CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Really? Again with this? I'm getting damn tired of this argument. I don't need to prove god doesn't exist. You are making the claim of existence, you need to provide proof, for the same reason that you don't need to prove Zeus, Thor, Baal, and Santa Clause aren't real.
What the hell am I doing wasting my time here. If you gave a shit about logical arguments you wouldn't be asking this question.
Atheists are experts on how to avoid answering questions. In every other debate, they assume it's the God of Abraham. In this one, you magically don't know which god. Naaa. You just have no answer.
1: Even if God is real, all religions are still wrong. They are full of signs of human psychology and imperfection, they are all localized and often specifically relate to certain groups of people.
2: Even if God is real, he is not "God" objectively, because the word god doesn't describe what something is it describes it's relationship with other life forms. It's a title, like "general" or "lord". A god is something you worship, that doesn't tell you what it really is. Maybe it's an alien, maybe it created the universe in a quantum computer of sorts and it's actually a scientist that wants you to think it's God.
3: There is no need for a god to create us. pointing to the complexity or order of nature is irrelevant because if humans and everything else need a creator then why can God just exist out of the aether when he is even more complex than what he created?
4: God's existence would be highly illogical and if there is a "God" then you can bet your bottom ass cheek that we are in a simulation and it's not "God" at all. In a natural universe, I think it's safe to say that a random super intelligence doesn't manifest out of nothing and create it deliberately.
and Hinduism is quickly being replaced in India. Budhism is nontheistic
Is it being replaced ? And that what will happen Christianity in the future all it takes is time
Also how does it strengthen a god claim ?
I also know what Buddhism is and again so what ?
Secondly, the Bible talks about other gods a lot,
The Bible also talks about a talking Ass
and most of those "gods" have vanished into the pages of
Yes they have just like your one will also , thank you for deafeating you own “ argument “
, so your logic is flawed.
I merely asked a question which youthen went in to support with you “ conclusions “ as in give it enough time and your god will also be just a historical fiction people bring up once in a while
Nonsense , certainly not according to my bible but even if that's the case is Jesus resurrecting, walking on water or turning water into wine part of the same stoners dream?
I'm still waiting for someone to prove a god DOES exist. No one has come close yet. Without meaningless biblical "facts", there is none.
I would be a believer if this "god" would make ONE undeniable appearance (should be easy for a REAL god), but, not ONE in 20 centuries. (Plus a few thousand years), THAT is proof enough for ME that the "flying spaghetti monster" is as viable as the "God of Abraham".
U have no proof whatsoever that God exists okay like everything that is to do with God is man made I know it's hard to prove God does or doesn't exit but scientist have proof God doesn't exist this includes stuff like the big bang theory and just asking but how was God created cause know one is just there everything has a creator weather it's a reaction or magic but there is no bible story of how God was created
Proof positive that there is no God can be found in the BIBLE.
Anyone who has read and believes in the self contradictory, superstitious hocus pocus contained in this 2000 year old book written by numerous authors should hand themselves in to their nearest psychiatric clinic for professional counselling.
Most atheists I know do not claim that there is no God, rather that there is no rational reason to believe in God. It is as hard to prove that no deities exist as it is to prove that there is no "flying spaghetti monster" somewhere in the universe (to use a common example).
If a clear definition of God is provided one can attempt a disproof, sometimes a redutio ad absurdum, where we find a contradiction. Here's one argument:
(1). The Abrahamic God has given us free will.
(2). The Abrahamic God knows what we will do in the future.
Premise (1) contradicts premise (2), therefore (3); The God of the bible cannot exist.
I'm not actually 100% convince by this argument, and even if it works, it doesn't prove no God can exist.
A similarly structured argument, which I'm sure you've heard is the argument from evil. I can't be bothered to go over it here, and it doesn't entirely convince me either.
I hold the position that there is no reason to believe any deity exists, and no reason to believe that one doesn't. Therefore I treat them as being only slightly more plausible than the flying spaghetti monster.
I believe them to be slightly more plausible because there are at least some accounts of miracles (not enough to be convincing) that increase the probability that some deity exists, but there's no shred of evidence to suggest FSM exists.
