trouble

[Seth]

You don't have proof, you have claims.

It's all the proof I need until you refute it with critically robust scientific proof that it's false.

You lose.

[Seth]

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.

Evasion. Speculation and supposition. Provide your critically robust proofs that the events did not occur as reported or that they were not caused by God.

Put up or shut up.

[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.

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.

You provide some proof, we can talk. You keep dodging, you talk to yourself.

[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.

Evasion. Speculation and supposition. Provide your critically robust proofs that the events did not occur as reported or that they were not caused by God.

Put up or shut up.

I've given plenty of reason to doubt their version of events. I'm not interested in trying to disprove them, only show that their claims do not constitute proof. They have proved nothing, neither have you.

You play a good game of devil's advocate. But I have minimal interest in playing this game yet again. Cheers.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Amused,

While Seth has admitted playing devil's advocate and using "troll tactics" in discussions, that does not necessarily extend to him being dishonest or a fraud. Please try not to extrapolate Seth's self-description to the point where it becomes a personal attack as specified in our rules. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#playnice

[amused]

Yessir!

[apophenia]

Okay. I confess. I moved the sun around that day at Fatima. And I prevented the rest of the world from seeing it as it was that day. And as I'm an eyewitness to the event, with a much better view than those religious morons on the ground, my version constitutes the definitive eyewitness account. Now please tell those fools with their prayers and whatnot to shut up. It makes my head hurt.

You'll have to shop around for another miracle, Seth. This one has been explained. Case closed.

[Animavore]

No rebuttal to the fact that if the sun did any of the things (I didn't realise how many different claims there were!) we'd all be dead now?

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

You don't have proof, you have claims.

It's all the proof I need until you refute it with critically robust scientific proof that it's false.

You lose.

It may be all the proof you need - but so what?

Just accept that some people are not as gullible as you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is just a case of bad preparation. Seth could have chosen something that HASN'T BEEN DEBUNKED A THOUSAND TIMES OR MORE, but he went with Fatima. Poor showing.

[FBM]

Okay. I confess. I moved the sun around that day at Fatima. And I prevented the rest of the world from seeing it as it was that day. And as I'm an eyewitness to the event, with a much better view than those religious morons on the ground, my version constitutes the definitive eyewitness account. Now please tell those fools with their prayers and whatnot to shut up. It makes my head hurt.

You'll have to shop around for another miracle, Seth. This one has been explained. Case closed.

There we go, then.

(Please stop mucking around with the sun, tho. It riles up the uneducated and gullible.)

[laklak]

"alleged miracle" does not a miracle make. If "alleged" means "proof" then we can just get rid of that pesky criminal justice system, since anything that's "alleged" is "proven". As for 50,000 people seeing a meteor fall in Montana, yeah, sure - I'll take that as pretty persuasive evidence that a meteor actually fell. That's because meteors fall to earth all the time. I don't need any extraordinary proof that it occurred, since it is not an extraordinary event. The sun "dancing" about in the sky is a different story.

In order for that to happen the earth would have to be shaken around it it's orbit like a rat in a Jack Russell's mouth. Given those annoyingly consistent Laws of Motion, that would kill us all. Now, Ol' Massah may have simply tricked all those people into thinking the sun danced around, in which case god is just a slightly better magician than David Copperfield, who managed to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. Or maybe the heliocentric theory is false, eh? Maybe you only need to shake the sun around.

Here's a thought - if god wants to show us he exists then why not just simultaneously cure all AIDS and cancer patients? Should be a doddle for anyone capable of creating the whole fucking universe by an act of will. Maybe stop the sun in the sky for an entire day, while turning the moon into green cheese and sending billions of angels out to dance on pinheads? How about just giving me 7 winning lottery numbers? I promise I'll believe then.

No, no - I've got it! Make Justin Bieber sing a decent song!

[FBM]

Or even better, make him STFU until his testicles drop.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or even better, make him STFU until his testicles drop.

I thought they had gelded him to keep that voice level?

[Robert_S]

Fatima, I've heard that one time a wheel almost came off of Apollo's chariot there, caused quite a stir among the superstitious barbarians who interpreted it as some kind of sign from their own false god.