In order for that situation to work, you will have to say that God cannot foretell the future.

If my existence does not harm anyone, does it matter if I care only for myself?

Acting out of ignorance on the other hand, will lead to no good

It's simple, gender neutral and not irritating to the eye

Still, I prefer white

It was not done by a small engineer, but was inspected and tested by qualified professors and scientists-including Nobel prize winners. All confirmed that it is beyond any explanation. The documents are readily available online. Why not try it?

Funny thing here is that despite all the emphirical evidence of NASA's attempt, they will still refuse to give any mention of it, and would rather keep their silence. Gee, I wonder why?

sigh

My links showed an additional 10% difference though when the wording changes.

41% said they are atheist

8% are agnostic

What 10% difference are you talking about?

Like what I said, the no matter how you put it, there would still be more scientists who believes than those who dont

What about it? It is just a painting.

Its not just a painting. Its the Tilma of the Guadalupe

Hundreds of scientists- NASA included- dared to explain its miracles.

And they all failed.

You mean by asking you to back up a comment you said I said, then you failed to show I said it.

Here you go

It is the only way you will address anything I say is when you think you don't have to fear a rebuttal. Seems you are keen on my trick now though.

I reply as long as the conversation is open. Lying about your words will devalue it. Keep it honest

I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position is "I have not been shown evidence that a god exists"

I said Evolution works without needing a god to explain it.

This is clearly not me doing as you said"burst out and say that God does not exist".

How long do you plan to dwell in the past?

sigh

I do not mind it as reference but seriously, you know that denials can only get you so far, right?

Link to your proof?

Here you go

My responses were sufficient but you ignored them.

You're not even trying, aren't you?

You ignored this

You avoid talking about the Guadalupe

You kept on bringing up the past instead of leading the debate forward

You corrupted the our argument into a worthless flamewar

P.S

Stop lying about your goodbyes. It is good as a joke, but it has overstayed its welcome

1 You were never in the neutral zone, plenty of your arguments are on the other side of this debate claiming "there are too many unexplained things for their not to be a god."

Being a part of the neutral zone does not mean I should be barren of my personal opinions. True neutral are the ones who stands with the voice of reason.

Or should I remind you again of how I kept on saying that "God cannot be proven nor disproved?"

2 I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position isI have not been shown evidence that a god exists then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it is

But you did not include the parts where you insisted that God does not exist in an event that can be explained.

I noted that the statement only challenges the painting and not god,

So, where is your evidence that the Guadalupe is flawed?

Right after I showed where you did this exactly you ask for citations

You were claiming that a change of words will change the poll. I showed how it does not, then you skipped it. And yet, you are still saying that it is I who is at fault. Why?

Wow, you certainly do not read things well

The question remains:

Do you accept the Guadalupe or not?

Four posts up from yours I proved the wording changes results in the Gallup poll that states this explicitly, using the same terms even.

sigh

And would you mind explaining why you no longer argued against my response?

>"a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not"

Means that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything?

Stop digging the past already! It is unrelated and uneducational. The topic at hand is completely laid bare. Use it

I quoted and linked many in the last 2 rebuttals and a few in the middle of the debate

You are pointing out your statements that says you are open minded. But you left the parts where you insists that the results of the poll would change depending on the usage of word.

If my memories are to be exact, it is also the part where you kept on saying that I am wrong. Now, why did you skip it?

To challenge an idea is to oppose it.

But if you plan to challenge the divinity of the Guadalupe, please provide the reasons why you think its flawed so we can move the argument forward.

I just received an assignment. I will reply later or tomorrow.

Dont abuse bold face-it is meant only for dividing discussion. Italics would do just fine in quoting.

I then showed you polls that differentiate between the wordings as they do matter and even account for the roughly 10 % difference in the wordings!

uhh....what?

a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not

Means that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything?

It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle.

So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal?

You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make

Citation needed.

My claim was the terms were not synonymous and that could lead to a larger number due to one term being more inclusive.

All of them leads to the same play of words. You simply scrutinized the poll but have you not realize that no matter how much effort you give, its will still lead to the same question of "Are you an atheist of not?"

From there, there are three choices: Yes, No, and Agnostic. And it should have end there. But instead, you made it more complicated and divided the "No" into:

"I believe in God" vs "I believe in a Higher Power"

sigh

Stop scrambling the results, it will never be in your favor.

No matter on which angle you look at, there are still more scientist who believes than those who dont.

I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing.

Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument:

"You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread."

Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood?

Please correct me if I am wrong

Yup. I do not see any evidence that there is a god.

So do I. But the problem here is how you act like explaining a process can disprove an intelligent being.

Do not be fooled I believe in one but I allow myself to be swayed by good reasoning. Or have you forgotten how many times I told you that God cannot be proven nor disproved?