For a miracle to take place the natural laws of the Universe are suspended or put on hold so the event can take place ; since time began every nation and culture has had it's so called miracle workers , not a shred of hard evidence exists for even one miracle .
One account that pops to mind is the "Fatima sun miracle," and I'm sure there is an endless list of miracles that people have claimed to have experienced. For instance, all the miracles mentioned in various holy books. I do not claim there is hard evidence, just some quite weak anecdotal evidence. Of course I do not believe in miracles, but what I am saying is that the mere existence of stories of miracles makes the existence of some deity more likely than that of FSM (flying spaghetti monster).
But all the claims only have anecdotal evidence , why would the existence of stories of miracles make them more likely ?
The Bible mentions a talking Ass and various sacred religious books mention talking animals , are they more then more likely to be true ?
In recent times a guru / holy man called Sai Baba claimed to do “miracles” but James Randi and others exposed him for what he was as in a deceptionist and a very poor one at that , interestingly his followers are said to be in 130 countries and number up to 100 million ; a lot of people just prefer to close their eyes to the actual truth in favour of a fantasy
It's just a matter of probability. Any evidence, no matter how weak, is better than no evidence. A talking ass is more likely to exist if there is a serious report of one then if there isn't. Anecdotal evidence, while sucky, is still stronger than no evidence.
Any evidence, no matter how weak, is better than no evidence.
I wouldn’t agree and in fact it can lead to dangerous conclusions based on merely anecdotal “ evidence “
A talking ass is more likely to exist if there is a serious report of one then if there isn't.
What do mean by “ serious “ ?
Anecdotal evidence, while sucky, is still stronger than no evidence.
It depends on what the evidence is based on , if it’s evidence of a car accident we are more likely to accept it as car accidents are commonplace , but unexplained phenomena require solid evidence if they are are to be taken seriously
Plausibility is about the likelihood of something being true. It is a matter of probability.
I am not suggesting coming to conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, I am simply saying that something is more probable to be true if there is some evidence for it than if there is none. (Assuming there is no contradictory evidence)
By serious, I mean not a joke, metaphor, or allegory (like some stories in the bible) etc.
I am not saying we should take things seriously based on flimsy evidence, just that flimsy evidence is better than none.
Plausibility is about the likelihood of something being true.
It’s not , it’s the quality of seeming reasonable or probable .
People in their droves believe in nonsense based on what they think is reasonable or probable but fall into the trap of like most of being easily duped .
In my country many years ago the majority of people believed in moving statues based on hear say and flimsy evidence , this does not in my opinion make flimsy evidence better than none
is a matter of probability.
Again my point above stands as in the majority thought it probable the statues moved , the majority were wrong
I am not suggesting coming to conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, I am simply saying that something is more probable to be true if there is some evidence for it than if there is none.
That’s only true if the evidence is strong enough to be convincing , the majority of people are not remotely qualified enough to evaluate claims of the miraculous, I claim this from experience
(Assuming there is no contradictory evidence)
By serious, I mean not a joke, metaphor, or allegory (like some stories in the bible) etc.
I am not saying we should take things seriously based on flimsy evidence, just that flimsy evidence is better than none.
"it’s the quality of seeming reasonable or probable."
So plausibility is the level of probability and reasonableness of something, right.
Hold on... Do you think when I say "more probable" that I mean more likely than not? I just mean that the addition of flimsy evidence increases the chance from, say, 0.000001 to, say, 0.01 - Not that it makes it more likely than not. I think the level of plausibility is extremely low for both FSM and a deity.
Isn't ever so slightly more reasonable to believe in moving statues based on hearsay rather than based on nothing at all? I don't see how you can dispute that.
So plausibility is the level of probability and reasonableness of something, right.
Yes
Hold on... Do you think when I say "more probable" that I mean more likely than not?
Well that’s what the term means
I just mean that the addition of flimsy evidence increases the chance from, say, 0.000001 to, say, 0.01
For ordinary everyday things yes , for miracle claims no
- Not that it makes it more likely than not. I think the level of plausibility is extremely low for both FSM and a deity.
Equally so I would say
Isn't ever so slightly more reasonable to believe in moving statues based on hearsay rather than based on nothing at all?
