trouble

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the audience.

Evasion! Common sense not permitted as this would make Seth wrong.

[Seth]

Prove that god didn't fake the fossils to test your 'faith'.

A call to disprove a claim of a miracle is a dishonest nonsensical challenge.

Nope. It's a valid challenge to the statement, "I don't make claims, I challenge the claims others make. "What proof do you have that any god or gods exist?""

I met the challenge by citing a miracle attributed to God. I met the burden of proof by citing the tens of thousands of witnesses to the event. Now it's your turn to prove, using the "scientific method" by presenting critically robust scientific proof that the event was not a miracle performed by God. That it's difficult for you to do so...or even impossible...does not relieve you (or Gawdzilla actually) of the burden of proving the proofs provided to be false.

Get to it. Put up or shut up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Prove that god didn't fake the fossils to test your 'faith'.

A call to disprove a claim of a miracle is a dishonest nonsensical challenge.

Nope. It's a valid challenge to the statement, "I don't make claims, I challenge the claims others make. "What proof do you have that any god or gods exist?""

I met the challenge by citing a miracle attributed to God. I met the burden of proof by citing the tens of thousands of witnesses to the event. Now it's your turn to prove, using the "scientific method" by presenting critically robust scientific proof that the event was not a miracle performed by God. That it's difficult for you to do so...or even impossible...does not relieve you (or Gawdzilla actually) of the burden of proving the proofs provided to be false.

Get to it. Put up or shut up.

No, you didn't meet the burden of proof, you just cited something that has more than one possible explanation. You haven't proven your god or gods exist.

[amused]

Prove that god didn't fake the fossils to test your 'faith'.

A call to disprove a claim of a miracle is a dishonest nonsensical challenge.

Nope. It's a valid challenge to the statement, "I don't make claims, I challenge the claims others make. "What proof do you have that any god or gods exist?""

I met the challenge by citing a miracle attributed to God. I met the burden of proof by citing the tens of thousands of witnesses to the event. Now it's your turn to prove, using the "scientific method" by presenting critically robust scientific proof that the event was not a miracle performed by God. That it's difficult for you to do so...or even impossible...does not relieve you (or Gawdzilla actually) of the burden of proving the proofs provided to be false.

Get to it. Put up or shut up.

Seth - You are a self-identified dishonest disingenuous fraud. That is what a troll is. Which is okay, go for it. But there is no point in 'debating' anything with you.

[Seth]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the audience.

I've met the burden of proof required by citing the thousands of witnesses to the event. That's all I have to do at this point.

You dispute the accuracy or validity of the proofs submitted, then it's up to you to provide the proofs for YOUR claim that the proofs I submitted are invalid. I'm not compelled to defend my proofs, you're compelled to show how they are wrong according to the scientific process, which is rigorous and rigid in its demands for critically robust evidence supporting your claim that my proofs are inaccurate.

If I say that 50,000 people witnessed a meteor fall to earth in Montana and I can produce eyewitness testimony that the event occurred, the scientific method does not allow you to simply say "it didn't happen" and have that be the accepted scientific answer. You have to prove that the event did NOT occur as witnessed, or that the event could not possibly occur, otherwise the only correct conclusion you can draw is "I don't know."

[Seth]

Prove that god didn't fake the fossils to test your 'faith'.

A call to disprove a claim of a miracle is a dishonest nonsensical challenge.

Nope. It's a valid challenge to the statement, "I don't make claims, I challenge the claims others make. "What proof do you have that any god or gods exist?""

I met the challenge by citing a miracle attributed to God. I met the burden of proof by citing the tens of thousands of witnesses to the event. Now it's your turn to prove, using the "scientific method" by presenting critically robust scientific proof that the event was not a miracle performed by God. That it's difficult for you to do so...or even impossible...does not relieve you (or Gawdzilla actually) of the burden of proving the proofs provided to be false.

Get to it. Put up or shut up.

Seth - You are a self-identified dishonest disingenuous fraud. That is what a troll is. Which is okay, go for it. But there is no point in 'debating' anything with you.

Oops, time for you to take a vacation for a personal attack.

Anyway, translated your comment says "Oh my God, Seth has bested me in the debate by driving me into a cleft stick of my own making, so now I have to insult him and run from the debate to salve my wounded ego."

Fail.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the audience.

I've met the burden of proof required by citing the thousands of witnesses to the event. That's all I have to do at this point.

You dispute the accuracy or validity of the proofs submitted, then it's up to you to provide the proofs for YOUR claim that the proofs I submitted are invalid. I'm not compelled to defend my proofs, you're compelled to show how they are wrong according to the scientific process, which is rigorous and rigid in its demands for critically robust evidence supporting your claim that my proofs are inaccurate.

If I say that 50,000 people witnessed a meteor fall to earth in Montana and I can produce eyewitness testimony that the event occurred, the scientific method does not allow you to simply say "it didn't happen" and have that be the accepted scientific answer. You have to prove that the event did NOT occur as witnessed, or that the event could not possibly occur, otherwise the only correct conclusion you can draw is "I don't know."

You have to prove that they actually saw what they claimed to have seen. Then you have prove that "god" was the cause of that. Two fails right there.

[FBM]

The people at Fatima did not all report the same experience, therefore it is not a single claim. It is multiple claims of various experiences, and they are largely contradictory.

