Best posts made by ScruffyMutt

@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.

Seriously, there is this mod named Tony in global shoutbox right now that is editing other users texts to say thing like "Cum mop" and "Tickle my balls".

Is this the moderators job? To be an asshole and troll and encourage other trolls?

@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.

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?

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

@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)

@Its-Ahad it doesn't matter if it's in real life or on social media. Never answer hate with hate. It simply doesn't work.

There is only one way to reply to a forum advert:

What is Viagra?
Viagra (sildenafil) relaxes muscles found in the walls of blood vessels and increases blood flow to particular areas of the body.

Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men. Another brand of sildenafil is Revatio, which is used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension and improve exercise capacity in men and women. This page contains specific information for Viagra, not Revatio.

Do not take Viagra while also taking Revatio, unless your doctor tells you to.

Important information
Some medicines can cause unwanted or dangerous effects when used with Viagra. Tell your doctor about all your current medicines, especially riociguat (Adempas) and nitrates.

Do not take Viagra if you are also using a nitrate drug for chest pain or heart problems, including nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate, isosorbide mononitrate, and some recreational drugs such as "poppers". Taking sildenafil with a nitrate medicine can cause a sudden and serious decrease in blood pressure.

Contact your doctor or seek emergency medical attention if your erection is painful or lasts longer than 4 hours. A prolonged erection (priapism) can damage the penis.

Stop using Viagra and get emergency medical help if you have sudden vision loss.

Oh why oh why didn't I take the Blue pill?

I know the Earth is flat because I saw its shadow in the lunar eclipse

Event horizon, the 100, inception- good suggestions.
Saw them all.

Troll.
Or a perv projecting his fetish using the front of "I'm young so I have to ask for advice"

Sorry I missed you.

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

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

there can be no such thing as proof of God's existence, there can only be evidence.

I concede that enough evidence stands as proof (unless/untill counter evidence becomes apparent). I think this is merely a matter of semantics and we agree on the general idea of evidence/proof.

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

My first submission was the fact, that we cannot think God without existence.

(However, it is possible to concive of exsistence without any god as the Atheists do)

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

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

I concede that as a fact- science often concludes causality.

Why would the chain (of causality) 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 (mathematical) 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

I maybe unclear on this, you may be saying "Why does causality itself exist except for by God?" or "what is the first link in the chain of causality if not God?"

It seems that you are placing an arguement of "We don't know, so the answer must/may be due to God or a god-like entity"

In this scenario ...
For lack of articulating myself properly I will point at my car. Your arguement is "I don't know how it works, therefore God must make it work"

The flip side is "I don't know how it works." The end.

With your arguement, when the car dies people must pray to God to get it working again.

With my flip side, when the car dies the only possible recourse to get it moving again is to take it appart, study it, learn how it works, learn how to fix it.

And so i put to you that not only does the apparent existance of a causality chain fail to prove that there is a God, but that the belief in God itself defeats the pursuit of knowledge.

Not understanding "Why/How" does not mean that "Why/How" is due to God. It only means that we do not (yet?) know.

I'll be back online in 40-ish hours.

This is like asking "If it was proven that gravity made things fall UP would you tie yourself to the ground?"

Gravity does not make things fall up, therefore the rest of the What If doesn't mean anything.

There is no god, therefore the remainder of your question seems silly to me.

................
Hello.