Surely no one ever puts forward a case of a statue moving based on nothing ?
I don’t like the majority of rational beings believe statues move , one has never been seen to move or demonstrated to do so, any claims for such can be dismissed as nonsense
Why would I even give any credence to miracle claims ?
No, it just means more likely than it was previously.
"For ordinary everyday things yes , for miracle claims no"
Why are miracle claims different?
"Surely no one ever puts forward a case of a statue moving based on nothing ?"
Of course not, but this is analogous to believing in FSM, as there is no evidence at all. Believing in a deity is like believing in moving statues after hearing a story of one.
"Why would I even give any credence to miracle claims ?"
You shouldn't if there isn't sufficient evidence, but they are still more likely to be true with weak evidence than without, no matter how ridiculous.
No, it just means more likely than it was previously.
So are you happy with the definition of probable now ?
Why are miracle claims different?
So you don’t see how evidence of an everyday event might be assessed differently to claims of the miraculous ?
Of course not, but this is analogous to believing in FSM, as there is no evidence at all.
They are people who disagree with you on this and would claim to have “ evidence “
Believing in a deity is like believing in moving statues after hearing a story of one.
Believing in FSM is also similar if one was to hear a story of such
You shouldn't if there isn't sufficient evidence, but they are still more likely to be true with weak evidence than without, no matter how ridiculous.
They’re not , 100 million people believe Sai Baba was a miracle worker , I as in one disagree , yet I’m right but they had“evidence”which going on your assertions I should have accepted was more likely to be true
"So are you happy with the definition of probable now ?"
Very happy. I'm not sure what you think it means though.
"So you don’t see how evidence of an everyday event might be assessed differently to claims of the miraculous ?"
Of course some things about the way we asses them are different, but why does the particular thing we were talking about only apply to everyday events.
"They are people who disagree with you on this and would claim to have “ evidence “"
I wasn't aware people actually believed in FSM. I know there is an official religion here in NZ for it, but the 'believers' don't actually believe it as far as I was aware. Either way, there are definitely more pieces of weak evidence for some deity than for FSM.
"They’re not , 100 million people believe Sai Baba was a miracle worker , I as in one disagree , yet I’m right but they had“evidence”which going on your assertions I should have accepted was more likely to be true"
It was more likely to be true than if there hadn't been any evidence.
Very happy. I'm not sure what you think it means though.
Despite my giving you the accepted definition ....ok
Of course some things about the way we asses them are different, but why does the particular thing we were talking about only apply to everyday events.
Because you like the majority most likely fall victim to miracle claims
I wasn't aware people actually believed in FSM.
There are
I know there is an official religion here in NZ for it, but the 'believers' don't actually believe it as far as I was aware.
Some do
Either way, there are definitely more pieces of weak evidence for some deity than for FSM.
But there was strong evidence for Sai Babas miracle claims and it was flawed
It was more likely to be true than if there hadn't been any evidence.
So now no evidence for something is even better than flimsy evidence .......
"I’m saying you are like the majority totally unqualified to assess miracle claims"
I don't see why I need to be qualified to say what I'm saying.
"It has as we are talking about miracle claims"
The fact that it was flawed has no relevance because I said nothing that implied it wasn't flawed.
"I know but you seem to think any evidence is better that none and must be given credit"
Yes. That doesn't mean I think the thing the evidence is contributing isn't flawed.
"You didn’t , you stated "It was more likely to be true than if there hadn't been any evidence." Remember now ?"
Yes, which (if you actually read the sentence) is what I have been saying all along. I don't know what you're reading. I said "It [Sai Baba thing] was more likely to be true than if there hadn't been any evidence [for Sai baba thing]." This clearly states that some evidence is better than none.
"But if it’s flawed you think it’s better than none ?"
Oops, I made a typo in the sentence you quoted. I said: "Yes. That doesn't mean I think the thing the evidence is contributing isn't flawed." I meant to say: "Yes. That doesn't mean I think the thing the evidence is contributing to isn't flawed." I'm not talking about flawed evidence, just weak evidence. There is a difference.
