The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Misterscruffles
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Misterscruffles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,133 times Debate No: 32645
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists. these are apparent miracles.

please show something that happened to an atheist, that would have been called an apparent miracle had it happened to a religous person, because of its scientifically inexplicable nature.
no semantics pleas

what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. there are tons of examples for theists, in previous debates i shown them. most credible people dont dispute hat things appear to be miracles, just that they claim there's alterative explanations. im not going to do a bunch of work to find them when it's readily available. . someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example. here here's another
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

the common objection of atheists and skeptics is that things just happen to occur by probability, that a genetic deviance, or random chance etc has caused it to happen to them. (that's how evolusion occurs, someone with a genetic deviance getting their genes prominent in the population)

but I don't see these things happening to atheists.
I see plenty of evidence from chrisitans and to a lesser extent other religious folks. but I don't see it from atheists etc, why is that? they might claim that it's just not as newsworthy or interpreted that way given the lack of religious context etc.
but you'd think there's at least be noteworthy evidence, or something, at least, that shows it happens to atheists etc

also, even if i acknowledged that they may occur, it would be extremely very small percentage wise.
as of now i'd be happy with just couple or a few examples.

ive shown some examples happening to theists, it shouldnt be hard to find some happening to atheists.
Misterscruffles

Con

I accept your challenge.
I'd like to thank my opponent, the audience, and every prophet that ever lived.
I will use this first round for definitions:

[1] Scientific: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science
[2] Inexplicable: incapable of being explained, interpreted, or accounted for
[3] Apparent: 1- open to view, visible; 2- clear or manifest to the understanding; 3- appearing as actual to the eye or mind; 4- having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate; 5- manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid
[4] Supernatural: 1- of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; 2a- departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature 2b- attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
[5] Occur: 1- to be found or met with, appear 2- to come into existence, happen 3- to come to mind

[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

thank you.
i hope you use different arguments than you did last time, and than others have used.
i wish you would have gotten into the debate instead of all the formality, unless you needed to define things, in which case define it and then explain why you needed it to be defined.

bottomline, please show an apparent miracle that happened to an atheist. something that probably would have been called a miracle had it happened to a theist.
i defined who had the burden of proof here, as con. no need to get into all the shifting burdens, bickering about rules etc.
it's a simple request etc.
Misterscruffles

Con

"what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. there are tons of examples for theists, in previous debates i shown them. most credible people dont dispute hat things appear to be miracles, just that they claim there's alterative explanations. im not going to do a bunch of work to find them when it's readily available. . someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example. here here's another (citation above)

the common objection of atheists and skeptics is that things just happen to occur by probability, that a genetic deviance, or random chance etc has caused it to happen to them. (that's how evolusion occurs, someone with a genetic deviance getting their genes prominent in the population)"

You assert that miracles happen, and that Atheists dismiss them as "mere probability". That does not change that until you demonstrate that the miracles you claim are genuine, and not fabrications, parlor tricks, or delusions, you still have all of your work ahead of you.

As many people have reminded you in past debates, pro always has the BOP.

"bottomline, please show an apparent miracle that happened to an atheist. something that probably would have been called a miracle had it happened to a theist."

A) "Miracle" is different than "scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural thing". Miracle implies divine intervention, whereas there are things that science cannot fully explain that one could assume to be supernatural (such as gravity, time, and black holes). To some people, these things would appear to be be supernatural. Gravity and time most certainly affect atheists.
B) Atheistic Communists can claim that the success of the Communist Party was due to the will of the people. Religious Communists can claim it was due to divine intervention. The same goes for the success or failure of any other nation.
C) The success of Israel in the various wars it has had with the Arabs is often attributed to the blessing of god by the Jews, and the intervention of Satan by the Muslims. An atheist might observe that no divine miracle had occurred, and state that instead of a miracle, Israel's war victories were a result of tactics, planning, skill, resources, a/the lack of the previous factors, and other circumstantial factors.
D) If Salman Rushdie was a more religious sort, he might claim that divine protection had saved him from the wrath of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Anyone can claim a miracle. You have to successfully demonstrate that any have occurred. You also have yet to demonstrate that "scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists", as both gravity and time fit that definition (at least to some people), and both of those most certainly affect atheists.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i've seen plenty of other people who define things that con has the burden of proof, pro only does by default if nothing else is defined otherwise.
i'm not in the mood to find more examples, but again there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples. i will eventually find more just cause everyone keeps harping on it. again though, credible people don't dispute that these things apparently occur, they just have their own explanation for it.
the bottomline is that con as w all past debaters, doesn't have any examples that would be called a miracle had it happened to a theist. to be more generic, he can't even find soemthing scientifically ienxplicable that appears supernatural.
no one credible thinks warm fuzzies are miracles, that merely unlikely things are miracles, or just that things went in you favor etc .... these are scientifially explicable.
con is just wasting time, bickering about trivial stuff, engaging in semantics etc...., as he doesn't have the evidence requested. that's the bottom line
Misterscruffles

Con

"i've seen plenty of other people who define things that con has the burden of proof, pro only does by default if nothing else is defined otherwise."

The burden of proof for a claim is always on the person making the claim; otherwise, you must accept that not only Jesus but also Allah, Krishna, Thor, El, and every other supreme being that has ever been claimed to exist are all real and all simultaneously THE most powerful being in the universe, until you can prove that each and every single supposed supreme being that mankind has come up with over the years is false.

