petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance

[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.

[Haruka Angel]

It is a fact, that all things that came to knowledge have their origin. For instance, something that involved the presence of a God must have happened since then, where all these believers and atheists came from? Or their names? Or even the fact that we know of the subject and it was not invented. So after all, if God was fake, was the Holy Bible invented? (I'm not putting myself in any position here)

[pe7erpark3r]

Since you didn't answer anything further on the topic of miracles (which don't just happen in Lourdes btw. but in many places all around the globe, though I personally haven't checked many of them) lets procede to the next piece of evidence: Things that seem to be created by the divine. An important one is Image of the Holy Virgin at Guadalupe.

In Guadalupe the virgin Mary supposedly appeared to a farmer named Juan Diego. When the poor guy brought some flowers that the virgin had said to collect to the bishop, an image of the Holy Virgin had become visible on his cloak. The interesting thing about this cloak is, that the image seems to be burned in in a way that no one was able to reproduce, and the other interesting thing is that it is made of a fabric, that should have rot away in a very short time. Now don't claim the catholic church in 1531 had a bunch of scientific geniuses who know how to preserve this specific material, on which the image had suddenly appeared.

Another important part of the story, the part which gives the miracle credibility in the sense that it is divine and not develish are the fruits that the appearance had.

Everybody who reads this should know that the spanish Conquistadores and the portugese crown had come to south america and forced the indio population to accept the christian faith. They also tricked them in countless trades to give up the land and the gold they had. It becomes clearly visible that this is not the work of good christians by the fact that they did not just kill the indios who resisted them but also the christian jesuite patres who helped the indios. This was of course very unchristian and they certainly deserve to rot in hell for doing all this in Christ's name. However they were not successful. Most of the indios kept their native faith in secret.

But the appearance of the virgin Mary produced a wave of conversions among the native population. This is the real reason why south america became catholic. Now tell me, why would an aparition of the virgin mary bring indios to conversion in the millions? Didn't they already have an irrational faith? Is the christian faith somehow better or more credible? And if so, why didn't they accept it before?

[ScruffyMutt]

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

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.

This is the root of why you believe.
You believe miracles - not simply things that have not been explained yet or unlikely odds occuring but actual miracles from god- because with no miracles then there would be no "evidence of God".

These "Miracles" are actually just the desperate need by other fellow people whom need a "sign of God's exsistence". These "Miracles" are also the "Rational Proof" the believers use to reinforce their own confidence in their rationality.

The universe is over 93 BILLION light years across with over 200 Billion galaxies each containing an average of 100 Billion stars for an estimated
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems. Just our planet has about 7,500,000,000 people.

Yet for some reason, despite all the cosmic collisions, car crashes, unsolved murders, global warming, crazy politicians, viral outbreaks, super novas, American idol, North Korean people starving, Russian power grabbing, child rapes, kidnappings, upset stomachs, wrong way freeway drivers, police brutalities, credit card hacks, world's being sucked onto black holes, China rounding up Chinese Muslims into concentration camps, imigrant children being separated from their parents, Mexican Cartel mafia killings, Rwanda genocide, and so on....

Despite all of this, these "Rational Believers" have faith that they are part of a master plan by a loving and forgiving supreme being that takes special interest in their lives because because they are somehow so important. The alternative terrifies them.

And all of this will roll off the believers' shoulders as they find a new way to rationalize it into fitting their chosen narrative.

This was never a rational debate, Mr./Ms. Parker, because a rational debate requires "rational" thinking, not "rationalized" thinking.

So I end my side of the debate with a consideration about how significant any individual is no matter how devout:

(You likely only skim my posts anyway)

[pe7erpark3r]

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

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

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.

This is the root of why you believe.

The root of my believe are God's continuous actions (little miracles, none of them of any significance if it standing alone) in my own life.

You believe miracles - not simply things that have not been explained yet or unlikely odds occuring but actual miracles from god- because with no miracles then there would be no "evidence of God".

Indeed, because they are evidence of God. Any single miracle might not be, like any piece of evidence might be false. But the question is wether they are all false. You say yes, because of your own conviction, that there can be no such thing as God. I say no, because of my own conviction that God is.

These "Miracles" are actually just the desperate need by other fellow people whom need a "sign of God's exsistence". These "Miracles" are also the "Rational Proof" the believers use to reinforce their own confidence in their rationality.

There is no such thing as proof of a miracle or proof of faith. Requiring something like that would be irrational. The only thing I said was that if there really was nothing happening (which clearly is not the case) then continueing to believe would be irrational.

And you started this discussion with the statement, that there was not a shred of evidence. What did you expect? Of course I'd go and list all of the evidence of God's actions in the world. Is it definitive proof? Of course not. But it is evidence, and it is real.

The universe is over 93 BILLION light years across with over 200 Billion galaxies each containing an average of 100 Billion stars for an estimated
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems. Just our planet has about 7,500,000,000 people.

Yet for some reason, despite all the cosmic collisions, car crashes, unsolved murders, global warming, crazy politicians, viral outbreaks, super novas, American idol, North Korean people starving, Russian power grabbing, child rapes, kidnappings, upset stomachs, wrong way freeway drivers, police brutalities, credit card hacks, world's being sucked onto black holes, China rounding up Chinese Muslims into concentration camps, imigrant children being separated from their parents, Mexican Cartel mafia killings, Rwanda genocide, and so on....