To rephrase that (in terms of a deity), I could say: "That doesn't mean I think a deity exists, just that the weak evidence for a deity makes it seem more likely a deity exists than FSM, for which there is no evidence at all.
"How can we evaluate something if we have no evidence for it ?"
If there is no evidence for something than it's just dumb to believe in it. If there is a little bit of evidence, it's still dumb to believe in it, just ever so slightly less so.
"Flawed evidence is worthless , how it’s better than none is beyond me"
Flawed evidence ii worthless, if we know it to be flawed, but weak evidence is not synonymous with flawed evidence.
Here's an everyday example:
Weak evidence that I had a bad night's sleep: I yawn a bit more than usual the next day.
Flawed evidence that I had a bad night's sleep: My car is blue.
See how the weak evidence makes the conclusion ever so slightly more likely, but the flawed evidence is completely useless? I'm saying that reports of miracles are like the weak evidence.
To rephrase that (in terms of a deity), I could say: "That doesn't mean I think a deity exists, just that the weak evidence for a deity makes it seem more likely a deity exists than FSM, for which there is no evidence at all.
More likely ? I disagree and I’ve told you certain people actually believe the FSM exists and why is their claim any less valid than the other ?
If there is no evidence for something than it's just dumb to believe in it. If there is a little bit of evidence, it's still dumb to believe in it, just ever so slightly less so.
But there’s not even a “ little bit of evidence “
Flawed evidence ii worthless, if we know it to be flawed, but weak evidence is not synonymous with flawed evidence.
I’ve told you repeatedly when we talked about miracle claims that any so called “ weak evidence “ is worthless regarding a miracle claim , for one to even believe such one has to allow for the ridiculous idea that the laws of the Universe have to temporarily put on hold to allow such to happen , you think that there could be a chance of this no matter how remote that chance is ?
Here's an everyday example:
Weak evidence that I had a bad night's sleep: I yawn a bit more than usual the next day.
Flawed evidence that I had a bad night's sleep: My car is blue.
See how the weak evidence makes the conclusion ever so slightly more likely, but the flawed evidence is completely useless?
Total shift of your position try it again and insert what we are addressing as in miracle claims , doesn’t work so well does it ?
I'm saying that reports of miracles are like the weak evidence
As in worthless .
Miracle :
A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[2] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.
Let’s say that you , me and a believer are invited to a demonstration of a “ miracle “ the miracle worker appears on stage and levitates , the believer says “ hallelujah it’s a miracle “ you say “ It must be a trick but it’s possible however remotely that it may be a miracle “
I say “Its a trick and I can explain it “
We each have observed an event and drawn different conclusions all you and the beliver have is an account of an event and anything else is merely an opinion as your conclusions are based on flawed assumptions, my opinion is the only one based on actual evidence
"certain people actually believe the FSM exists and why is their claim any less valid than the other ?"
Because they have less evidence for their claim. "Valid" is the wrong word here, there aren't really degrees of validity, better to use something like "believable."
"But there’s not even a “ little bit of evidence “"
There is, even some random person saying that they saw a miracle counts as weak evidence if it can't be disproved. You certainly can't disprove every claim of seeing a miracle.
"I’ve told you repeatedly when we talked about miracle claims that any so called “ weak evidence “ is worthless regarding a miracle claim , for one to even believe such one has to allow for the ridiculous idea that the laws of the Universe have to temporarily put on hold to allow such to happen , you think that there could be a chance of this no matter how remote that chance is ?"
Of course, there is no way for us to know if it's possible, so as far as we (humans) are concerned there is a chance.
"Total shift of your position try it again and insert what we are addressing as in miracle claims , doesn’t work so well does it ?"
I will try:
Weak evidence that I a deity exists: Some person reports seeing a miracle.
Flawed evidence that a deity exists: My car is blue.
See how the weak evidence makes the conclusion [that a deity exists] ever so slightly more likely, but the flawed evidence is completely useless?
Works just fine.
"As in worthless .
Miracle :
A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[2] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.
