't call me gullible that easily. I did check this one (warm water freezing faster than cold) and scientific studies have shown it to happen, while others have not. I never said I knew anything more than that. At least I'm no more gullible than you who all too easily seem to believe anyone who calls something a myth :yum:

[pe7erpark3r]

Next piece of evidence: miracles.

Now don't stumble over that word. Miraculous healings are a scientific fact. They do happen, sometimes without anything religious thing being involved.

Let's take Lourdes for example. In Lourdes (France) the virgin Mary appeared 1858 to a peasant girl named Bernadette Soubirous, and told her to dig up a spring, that she actually found. Since then thousands of miraculous healings happen at this place up to this day. But of course most of them don't meet the vatican's criterea for a recognized miracle. Here they are:

"Vatican rules demand that the illness healed must have been incurable and that the healing is sudden, instantaneous, complete and without any subsequent relapse. The miraculously healed person must not have had any medical treatment or taken any medicine that can be shown to have been effective."

Since 1858 there have been 67 healings that fulfill those criteria. Which obviously doesn't mean, that all the other claimed miracles could not also be miracles, only that they do not fulfill those strict criteria.

You can read a bit about the committee who decides this stuff in Lourdes here: http://www.cmq.org.uk/CMQ/2018/May/medical_bureau_at_lourdes.html. Here you have a list of notable cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau of medically impossible cures that were recognized.

The evidence here is, that someone (who clearly was in an extatic trance) claims that they see the virgin. And then just like this virgin predicted, lots of miraculous healings happen at exactly this place. You know, not everywhere someone predicts miracles to happen they actually do. Most of the time nothing happens :joy:

Now I know, just as I said at the beginning of this post, that miraculous healings do happen, and that there might be other explanations for each specific healing. But saying that of course the other explanations are the real explanations is but a prejudicial dismissal of evidence, based on nothing but the fact, that you don't believe in miracles.

[ScruffyMutt]

The Lourdes medical beureau is a medical organization staffed with relegious doctors whose goal is to validate medical "miracles" that occur at a spring due to the placebo effect.

To a hammer everything appears to be a nail. To a devout doctor everything appears to be a miracle.

There are over 7.5 billon people on this planet. I doubt that God secretly hangs out at a water spring with a bunch of fanatical fans choosing which is worthy enough to heal and giving the finger to the rest.

[pe7erpark3r]

There are enough non-believers and non-christians in that organization to invalidate this claim. The whole reason it was even created was to stop all those idiots who walk out of lourdes claiming they had been miraculously healed. The only thing the commitee does is verify wether a medically impossible healing occured, which is a thing that does tend to happen. They don't tell you that it is a miracle.

In clinical studies the placebo effect has not been shown to heal terminal illnesses. In fact the only things that the placebo effect works on are pain, depression and things that are of equally subjective nature. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo). If you claim to believe in science then don't just state things contrary to the scientific consensus.

It doesn't matter wether you doubt your own false interpretation of what is going on. All miracles that actually happen are to bring people closer to God. He does not heal the worthy and leaves the unworthy. He heals those for whom it is good and leaves those for whom it is not. Many Saints have had terrible diseases and pain for all their lifes.

[ScruffyMutt]

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?

[ScruffyMutt]

And, Ave you looked at that "Spring" that she dug up "Behind the Pigs Pen""? It's a river at the foot of a cliff. So this nonsense about "digging for a spring" isn't even a spring. And no one could of built there in the 1800's because every rain would of sent water running down the cliffside flooding buildings.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-22982169/lourdes-holy-shrine-closed-after-severe-flash-floods

[pe7erpark3r]

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

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

If you had looked closely to the criteria you should have realized that no miracle qualifies that has not been tested and studied before. It must be a terminal desease, that doctors had a look at. The event must be a spontaneous healing, so that you can compare the day before and the day after.

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.

They must have a strange fly there then that can cure all kinds of diseases.

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.

Then why the heck do they declare so few? Must be stupid these people. And also: you know how people are. Even if there wasn't a medical commitee they would come in the thousands if they heard there were miracles. In fact the commitee's effect might actually have been that fewer people come because there were only 67 recognized impossible healings, and only 4 of them were in the last decades.

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?

Because I'm not stupid enough to expect God to have a phone number? I don't readily believe that she saw the virgin. There just have been a lot of miracles and Bernadette lived a saintly life. Its not even important wether I believe this, you don't have to believe any of this to be catholic.

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?

Because there is no bus on which thousands of people are healed from various diseases. And there is no bus where 67 people where healed from various diseases in a way, that is not explicable by any fly or placebo effect or whatever.

This is the nice thing about the catholic church. It always require high criteria for any claim. And it doesn't just believe. It gives a Nihil Obstat, which means nothing contradicts the churchs teaching in a given private revelation (like the visions of Bernadette). Thats all it ever does. It never recognizes anything supernatural. And it usually takes 30 to 100 years to do so. There is one thing the catholic church is not: gullible.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

And, Ave you looked at that "Spring" that she dug up "Behind the Pigs Pen""? It's a river at the foot of a cliff. So this nonsense about "digging for a spring" isn't even a spring. And no one could of built there in the 1800's because every rain would of sent water running down the cliffside flooding buildings.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-22982169/lourdes-holy-shrine-closed-after-severe-flash-floods

Are you serious man? Do you ever verify what you say?

The picture in that article shows the result of enourmous amounts of rain that put big parts of france under water, including lourdes. I have been to lourdes and there is a spring, which is above the river's normal water level and the river is not directly in front of the cliff, there is a huge area there where people meet.

And why shouldn't there be a spring? On the photo you can even see the cliff which is part of a small mountain. Mountains are known to have springs. The spring is a perfectly natural occurrence, and it was simply flowing into the river below ground for hundreds of years. Bernadette just discovered it. The only unnatural thing here is, that people are being cured from disease.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

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?

I don't readily believe people who claim they saw God or the virgin Mary personally. In fact there are thousands of those people around. I believe a very select few of them.

Are you good at putting yourself in other people's shoes? Then you might find the following enlightening:

I do believe in God, for various reasons. I do believe in a God who acts in my life and in other people's life. And I do believe in the God of the bible, especially the new testament. Not only is the bible full of miracles, it even predicts that God will for Jesus' true disciples through all times, confirm their teaching through acting in the physical world. This is the God I do believe in.

If there really were no miracles happening, then that would invalidate my faith. My faith would be irrational, if I continued to believe in a God who acts, once presented with clear evidence that He never does. So I do expect miracles to happen.

But I'm a rational thinker as you know, so I'm not happy with the low bar that many christians of other denominations and also some catholics put to something before they call it a miracle. I put the highest possible bar onto something before I accept something as a possibly true miracle (no 100% security ever). And I'm quite happy with the catholic church doing just that.

Of course again, as a rational thinker, I also know that with any given miraculous healing I can never be 100% sure that there is not some natural reason behind it. And that is okay. You don't have to have 100% security. Since you cannot measure God, you really cannot have 100% security, its impossible.

So with any given miracle I don't know and that is fine. But there are lots of miracles and some are real.

I believe I'm good at putting myself in other people's shoes, especially in the shoes of someone who does not believe in God, since I have been one myself. And I'm pretty sure about the following:

The only reason why you don't think: "Lourdes sounds like an interesting place, I should go and verify if that commitee takes its own criteria seriously" is because you are utterly convinced that there cannot be such a thing as a miracle and that there cannot be such a thing as God.