Despite all of this, these "Rational Believers" have faith that they are part of a master plan by a loving and forgiving supreme being that takes special interest in their lives because because they are somehow so important. The alternative terrifies them.

And all of this will roll off the believers' shoulders as they find a new way to rationalize it into fitting their chosen narrative.

This was never a rational debate, Mr./Ms. Parker, because a rational debate requires "rational" thinking, not "rationalized" thinking.

Faith is not rational in the sense that God is not rationally understandable or scientifically measurable. Faith is trust, in someone. And I'm not a "rational believer". I am both a believer and a rational thinker, very much capable of separating those two worlds and even highlighting where they touch. And you had a good chance to see that. That instead you go ahead now and deny me that I am a rational thinker seems very irrational to me, especially since you are the one who brought many claims into this debate, that you did not verify (which a rational thinker has an obligation to do) and that have been proven wrong by me without much difficulty.

So I end my side of the debate with a consideration about how significant any individual is no matter how devout:

You really think that size is what defines significance? That seems rather irrational to me. Is a dead rock or a burning ball of gas really more significant than a conscious, feeling, thinking, experiencing individual?

I say clearly not. Because the only thing that gives any significance to anything is consciousness. We conscious beings are the only things in the universe, to whom anything can even matter. We are – this should be clearly visible to any conscious and rational thinker – the only thing, that actually matters in this universe, no matter how small we are for we give all other things meaning.

Of course this is true for any conscious being, if there are others like us, not just humans.

(You likely only skim my posts anyway)

I have answered lengthily to all your posts, and every argument in it. I often disagree, but that does not mean, that I don't take it seriously. This is almost an insult.

However I must apologize. My reply to your claim that the spring at Lourdes was not real, was also quite insulting. So please forgive me.

I am sad that you want to end this debate now, because I have not arrived at the end of my list of evidence of God's actions in the world.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

Yet for some reason, despite all the cosmic collisions,

I don't see how cosmic collisions, super novas or world's being sucked into black holes would speak against God's existence. I cannot even see why that might be called a bad thing, for as far as we know they are long dead.

crazy politicians, American idol, upset stomachs,

Lets exclude a few things (these ↑ things) from your list please, which nobody could consider a strong argument.

China rounding up Chinese Muslims into concentration camps

Let me add to the strength of this argument, that there are no muslim-only concentration camps: The most persecuted religion in china (just like in most places) is christianity.

However in this is also hidden another piece of evidence for God being real. Christianity is the only religion that gains followers through conversion in our day and age (excepting the occasional oddball of course). Buddhists are born. Hinduists are born. Muslims have in the past mostly gained followers through conquest, and now they grow through reproduction. Shinto followers are also born. Jews are also born. Christians have always gained followers through conversion (sadly also through conquest, many of which however were ineffectual as seen in south america).

And this is even more astonishing as Christianity grows the fastest were it is persecutest the heaviest. There are tens of thousands of babtisms everyday in china. Today we have the heaviest persecution of christians ever in human history (in total numbers), and yet it has never grown so fast.

This might be the strongest evidence for God's action in the world that there is. Since people convert despite the fact that they are told quite an unbelievable story about a guy killed on a cross by his own people, resurrected in the flesh, gone to heaven, being the Son of God even... and for believing this they gain a high chance of loosing everything they have, including their life!

[pe7erpark3r]

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

Yet for some reason, despite all the cosmic collisions, car crashes, unsolved murders, global warming, crazy politicians, viral outbreaks, super novas, American idol, North Korean people starving, Russian power grabbing, child rapes, kidnappings, upset stomachs, wrong way freeway drivers, police brutalities, credit card hacks, world's being sucked onto black holes, China rounding up Chinese Muslims into concentration camps, imigrant children being separated from their parents, Mexican Cartel mafia killings, Rwanda genocide, and so on....

This is a good piece of evidence against the existence of God. I was wondering when you would add it into the discussion. Of course I acknowledge the facts, and I'll even give you this: there is no rational answer to the question of why God lets bad things happen.

I will give you a theological answer, but, in the context of this discussion, this cannot be called a rational argument ofc. Therefore I'll begin with a

Disclaimer: The following is not a rational argument so don't take it as such.

Here goes:

Despite all of this, these "Rational Believers" have faith that they are part of a master plan by a loving and forgiving supreme being that takes special interest in their lives because because they are somehow so important. The alternative terrifies them.
And all of this will roll off the believers' shoulders as they find a new way to rationalize it into fitting their chosen narrative.

Christ is the prime victim.

And he is the victim of all our evil doings. He is the victim of

unsolved murders, global warming [petra: if caused by humans], North Korean people starving, Russian power grabbing, child rapes, kidnappings, police brutalities, credit card hacks, imigrant children being separated from their parents, Mexican Cartel mafia killings, Rwanda genocide, and so on....

He is the one carrying all those sins on His back. And they are our sins. They happen because people do evil.

And we, the members of christianity (and those who live in God through their loving actions), can share in His sacrifice. Our pain is not in vain. For the meaning of existence is love, and there is no such thing as love without sacrifice. Thus the fact that there is so much suffering in the world means that we can love God and each other through atoning for our sins and the sins of our neighbors. We can help people reach heaven, through our suffering. This is what being christian is about: Take up your cross, help your neigbour carry theirs, and follow Christ on the stony way to heaven.

Disclaimer: This reply contains the heart of christian theology and is not a rational argument!