Let’s say that you , me and a believer are invited to a demonstration of a “ miracle “ the miracle worker appears on stage and levitates , the believer says “ hallelujah it’s a miracle “ you say “ It must be a trick but it’s possible however remotely that it may be a miracle “
I say “Its a trick and I can explain it “
We each have observed an event and drawn different conclusions all you and the believer have is an account of an event and anything else is merely an opinion as your conclusions are based on flawed assumptions, my opinion is the only one based on actual evidence"
But if you can disprove it that means it is flawed evidence, not weak evidence. You aren't claiming that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single miracle claim ever made is completely fake, are you?
So using your logic 100 pieces of flawed evidence have more merit than say 10 pieces of flawed evidence ?
Valid" is the wrong word here, there aren't really degrees of validity, better to use something like "believable.
Valid is a perfectly acceptable term maybe you need to re -examine what the term means ?
There is, even some random person saying that they saw a miracle counts as weak evidence if it can't be disproved.
Some random person claiming they saw an event is fine claiming they saw a miracle merely an opinion formed because of ignorance
You certainly can't disprove every claim of seeing a miracle.
I don’t have to disprove miracle claims as the laws of our Universe negate any such claims unless of course you think the laws are suspended to allow such ?
Of course, there is no way for us to know if it's possible, so as far as we (humans) are concerned there is a chance.
Really ? Read what I asked as in above
Weak evidence that I a deity exists: Some person reports seeing a miracle.
Flawed evidence that a deity exists: My car is blue.
See how the weak evidence makes the conclusion [that a deity exists] ever so slightly more likely, but the flawed evidence is completely useless?
Works just fine.
That made absolutely no sense to me
But if you can disprove it that means it is flawed evidence,
What I’ve disproved is a miracle claim made by another and I would go to such an event knowing for a fact I was going to watch a charlatan pretend to be a miracle worker , you go to observe the event thinking a miracle may be possible so any “ evidence “ you claim to have is based on your flawed assumptions that such events may be possible
You aren't claiming that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single miracle claim ever made is completely fake, are you?
Yes I am care to name one that’s not a fake ? Just one will do if you can ? Of the 100s of 1000s put forward since the dawn of time every one has been proven to be fake, you on the other hand believe the laws of the Universe may change to allow such an event to take place
You seem to think that miracles are necessarily impossible, i.e, that it isn't possible that they are possible. We do no t know if they are possible, but it seems reasonable to think that the world could have been (and may be) in such a state as to allow miracles and deities. If there is an all powerful deity (which is the thing in question) then they wouldn't be restrained by the laws of nature. Saying that the laws of nature disprove miracles is circular reasoning. You have to assume that no deity exists in order to say that miracles can't happen, which makes your reasoning redundant.
I don't have to name one that isn't fake, I just have to name one that we can't be certain is fake. Here: The Fatima sun miracle, as I think I mentioned before. Now it's possible this one can be proven to be fake, but I'm 100�rtain that there hasn't been a formal investigation into every little claim that someone saw a miracle somewhere at some point.
You seem to think that miracles are necessarily impossible,
Yes i have said so repeatedly
i.e, that it isn't possible that they are possible.
Yes
We do no t know if they are possible,
Incorrect , you do not know
but it seems reasonable to think that the world could have been (and may be) in such a state as to allow miracles and deities.
"Reasonable " to you
If there is an all powerful deity (which is the thing in question)
IF
then they wouldn't be restrained by the laws of nature.
That's only IF
Saying that the laws of nature disprove miracles is circular reasoning.
I didn't say the laws "disprove " miracles I said the laws of the Universe do not get suspended to allow such , my reasoning is not circular it's a perfectly logical position
Your argument is based on ignorance
You have to assume that no deity exists in order to say that miracles can't happen, which makes your reasoning redundant.
Yes I assume that and now you as an atheist assume there is a god to allow you to make your claim , so you're no longer an atheist ?
Also by claiming my arguments are circular and my reasoning is redundant only makes you appear like other childish members of C D
I don't have to name one that isn't fake
You don't have to do anything you don't want to
, I just have to name one that we can't be certain is fake.
Why do you keep saying "we" why not "I" to use we is fallacious
Here: The Fatima sun miracle, as I think I mentioned before. Now it's possible this one can be proven to be fake,
Yes it's been throughly debunked several times
but I'm 100�rtain that there hasn't been a formal investigation into every little claim that someone saw a miracle somewhere at some point.