First off by 'in this thread' I meant this debate, not just ours. LilMisfit destroyed your claim about the Lady of Guadalupe, you just assert they are all wrong with no line of reasoning other than 'christians laugh at those claims'.

sigh

You do realize that you are being biased, right?

I enumerated all the reasons why it became a laughing stock and gave him a chance to refine his answer. But instead, he end up using a research done by Dr. Callahan- a supporter of the Guadalupe.

Its self explanatory.

But hey, you do not accept my breakdown of it so here is a a bigger poll than yours that delineates the difference between the terms.

The poll is about Americans who have a strong belief in God and those who have a shaken faith. What happened to the poll about religious scientists?

I do not mind if you will jump on the bandwagon and say that those "who believe in a divine power" are not Christians. But in this case, are you saying that they are automatically atheists?

I have no reason to believe in a god, it is not up to me to disprove something that hasn't been proven, that is shifting the onus.

Actually, the proof lies on the one making the claim.

I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it.

P.S

what happened to our ID vs Natural Selection? Also, stop trying to act like a villain. It does not suit you.

Pseudoscience. Intelligent design is not testable, observable or falsifiable.

Sums up what every Darwinist says.

Your link seems to prey on those who are not science literate.

You can get sued for what you just said.

EvolutionNews is a credible source and quite famous in the world of science and faith. Or would you rather know them by their other channel:DiscoverInstitute

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, it does not take into account of how things can arise slowly, part by part, and then change over time

Neither does Natural Selection solves the mysteries of what Evolution aims to be.

When ID has tried to get into schools the courts have even noted that ID and IR are not recognized as sciences.

You mean the criticism of ID?

This are the people who forced Intelligent Design as a replacement to evolution and aimed to use it as a well-masked creationism. Not a surprising result if you ask me.

sigh

It takes only common sense to know that God cannot be proven nor disprove. Gaps in the scientific world does not prove a divine being but neither does explanations.

I had lots of examples of your wording not being true to what was claimed by the authors or theories

And so whats your point?

All throughout the argument, youve been criticizing every word of my sources and claims that it will change meaning. So I asked you whats the new definition, but up until now, you still haven't given me anything that would change something in the poll.

Its a simple question with simple answer. What's taking you so long?

You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread

1. So where is the evidence that God does not exist?

2. I never mentioned the Guadalupe in our thread. But if you are gonna claim it as fake, you will need to provide me some evidence.

I respects everyone's claim and I am open to change my position based on new information. There's nothing new to be found here, though

Natural selection is a process in evolution that can be observed and tested.

So is Intelligent Design.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

-EvolutionNews

Only one of the statements is supported by evidence the other is just a assertion with no proof.

Wait, are you still referring to the survey about the population of religious scientists or not?

You are asking questions to things I have already outlined of why I disagree. This is just a continuation of you showing me you haven't mulled anything I said over.

I can say the same thing

I completely understand why you disagree. But your reasons does not carry enough weight to neutralize mine. And the same can be applied to my arguments

I already told you thrice: Until we found a way to test our ideals, no progress will be achieved.

Its up to you if you wish to prove me wrong, but be prepared to get exhausted

Evolution is testable, creationism is not.

I agree. But that is not our argument.

Our argument is Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection. It's an old debate that not once has ever made progress. And I doubt that it could ever be.

No matter on which angle you look at, this debate will never amount to anything more than a play of words.

I noted the change in meaning the words conveyed but you insist the end result is the same.

So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result?

We are just going in circles,

Precisely.

I already told you; "It is impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested"

I do not mind if you are willing to explore the debate. But bear in mind that it will be an exhausting adventure

Evolutionary speaking there is no mystery why humans did so well.

Oh, but there is mystery as to why other animals were unable to match us.

For instance you keep bringing things like humans lack of speed as one of your criteria but ignore that biologists and anthropologists note we were persistance hunters

Because being persistance hunters only lasted until we invented agriculture. T is to say; the birth of civilization and modern man.

The Homo Erectus has met the extintion that is was meant to face, but the Homo Sapiens, didnt because it learned how to settle, make shelter and farm. Something that is unique in the animal kingdom.

That is your stance is based on sources of evolution you like and coincidences. I contest that they are not coincedences at all but explained through evolution.

Practically the same argument.

Both of us believe that Evolution was the result of need to adapt. Only difference is that I believe that there is a divine being planning the future and you dont.

Simple argument, isnt it? But then, since our stance cannot be tested, we will not be able to make any progress

One implies creation and predetermined intent the other implies neither but that something is a result of something that was beneficial.

So...both cases involves the same results.