Some of the witness statements follow below. They are taken from John De Marchi's several books on the matter.
"Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people." ― Avelino de Almeida,[16] writing for O Século
O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated[17] and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time.[16] Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.[4]
"The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat." ― Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.[18]
"...The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds... The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands... people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they." ― Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.[15]
"The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible." — Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.[19]
"As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees." ― Dr. Manuel Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarém, and a priest. He had attended the September visitation, and examined and questioned the children in detail several times.[19]
"I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment." — Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.[20]
"On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda..." — Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.[21]

According to De Marchi, "Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

[Seth]

Prove that god didn't fake the fossils to test your 'faith'.

A call to disprove a claim of a miracle is a dishonest nonsensical challenge.

Nope. It's a valid challenge to the statement, "I don't make claims, I challenge the claims others make. "What proof do you have that any god or gods exist?""

I met the challenge by citing a miracle attributed to God. I met the burden of proof by citing the tens of thousands of witnesses to the event. Now it's your turn to prove, using the "scientific method" by presenting critically robust scientific proof that the event was not a miracle performed by God. That it's difficult for you to do so...or even impossible...does not relieve you (or Gawdzilla actually) of the burden of proving the proofs provided to be false.

Get to it. Put up or shut up.

No, you didn't meet the burden of proof, you just cited something that has more than one possible explanation. You haven't proven your god or gods exist.

That wasn't the challenge you posted. You're trying to move the goalposts (predictably) to cover your ass.

You asked, and I quote, "What proof do you have that any god or gods exist?"

I provided a proof in the form of an alleged miracle of God witnessed by tens of thousands of people and documented in detail.

You did not demand that I prove God exists, you merely asked what proofs I have.

Well, I've given you a proof, now it's your turn to stand up to your moral and ethical scientific obligation to provide critically robust scientific proof that God did not cause the events at Fatima or be declared to be the loser of this challenge because you cannot provide the proofs that you yourself demand of others.

Sauce, goose, gander. Enjoy stewing in your own mess.

[Seth]

The people at Fatima did not all report the same experience, therefore it is not a single claim. It is multiple claims of various experiences, and they are largely contradictory.

Nice Wiki cut and paste. Unfortunately it's entirely irrelevant and yet another evasion. You are speculating and conjecturing (and so are the Wiki authors), not providing rigorous scientific proofs that are required of you at this point that disprove the claim that Fatima was a miracle of God.

And you've now added the burden of proving that God is incapable of providing a unique (inconsistent) experience to each of the persons in attendance at the event.

Get on with it or admit that you cannot meet the requisite burden of proof and are therefore the loser in this challenge.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I provided a proof in the form of an alleged miracle of God witnessed by tens of thousands of people and documented in detail."

That's not proof, that's a highly debatable event that could have more than one cause, including the highly likely mass hysteria. You have still not provide proof a god or gods exists, just claims that something that might or might have happened may or may not have been caused by a god or gods. You failed again, as always.

[Seth]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the audience.

I've met the burden of proof required by citing the thousands of witnesses to the event. That's all I have to do at this point.

You dispute the accuracy or validity of the proofs submitted, then it's up to you to provide the proofs for YOUR claim that the proofs I submitted are invalid. I'm not compelled to defend my proofs, you're compelled to show how they are wrong according to the scientific process, which is rigorous and rigid in its demands for critically robust evidence supporting your claim that my proofs are inaccurate.

If I say that 50,000 people witnessed a meteor fall to earth in Montana and I can produce eyewitness testimony that the event occurred, the scientific method does not allow you to simply say "it didn't happen" and have that be the accepted scientific answer. You have to prove that the event did NOT occur as witnessed, or that the event could not possibly occur, otherwise the only correct conclusion you can draw is "I don't know."

You have to prove that they actually saw what they claimed to have seen. Then you have prove that "god" was the cause of that. Two fails right there.

No, I don't. You asked "what proof do you have?" I have submitted a proof at your request. You may disbelieve the proof or consider it to be inadequate or false, but it is up to YOU to provide the rigorous scientific proofs that the event did NOT occur as described by the witnesses and was not in fact a miracle of God.

Now, get on with it or admit that you cannot prove the events at Fatima were not caused by God. You can provide rigorous scientific proofs that God does not exist if you like. I'll accept that. Or you can prove that the recounting of the event by witnesses was falsified and that no one witnessed anything at Fatima on that day. I'll accept that too.

Or you can try something else. But you're not going to get away with strawman arguments, red herrings and goalpost shifting.

Put up or shut up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You don't have proof, you have claims.

[Seth]

"I provided a proof in the form of an alleged miracle of God witnessed by tens of thousands of people and documented in detail."

That's not proof, that's a highly debatable event that could have more than one cause, including the highly likely mass hysteria. You have still not provide proof a god or gods exists, just claims that something that might or might have happened may or may not have been caused by a god or gods. You failed again, as always.

Evasion. Speculation and skeptical dismissal, not rigorous critically robust scientific that the proof provided is false. The burden of disproving the proof I provided is upon you and you are admitting you cannot meet that burden.

You lose, just like you lost the last time you tried this lame argument.

[FBM]

Furthermore, did the people see God?

If they saw the sun acting unusual, their reports are of astronomical importance, not theological. A bunch of people (claim to have) witnessed a wide variety of solar irregularities, then they interpreted them as having a divine cause. They need to justify that interpretation, just as scientists need to justify their interpretations of data they collect.

They didn't even claim to experience God, therefore their experiences are not evidence of a God. They theorized a god-cause, and it's up to them to give justification for their theory.