Funny that isn't it that some miracles according to you are not even worth reporting , whys that ?
"I didn't say the laws "disprove " miracles I said the laws of the Universe do not get suspended to allow such , my reasoning is not circular it's a perfectly logical position"
Well, to say that the laws of nature can't be suspended is circular reasoning, for the reasons I stated.
"Yes I assume that and now you as an atheist assume there is a god to allow you to make your claim , so you're no longer an atheist ? Also by claiming my arguments are circular and my reasoning is redundant only makes you appear like other childish members of C D"
So you assume that no deity exists when you argue against miracles? That's an obvious example of circular reasoning.
I don't assume there is a deity, I don't assume there isn't one, and I assume it is possible that there is one. Do you think it is possible that there is a deity? If not, why?
I'm claiming your arguments are circular because they are. I don't see what this has to do with being childish.
"Why do you keep saying "we" why not "I" to use we is fallacious"
Because I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the human race. When I say we can't be certain, I mean it is impossible for any of us to prove that every miracle claim is fake.
"Funny that isn't it that some miracles according to you are not even worth reporting, whys that?"
I don't see how you got that from what I said where you quoted me.
Well, to say that the laws of nature can't be suspended is circular reasoning, for the reasons I stated.
Nonsense
so you assume that no deity exists
Yes I’ve stated so several times
when you argue against miracles?
What has belief in a god got to do with a miracle claim, many have claimed miraculous powers without a god belief
That's an obvious example of circular reasoning.
It’s an example of your confusion over simple concepts
I don't assume there is a deity, I don't assume there isn't one, and I assume it is possible that there is one.
But you say to believe in miracle claims one must believe in a deity
Do you think it is possible that there is a deity?
No
If not, why?
Since the dawn of time not 1 in several billion believers has produced a shred of evidence to support a god belief , that does for me
I'm claiming your arguments are circular because they are
Now that’s circular , well done you
.I don't see what this has to do with being childish.
No you don’t I know
"Why do you keep saying "we" why not "I" to use we is fallacious"
Because I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the human race.
Interesting you know the opinion of the human race
When I say we can't be certain, I mean it is impossible for any of us to prove that every miracle claim is fake.
It’s not and let’s put the final nail in your coffin , a miracle, by definition, is an event that is impossible to occur under known circumstances. If it occurs, it is not a miracle. Do you get that ?
In general, a miracle is only a seemingly extraordinary event that cannot, under present circumstances and scientific knowledge, be readily explained. Bear in mind that eclipses were a miracle not long ago.
I don't see how you got that from what I said where you quoted me
I know , I don’t think you realise what you actually type half the time
"What has belief in a god got to do with a miracle claim, many have claimed miraculous powers without a god belief"
Given that we are talking about miracles in the context of deities, I thought it was obvious that we were only interested in relevant miracles, i.e, ones that (if they actually happened) would be pretty strong evidence for a deity.
"But you say to believe in miracle claims one must believe in a deity"
Sure, but I don't believe in miracle claims, I just believe there is a chance that some may be true.
"Since the dawn of time not 1 in several billion believers has produced a shred of evidence to support a god belief, that does for me."
Not one has produced a shred of convincing evidence, but there are shreds of weak evidence, miracles. (and maybe some other things I can't think of right now)
Not to mention, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are probably plenty of things that we don't yet have evidence for that may still turn out to be true.
"Now that’s circular , well done you"
It's not circular because I have shown above that your reasoning is circular.
"Interesting you know the opinion of the human race"
I'm know that the human race can't prove that every claim of a miracle ever made was fake.
"It’s not and let’s put the final nail in your coffin , a miracle, by definition, is an event that is impossible to occur under known circumstances. If it occurs, it is not a miracle. Do you get that ? In general, a miracle is only a seemingly extraordinary event that cannot, under present circumstances and scientific knowledge, be readily explained. Bear in mind that eclipses were a miracle not long ago."
