Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[KevinM1]

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?

[Amarok]

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 

[KevinM1]

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.

[Cecelia]

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.

[Huggy Bear]

---

First of all you and Min's mistake is assuming that because I believe what she says about her experience 50+ years ago, that I somehow associate with her 100%,-

Once again, the concept of objectivity goes right over your head.  What you, personally believe about her is irrelevant here.  She’s a fraud.  She’s a televangelist who rips people off. This is a demonstrable fact, and I have other sources if just the one is not enough for you.  So, let’s go over what we have again with this updated information:

1. A priest who says he saw light.

2. A group of people, including a known religious con-artist, who claim they saw a light

3. A photo of light.

Again I ask...where is your evidence that the light in the photo is god?

If you knew anything about William Branhams teachings, you'd know that he spoke against women preaching, wearing pants, and cutting their hair (all biblically based), Marilyn Hickey does all three, so she obviously doesn't adhere to Branhams teachings, she just happened to attend one of his services a long time ago.[/i]

Completely irrelevant, Huggy.

But like I said, I could provide witness testimony all day, How about congressman Upshaw?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_David_Upshaw

Congressman Upshaw had been on crutches for 59 years, and this is Upshaw's own testimony which was written in the above tract.

I walked into that Branham-Baxter meeting in Calvary Temple, Los Angeles, loving God and His blessed Word, leaning on my crutches that had been my “buddies”-my helpful comrades for 59 of my 66 years as a cripple-7 of those years spend on bed; I walked out that night of February 8th, leaving my crutches on the platform – the song of deliverance ringing in my heart in happy consonance with the should sof victory from those who thronged about me – their tears of rejoicing crystal with the light of the skies’ chief among them was my blessed wife whose dear face, glowing amid her joyous exclamations: “Praise the Lord” and “Glory to God,” was beaming like a patch of Heaven.

You’re serious?  Oh, you’re serious.  Lol.  You know nothing about this man’s affliction, if it was even real.  You have no access to his medical records, if any exist.  You have no way of ruling out the possibility that he was faking it, nor the possibility that there was a natural explanation for his alleged regained function.  This is blatant confirmation bias, AGAIN.  You’re starting with your conclusion and working backward from there.  And, more to the point, can you please explain to me how the hell the testimony of this congressman regarding his healed legs is evidence that that light in the photo is god? I don’t think you understand what evidence is.

Noteworthy aside:  Nowhere in the Wiki article of this man’s life is Congressman Upshaw’s ‘miraculous healing’ mentioned.


Also, I’m drinking wine, so if none of this makes sense, just say so. 😝 🍷

---

Lol, everything is fake.

The guy was a public figure, you can find photographs of him as a young man in a wheel chair, seeing how he received a spinal injury at 18 and spent the next 7 years of his life bedridden, so the best you can do is claim the man has been faking the injury for 66 years?

---

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?

*emphasis mine*

You do realize that condition is quite common in women right? Joke if you want to...

https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/10/02/mrkh/

MRKH is a congenital disorder that affects the female reproductive tract. Congenital means that it’s acquired during development and present at birth. About 1 in every 5,000 female babies has this condition.

Girls with MRKH have normal ovaries and fallopian tubes. Most often the uterus is absent or tiny.

---

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.

Ah, referencing believe the sign again I see...

Btw I didn't know that being healed of constipation was an medical imposibility...

https://raycityhistory.wordpress.com/tag/sargon/

By 1933 the Federal Trade Commission had called the G. F. Willis company to task:  [b]the major ingredients of Sargon were grain alcohol and a laxative. In stipulation proceedings, G.F. Willis conceded that it’s advertising of Sargon was misleading.  The Journal of the American Medical Association printed an abstract of the stipulation:[/b]

So a LAXATIVE cured constipation... who would of thought?


From the website you linked.

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

William Branham retold the story of Congressman Upshaw's healing many times. However, over time the story changed considerably so that by 1954 it included a vision of a brown suit, and a "Thus Saith The Lord" statement spoken by Brother Branham to William Upshaw directly over the pulpit, and not as communicated by Brother LeRoy Kopp.

Notice a skeptic website (don't let the name fool you) can't deny the event happened, the best they could come up with is that there was some discrepancy between Branham's and Upshaw's telling of the story.

William Branham was a guest speaker at many different churches across the nation, he didn't tell total stranger about visions and things of that nature for understandable reasons, he reserved those details for his home church.

All this show it that you atheists are getting desperate.

[Fake Messiah]

All this show it that you atheists are getting desperate.

Not as much as you're getting crazier.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

---

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.

[robvalue]

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.

[possibletarian]

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.

[SteveII]

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:

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?