Posts made by ScruffyMutt

Catfish month

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

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

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

@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.

@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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS: I too am only on here intermittently

I don't have a favorite color....
Or a favorite brand of automotive parts.
Or a favorite type of pavement.
Or a favorite smell.
Or a favorite texture.
Or a favorite type of penile piercing.

I do not understand why so many people think everyone has a favorite color.

@petrapark3r is taking the position that God exsists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you accept the debate guidelines, @petrapark3r?

@petrapark3r in your attempts to summarize scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe there is one fundamental fact that seems to have eluded you. the scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe are not facts, they are theories based on available facts. Science does not explain how the universe came to be, it only proposes theories based on proven evidence.
Science does not say "we know how the universe was created", science says "this is what we can prove based on evidence, theories that seem to fit that evidence, and we are trying to find out more".

With religion, when one does not know the answer to a question they make the answer be "because of God". With science, when one does not know the answer to a question one will say "I do not know but these are the facts we have so far".

And unlike relegions science depends on facts that can be proven, tested, and recreated.

You can have faith in anything. That doesn't make it real.

It was in the news today- guidelines for aspirin and heart disease/attacks are changing. They found it barely helps the heart/clots and greatly increases intestinal bleeding.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-millions-stop-aspirin-heart-health-64494780

Um... No.

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

I AGREE!!!

https://chatrooms.talkwithstranger.com/topic/32273/how-an-atheist-sees-death

@steelfirehawk said in What God deserves!:

@ScruffyMutt not limits just wisdom. He knows he is the best in every way.

Wow. He sounds so arrogant.

@steelfirehawk said in What God deserves!:

Could you imagine being the most romantic, and heavy soul in the universe? When we curse him, or reject him, or rebuke him after all he is truly capable of its not very encouraging. I advise just regard him like a husband or a father, and the Holy spirit will comfort you if your affection is true to him, and in turn you won't want to stop glorifying him lol 4 real

Hell no. After all the people he allowed to die from ISIS? After all the people he killed with hurricanes Katrina and Maria? After he sent Moses to Egypt knowing he was going to murder the first borns himself anyway? We all know how God would treat those that love him: just look at what he did to Job.

Good thing he doesn't exist or we'd all be screwed.

@steelfirehawk said in What God deserves!:

@ScruffyMutt those mega churches are horrible don't blame God for these hypocrites!

If God doesn't want them then let Him do something about it.