Using google's definition, a miracle is "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." Other dictionaries have similar definitions. To say a miracle is impossible under known circumstances concerns currently known circumstances. Currently unknown circumstances may occur in the future (or may have occurred in the past but not be widely known). If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead after three days through divine power any reasonable person would count that as a miracle. It is possible that if there is something that seems like a miracle (as eclipses did) could be explained by science we don't yet understand, but it is also possible it could be an act of a deity.
Given that we are talking about miracles in the context of deities,
No , you’re the one limiting it now to “miracles “ involving a god , your argument is circular as in .......we are talking about miracles involving a god and any such events must be from a god .....
That’s your argument and it’s circular
I thought it was obvious that we were only interested in relevant miracles, i.e, ones that (if they actually happened) would be pretty strong evidence for a deity.
There you go again as in .... if a “miracle “ takes place it’s proof of a god
Totally circular argument
Sure, but I don't believe in miracle claims, I just believe there is a chance that some may be true.
You don’t believe yet you do believe there is a chance ???
Not one has produced a shred of convincing evidence, but there are shreds of weak evidence, miracles. (and maybe some other things I can't think of right now)
Weak evidence is worthless , there’s no such thing as a miracle that’s a fact.
For something to constitute a miracle, it must be unearthly, like "a violation of the laws of nature". However, once observed, such occurrences become both earthly and must be explained by the laws of nature. So by the very virtue of happening, a miracle is no longer a miracle.
Not to mention, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A Carl Sagan quote hmmmm, here’s another ....
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or as Hitchens put it That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof
That puts paid to your god claim also
There are probably plenty of things that we don't yet have evidence for that may still turn out to be true.
So ? That means we have no explanation unless people like you use Godidit as the explain all
It's not circular because I have shown above that your reasoning is circular.
Really , as in your continuous claims that if you cannot explain something well godidit , now that’s circular
I'm know that the human race can't prove that every claim of a miracle ever made was fake.
Me and others are part of the human race that disagree with your assertions
Using google's definition, a miracle is "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."
Yes google says that so what ?
Other dictionaries have similar definitions.
Yes and for god and ghosts but what does that prove exactly ?
To say a miracle is impossible under known circumstances concerns currently known circumstances.
Yes
Currently unknown circumstances may occur in the future (or may have occurred in the past but not be widely known).
Mere speculation on your part , and if in the past where’s your proof ?
If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead after three days through divine power any reasonable person would count that as a miracle.
IF
It is possible that if there is something that seems like a miracle (as eclipses did) could be explained by science we don't yet understand, but it is also possible it could be an act of a deity.
You got to prove there’s a god before you make that claim again That which can vibe asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
"No , you’re the one limiting it now to “miracles “ involving a god , your argument is circular as in .......we are talking about miracles involving a god and any such events must be from a god .....That’s your argument and it’s circular"
My argument is this:
(1). There have been numerous reports of miracles.
(2). There is a chance that some of those miracles actually happened.
(3). If some of those miracles actually happened there is a chance that they were due to a deity.
Therefore, (4) there is a chance that there is a deity.
"There you go again as in .... if a “miracle “ takes place it’s proof of a god. Totally circular argument"
I am not even saying that a miracle is proof of a deity, I'm just saying of one definitely occurred there would be a chance that it was due to a deity.
"You don’t believe yet you do believe there is a chance ???"
Yes. If I toss ten coins in a row, I don't believe they will all land on heads, but I do believe there is a chance.
"Weak evidence is worthless"
That's a blind assertion.
"For something to constitute a miracle, it must be unearthly, like "a violation of the laws of nature". However, once observed, such occurrences become both earthly and must be explained by the laws of nature. So by the very virtue of happening, a miracle is no longer a miracle."
That simply isn't true. If something breaks the laws of nature, then, by definition, it isn't natural. That counts as supernatural, like a miracle. Trying to define miracles out of existence will get you nowhere here.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or as Hitchens put it That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"
If a miracle were to be proved to have happened it would be extraordinary evidence. Also, I am not asserting miracles have happened, just that there is a chance that they have. There is a chance that they have simply because we can't prove that they haven't.
"Really , as in your continuous claims that if you cannot explain something well godidit , now that’s circular"
I never said anything like that.
