Posts made by ScruffyMutt

@Neeko said in What was the most unsettling film you’ve seen? 🎥🍿:

@WtfJudith Eraserhead

I saw that.
I wish I didn't.

Because I don't know him/her, they are alien to me, but they are on a chat site.

Stranger.
Alien.
Chatter.

Heavy rains, thunder, lightning, air quality alert, news says stay off the road.

But I have to get to work.
If I'm late or call off then they won't care why.

If I was a free man then I could choose not to go to work.
But I have no choice.
I need the paycheck or I will suffer greatly.

I don't hate work or working. I hate having the financial entrapment to work.

Economic slavery.

I read your post in the entirety.
Here is what i I took away from it:

• "I have no other arguments except those three things so instead I'll argue symantics over 'Evidence' and 'Proof' and pretend to take the higher ground by saying you win... By saying it was some type of a symantics technicality instead of admitting I have no kind of evidence/proof of God. You win because I let you win 😝"

It wasn't an insult. It is exactly how you sound.

" I never said it proves anything. "
It was the very first piece of evidence you have for god in our debate.

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

proof
/pro͞of/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence and proof are synonymous.

"Miracles don't prove a thing. They are simply evidence, ..."

See above.

"People get told an incredible story (guy killed on cross, resurrected). Believeing it gets them killed. And yet in masses they convert. Ergo: evidence of something other happening that just an incredible story being told."

People are told smoking and vaping are bad for you and can kill you. Yet people start smoking for the first time every day. It's irrelevant.

"Did you really have that acquaintance? 😂"
Her name was Virgina.

"And no I never said I knew that God was real. Stop insulting me."
It's the whole basis of your relegious posts. Double think/double talk doesn't work on me, Mr. Orwell

"I never used these three flawed arguments. "
These are exactly the arguments you use. Spot on.

"And no I have no arguments for the existence of just any god. I only have arguments for evidence of the Christian God."
Semantics. More double talk.
You have no evidence for any god (including your Christian God) except for pointing at things you don't understand or pointing at other people who believe or pointing to your own belief.

-"There is no evidence God exsists"

="Oh yeah? Let me point at what appears to be a highly complex thing that we didn't figure out yet! That proves it because God understands it!"

-"That just prove we don't understand it yet. Like a solar eclipse, we used to think that was a sign from God. But now we understand it and know it's not a sign of God."

="Oh yeah? Well I know God is real because Miracles prove it!"

-"No, miracles prove we don't know what caused an event. It doesn't prove any god was behind it"

="Oh yeah? Well I KNOW God is real because I have faith in Him, Trust what my fellow religious peers taught me, and can feel He is real!"

I had an acquaintance once that had complete faith they could fly, devoutly trusted they would float, and knew they could because they could feel the power to fly surging through them.

They needed to pressure wash the blood off of the sidewalk after they got done shoveling up the pieces of my acquaintance.

But that's basically the basis of all of your arguments, @pe7erpark3r .

• 1- you know God is real because there are things you don't understand.

• 2- you know God is real because you see miracles (events you don't understand)

• 3- you know God is real because you feel/have faith/trust he is real.

Can you place ANY arguement In favor for the exsistence of any god without these three flawed arguments?

@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)

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

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?

Catfish month.

........

Someone was looking for you on the missed connections forum.

So single that I plan to begin divorce proceedings this week.

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.

........

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.

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.

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

@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.