Its merely the background of belief that differs it. In the end, both speaks the same words of changing for the better good

Of course the wording on a poll would matter more than a blog post, polls should be held to a higher scrutiny

So...in what way is that any different?

Based on how many threads you created, and how you lost all of them...the conclusion goes without saying.

Im bored. Why not do something funny?

I already have

Actually, you're all alone in your denials.

And up until now you still cannot disprove it

Just stop posting already. You know that the curtains have already fall.

Your take on evolution is still slightly off. Evolution does not favor the most adaptable it favors the most fit for the situation,

And we still havent made any progress.

No matter how you look at it, the body of a human being should have been doomed to extinction.

>no claws nor fangs

>no strength

>no speed

>low birth rate

And yet, here we are now; trying to conquer the vastness of space.

If evolution happens as a way to simply adapt to the ever changing world, then I see no reason aswhy nature would allow us to be the only type of animal that can create technology and question philosophies.

Unless it is intended by an intelligent being.

You assume these things were created for a purpose but in evolutionary terms they were left because they worked for our benefit.

That's practically synonymous.

created for a purpose = worked for our benefit

In the blog post the author said on average believers are happier in general

In terms of happiness, yes. Everyone is on equal grounds. But when it comes to rising up after a fall, it is the religious ones who has the most advantage.

The explanation is simple: A believer has someone/something to turn to

"Asking if you believe in God and then asking do you believe God or a higher power will net you different answers in population"

uhhh...what? Both words yield the same meaning. Correct me if im wrong, though.

I can say the same thing.

I can say the same thing.

Funny, you are the only one who claims it as fake. And yet, you are also the only with the most laughable excuses.

You have been reduced from an arrogant newbie to a troll that struggles to live. You know that it is only a matter of time until you left for good. Whats keeping you?

Yeah right. Name one

Funny thing is that you show all the signs of it.

By the way, what happened to the other arguments? Are you fleeing from them again?

The theory of evolution works with out a god.

And that brought us back to square 1. Evolution works by adapting to the ever changing environment. The rules of nature dictates that he who is most adaptable will win. But in a humorous feat, the one who sits on the top of the food chain are humans who are unrivaled in their intelligence.

We are the only animals who can create a philosophy, record history and the only species with a sense of responsibility to protect the weak, no matter who or what.

Like what I said before: you can dismiss it as random chance but I will not ignore the elephant in the room

I have not been shown that there be a need for a deity.

This would be a big twist in our argument but we created religion for a reason.

It is a place of haven for the troubled minds, a tool to mend chaos and keep a society united no matter how dim the situation is. Religion is a powerful weapon that when used for good, it can create harmony and peace.

But of course, just like any weapons, it can be used for evil as well.

The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared.

I cant see much differences. There are still more religious scientists today than there were a few decades years ago

What we don't see here is the differentiation between those that believe in God and those that believe in a higher power.

The only thing that conflicts them are the forms of worship. Other than that, I see nothing else that would divide their definition.

In your example of prayer and meditation the Dr doesn't declare one is better

To be fair, both of them serves different purpose.

Prayer is for the one who bears too much, Meditation is for the one who wanted to listen.

Your claim of religious people living the most fulfilling lives is highly subjective.

It's not subjective at all. It is common knowledge

Again, prepubescent ignorant neckbeard ...

Denial is not a part of my findings. Keep it for yourself

My point was god is not needed to explain how we evolved, adding a creator to design is supurflous.

How can you say he is not needed when you cannot direct the laws of nature into your liking?

If it is impossible to disprove God, then it is impossible to say that he is not required.

More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same.

>In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

>According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not

Religious having advantages over non believers when they are in trouble?

I was simply referring to the psychological benefits that religion can bring. All psychologists agree that religion is a drug that can alleviate a person's pain but addiction can result into insanity and ruthlessness. (e.g Westboro Chruch, Old Earth Creationists and Muslim Extremists)

Prayer and meditation are lumped together all the time, and prayer has no advantages over meditation.

There is actually

As experts put it; Mediation is an enhanced form of listening, prayer is an enhanced for of talking.

When a person is troubled, he seeks someone whom he can open his thoughts to. Similarly, prayer is the act of opening yourself and letting it go. Which explains why religious people lead the most fulfilling life.

Your link simply stated their benefits, none tried to differ one from the other. But I can understand. They are both extremely alike.

Lovely argument from ignorance..."Science supports God therefore it's flawed"

Said by the person who suffers from it :D

And did you bother to read it? And the rest of the arguments?

Never tested material.

Your favourite fake NASA scientist.

LOL :D

Its amusing how the more evidence you find, the more of an idiotic you become.

Using a deity to fill in blanks is not circular reasoning it is non sequitur.

Considering the fact that it is an argument born out of ignorance, i must say that it makes sense.

A deity just isnt needed to explain how we got here, the system works without it.