"Yes google says that so what ?"
Given that you seem to care about the definition of the word 'miracle,' I thought a definition might be relevant.
"Yes and for god and ghosts but what does that prove exactly ?"
It proves that your definition is not the only accepted way to interpret the word 'miracle.'
"Mere speculation on your part , and if in the past where’s your proof?"
It seems a reasonable assumption to say that there is a chance that there are circumstances we have't experienced before.
You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said and I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you.
You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said and I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you......
No , I’ve repeatedly corrected you and your misunderstanding of basic concepts but like a petulant child you resort to your only available option as in flee , I take your withdrawal as typical egotistical posturing on your part and anything you have to offer at this stage would I warrant be equally void of implication
Intriguing. To me, it seems equally plausible that the FSM caused these purported miracles. The only difference seems to be the broader credence people put in the religion. Just because it's a "spoof" faith, that doesn't make it less likely to be true than the others I should think.
Some of these alleged miracles seem to be pretty specific to certain religions, to use an obvious example, if Jesus really did rise from the dead that would seem to support Christianity more than 'pastafarianism.' That's why I think certain religions are more likely to be true than 'pastafarianism.'
I didn't intend for my original little comment to be some strong statement.
we can prove that god does not exist as there are no signs of these supernatural powers. you go to temple or mosque or church and pray for a better exam results, it does not always happen. it may happen because of your consistent efforts but not because of the godly powers. actually god was just created by some people in the ancient period to give people their confidence and belief, but god does not actually exist. so from this i conclude that god does not actually exist.....
You can't prove a negative. I can ask you the same question, but instead of god being the object, let's say it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead. You can't prove it doesn't exist. Same as I can't prove that a god exists.
It would be as easy to prove He does exist to those who don't believe in Him as it is to prove He doesn't exist to those who do. Belief in God (any God) is a personal choice. I can't ask the Lord to come down and show Himself to everyone any more than you can, this is what belief is about.
No, they can't prove it. They act like they know the Bible, but if you perge them, you quickly find out that most of what they believe is in the Bible, isn't actually in the Bible, and they are bewildered if you challenge them on basic Biblical knowledge.
They say they want proof. But if you provide it, they ignore it, act like nothing happened, and say there is no proof in the next thread. Rinse, wash and repeat.
Hebrew slavery was voluntary, used to pay off debts, and had time restrictions. Secondly, prove slavery is objectively wrong. Perhaps they are POWs trying to kill you. Perhaps a lot of things.
I know it better than the majority of “ Christians “ as most have never even read it
I've seen you claim things are in the Bible that aren't, be clueless on god topics, and have almost no understanding of basic Biblical concepts. Your Bible knowledge rivals your Darwinian Theory knowledge. That is to say, none.
I've seen you claim things are in the Bible that aren't,
Bet you cannot back that claim up
be clueless on god topics,
You mean not agree with bullshit
and have almost no understanding of basic Biblical concepts. you mean I school all these so called Christians like you on here who have never even read the bible , I'm an expert on the bible
your Bible knowledge rivals your Darwinian Theory knowledge.
That's something else I'm an expert on ..... newsflash Evolution is a fact get over it
That's something else I'm an expert on ..... newsflash Evolution is a fact get over it
You might want to tell it to creatures that are hundreds of millions of years old that have fossilized or were trapped in amber that look exactly the same today.
Its impossible to prove God does not exist because its definition is beyond the realm of science. Science can only establish what can exist within the rules of science. It has nothing to say about something beyond the realm of science. One can choose to believe there is nothing beyond but that's just an opinion and not provable.
Not studying something, then claiming something you haven't studied is a waste of time, shows you're a dogmatic, ideological hack and uneducated on the issue.
10 pages of you quoting bible verses to someone is not evidence of God you retard. The bible is the source of the claims. You cant support claims with themselves.
He explains this to you and you just ignore it. Probably made 6 puppet accounts and upvoted yourself
I’m agnostic (my profile says something else I think). And we are gonna go around in goddamned (excuse the expression) circles with evidence for and against this. Me being agnostic, I’m cant say for sure that one exists or doesn’t exist.