Furthermore, if the person making the claim does not have the burden of proof, I could disprove miracles and god simply by saying that miracles don't occur and that god doesn't exist, and any supposed evidence for either is either a lie or misunderstood. That would be logically fallacious in the exact same way that your argument is.

One could certainly claim a personal belief in the divine without whilst still being rational. But you are not only claiming that the evidence you see has led you to the conclusion that miracles occur, you are claiming that is a objectively verifiable fact that miracles occur, and refusing to defend that claim when pressed for evidence.

"i'm not in the mood to find more examples, but again there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples."

You've got so many examples of miracles occurring, that the only evidence you could find of one happening is an infant surviving a disease that a great many infants in the past have survived. You claim this this is a miracle, and that his survival was a result of intervention by god, and yet, he was receiving medical treatment for this disease. You entirely discounted the notion that it was the medical treatment that saved his life, and instead assumed and asserted that it was god that healed him.

"again though, credible people don't dispute that these things apparently occur, they just have their own explanation for it."

You haven't stated what "these things" are. Yes, credible people do in fact dispute that "miracles" occur, because all too often, supposed supernatural powers are little more than stage magic.[1][2][3][4]

"doesn't have any examples that would be called a miracle had it happened to a theist."

Every single war victory, every single major political victory, every single recovery from a life threatening disease, and even every single unlikely success could all be claimed to be miracles by a theist. Since there is no objective standard for measuring "miracles", whether an event is determined to be a miracle or not is simply a matter of personal interpretation.

"to be more generic, he can't even find soemthing scientifically ienxplicable that appears supernatural."

First off, "scientifically inexplicable and apparently supernatural" is not the same thing as "divine miracle". "Divine Miracles" are only one type of supernatural incident that has been claimed to happen.

Secondly, whether or not an event/object is "apparently supernatural" is a matter of the observer's opinion, not an objective standard. An atheist could still believe in the supernatural; unbelief in a deity and belief in magic are not mutually exclusive. A theist could believe that the divine is part of or is the natural world, and for that person, there would be nothing supernatural or even apparently supernatural.

Thirdly, I already cited three things (gravity, time, and black holes) that could be considered "scientifically inexplicable and apparently supernatural". We do not have an adequate scientific explanation of any of those, and since all of the above are mysterious and powerful, they could all be considered "apparently supernatural" by an observer. Gravity, like the force and duct tape, holds the universe together. Time is the only good reason that everything doesn't happen all at once. Both of these most certainly affect atheists. I cited both of these previously. You would have had to have not read my argument in order to say that I couldn't find an example of something "scientifically inexplicable and apparently supernatural".

"con is just wasting time, bickering about trivial stuff, engaging in semantics etc...., as he doesn't have the evidence requested. that's the bottom line"

I have provided evidence that supposed "supernatural" events actually have natural causes (in the sources section). I have provided logical support for my position, as well as examples that show how your argument is incorrect. All you have to argue for your side are unsupported assertions.

[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
the newest debate by me includes some miracles and documentation. the only reason i posted it is cause the debater there actually took me up on my challenge, and found something that would be called a miracle, almost. only problem is that his examples had reasonable alterantive explanations. i felt compelled to show exampes that had no reasonable alterantives.
that "miracles" happen isn't really debateble, i suppose i shouldnt assume people are so aware of the inexplicable nature of many of them. but still, if i ask for you to show me somethign inexplicable happeing to atheists, that's the burden, the standard. i shouldnt have to show you some inexpclabie frm my side of the debate first.
i guess a person could argue 'we can't show you inexplicable things because inexpcliable things dn't occur. we shouldnt just assume because you say there are inexpciable thngs, that they exist. if you think otherwise, the burden is on you because inexpcliable as a concept requires a rebuttable that something could be articulated as occuring that by defitiioning shouldnt be occuring."
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
It is hard to find evidence of something that doesn't exist. Even you own citation, as mentioned below, lacks credibility and likelihoods of being a miracle by you own perceptions as mentioned in this same debate with me. You have literally no leg to stand on if your own examples, and examples from your own religious texts don't count as miracles!
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
My advice, stay away from this debate. I tried, others have tried... it will not work... I even tried playing by their rules and using the bible as a source, still it didn't count!

This person wants someone who is an atheist to say a miracle happened to them, even though NO atheist would ever let the explanation of "It must have been a miracle" be the end of their search for truth. They will always continue to find the reason/ rational behind the event and the answer "god must have done it" will never suffice for an atheist.

Even the article mentioned here in this debate is not a credible!!! One has a person, a newborn, named Jesse had a disease and was at a hospital when they started to get better. Saverio Gaeta claims that nothing that doctors did, his dialysis, other medications, the specifics of the condition etc... and the fact that he had around a 25% chance of surviving anyways lead to his survival, but praying to a dead pope gets the credit. Occam's razor anyone?

The second the story cited alludes to doctors saying the Nun may not actually be healed at all, "medical experts had cast doubt on the French nun's recovery." Not to mention the WHOLE STORY is based on Saverio Gaeta's book and the story readily admits that the stories in the book are "unverified stories!" This person refuses to see any reason at all and dismisses anything you say without reason... STAY AWAY unless you want a major headache!!! God of the gaps, labeling ignorance a miracle/ god, that is all you will get from this debate!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 4 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I honestly just skimmed this debate. But every other one of DairyGirl's spam debates has been lost, and I' getting tired of these cluttering up the debate list.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: No valid argument from Pro at all. See me comments on this debate, and my own debate with her for more.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No, damnit, no. You made the resolution. You have to prove that it's true. Stop being a baby and prove your resolution already.