It seems that Mr. Upshaw claimed to be healed several times, through several different means: https://www.facebook.com/SeekYeTheTruth/...52/?type=3

Has Huggy found Marilyn Hickey’s missing uterus yet?

(March 11, 2018 at 9:50 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: It seems that Mr. Upshaw claimed to be healed several times, through several different means: https://www.facebook.com/SeekYeTheTruth/...52/?type=3

Has Huggy found Marilyn Hickey’s missing uterus yet?

Because everyone knows misdiagnosis never happen 

(March 11, 2018 at 9:57 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 9:50 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: It seems that Mr. Upshaw claimed to be healed several times, through several different means: https://www.facebook.com/SeekYeTheTruth/...52/?type=3

Has Huggy found Marilyn Hickey’s missing uterus yet?

Because everyone knows misdiagnosis never happen 

There’s that, but with this particular guy, a quick bit of research shows him to be a shill for just about anything that caught his fancy. Before this particular article/advertisement, he had another about how Sargon pills ‘healed’ him from everything ranging from fatigue to constipation (Sargon was nothing but snake oil). So, that’s three claims of healing - two religious, one pharmaceutical via a known fake medicine. Moreover, the account Huggy is referencing changed considerably as time passed from the so-called healing:

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/C...man_Upshaw

It should be noted that the sources I’ve used are sympathetic to miraculous claims. They think the stories are false, and that Upshaw wasn’t genuine.

Ultimately, there’s no reason to believe any of it.

Some things I've learned about (at least two particular theists) from this thread:

-Inevitably, disbelief in other gods is tied back to their own belief in God.
-Arguments that are valid against their god are considered more valid against gods that aren't theirs.
-They don't readily accept eyewitness accounts, unless it's for their god.
-They don't hold their god to the same standard they hold other gods
-They ultimately fare no better using their logic against similar logic.

(March 12, 2018 at 12:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote: All this show it that you atheists are getting desperate.

Not as much as you're getting crazier.

(March 11, 2018 at 8:17 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 6:38 pm)Mathilda Wrote: But if God can't be defined then how can it be the best explanation for anything?

What is up with you? Why do you think God is not defined? There have been like 4,000,000 books written on the subject of God. Here's an idea: Google "defining the god of monotheism" and read a few things.

Give me a proper definition of what a god is then.

• What is it?
  
• What is it not?
  
• What is it made of?
  
• How can we determine whether something is a god or not a god?
  
• In other words, what observable characteristics does it have that sets it apart from non-gods?
  
• Where do you find it?
  

Take granite for example. The loose definition used to be coarse white or pink or grey crystalline rock. Pick up rock, show it to someone and they would be able to tell whether or not it was granite, sandstone or their imagination. Further observations led to many more specific definitions for all the different forms of granite out there until everyone could agree on what type of granite they were looking at.

Absolutely no one has the same definition of what a god is. You cannot come up with a definition which everyone agrees upon. Not even the loosest characteristics. At most there are some very vague characteristics that many people will agree on, but not everyone.

This is because your god does not exist and is imagined. And in fact the very term god is something that is not meant to be properly defined otherwise it loses its meaning.

---

(March 11, 2018 at 8:55 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: All theist arguments are god of the gaps by default .

And this is why a god cannot be defined. If you define it then all the explanations you use it for start to fail.

I'll help Huggy out here, since I've given up on him accepting any of my challenges. I have some evidence which surpasses his "ball of light", and shows God much more directly.

God is a list of made up definitions, crafted to suit what we didn't understand and what we see.

Sadly no one has any proof the god behind the definitions actually exists, it's a 'what believers believe he must be like' given their own particular religion, experience or indoctrination .

God/gods are simply a made of product of the human mind.

(March 11, 2018 at 8:43 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 8:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: Not God of the Gaps at all.

b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument. It is a sound deductive piece of reasoning

Let's just look at b.

If you think it through to the end, the cosmological argument is a god of the gaps argument. It seems well-worn by now (and there are other objections aside from the "god of the gaps" objection), but it can be fruitive to re-hash well-worn arguments.

Let's take a look at the part to which my objection pertains:

Wikipedia Wrote:1) The universe has a cause;
2) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

I take issue with the second premise. It is, in essence, god of the gaps reasoning. Even assuming that the universe has a cause, there is no reason that a personal creator has to be it.

What is wrong with this argument?:

1) Something causes the rain to fall.
2) If something causes the rain to fall, it must be a being who is situated in the heavens and has it within his power to make large amounts of water fall from the sky.

Therefore:

A being who is situated in the heavens with the power to make large amounts of water fall from the sky exists.

It's been said before, but I haven't heard your answer to it. If the universe must have an uncaused cause, why must that uncaused cause be God?

I don't like the Wikipedia formulation. Here is the one I use:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

and what must that cause be like:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

This avoids a misunderstanding of the argument and also eliminates parody attempts like above. 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which number(s) do you think are false?