And that simply brings us to the topic of human arrogance and narcissism. The ability to explain something does not refute the existence of a celestial being.

First rule of religious debates: "God cannot be proven, nor disproven"

Darwin struggled greatly over his findings and his religion and he had far less evidence and scientific advances at his disposal than we do now.

And yet there is more religious scientists than Darwin's time

Religious people are happier because ignorace is bliss

Thats a disappointing argument coming from you.

A religious person and an atheist can be as intelligent as anyone.

Now about happiness and religion; no, you cant compare praying with meditation. Meditation is simply the art of slowing down your mind so you can focus more attentively. Prayer on the other hand is to leave all your worries behind and have faith in the diety you worship.

Go figure which one has a better effect.

A non believer can be just as happy if not more than some believers and vice versa.

Except when trouble arise, a nonbeliever will not have same advantages as the one who believes

Also humans have been around waaay more than 10k years.

I was referring to the birth of civilization, not the appearance of Homo Erectus

I didn't answer that one, I showed where beliefs used to hold a god accountable for an action but when science found out why that action happens the idea of god had to move to be in charge of the new finding or just cede the idea.

Using a diety to fill in the blanks makes sense if you ask me.

This is not circular thinking, it is just impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested.

By using criteria that is favorable you can claim anything whether others will think it is right or not, all this shows is subjectivity of the speaker.

I am not using a personal criteria. I am pointing out the fact that differs humans from an ordinary animal.We all had the same beginnings but only humans has managed to take over the whole ecosystem of the planet, conquer our predators and travel through space. In less than 10,000 years of existence

Admit it, we are special

And correct me if I am wrong...he is not the majority either.

He is a scientist who made major contributions in the field of biology. Hence I am implying that if biology can cause someone to loose faith, he would be the first one to be.

A 2009 study showed that the population of scientists who believes in a god ranks at 51% while atheists are at 41%, the rest are undecided.

Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today.

Of course we all have the same basic needs, beyond that though is personal discrete reasons.

It is a matter of being recognized and valued, my friend.

No matter how many people you allow yourself to be surrounded with, only you can understand who you really are and it is a sad thing to hear no voice other than your own. Here is the part where a believer gains all the advantages and as to why religious people tend to live happier.

Community or a sense of it is not dependent on intelligence but a specific kind of intelligence.

I have a poor research here, so i will just skip this. If you dont mind, that is.

Right, and I showed where some answered 'eroded' because we answered them.

uhh...what? It is impossible to answer the question of afterlife unless you came back from the dead. Hence, as long as we do not have any evidence of what lies out there, religion will never disappear.

We are not the only unique creatures, here is that centric thinking again of the sun revolving around us.

But we are, arent we?

In a physical sense; yes, every animal has their own uniqueness. But over all, have you seen any other types of animals who can study science, invent literature and managed to leave the planet?

The majority of biologists for example are not theists.

Correct me if im wrong, but arent Charles Darwin a theologist?

I would also point out there are many ways to get meaning out of life. A deity is not the only path.

Every person in the world desires to live for a purpose than to be born and die as a meaningless substance. But I agree, you dont need religion to believe in a god.

You haven't explained how it logically follows, in fact no one has.

Simple: By knowing that you were born for a reason, lives with a purpose and die as someone valued gives everyone a sense of joy. Its the basics of philosophy

We have more metal capacity to understand or develop the complexity.

And thats my point. Its weird how every animal species has another species that can rival their intelligence and strength, except humans.

We are the only animal who does not recognize any lesser race and protects animals that does not benefits us in anyway

For instance I would argue that our intellect is also a weapon, perhaps the deadliest weapon.

Just my 2 cents: No, intelligence is not the deadliest weapon. There has been a species that is much smarter than humans. But they got extinct for being too smart. They were so intelligent, they abandoned the need for community and since they are their brains are at highspeed, the stress must have taken its toll on them.

I cant be sure of what is mankind's true uniqueness. But just ignore this. This is nothing more than a minor dispute.

There doesn't need to be a 'why' for us forming religion.

And up until know, it exists because of the need for answers

What happens after we die?

How can something come from nothing?

Does miracle exists?

What am I here for?

The questions that created religion are the same questions that we still cannot answer.

I don't find it odd at all.

My point is, if every single animal came from a single parent gene, how come only humans can be so unique?

We all had the same start, followed the same timeline, lived in the same planet, and yet, humans are the only ones who can create technology, write history, and probably appreciate the beauty of Earth.

You can reject it as mere coincidence in the gene pool, but I wont ignore the elephant in the room.

I told you how it would start. The reason it is there is because it was a bunch of beneficial things that started to accumulate over time.

Consider this a clarification: You simply explained the process of empathy, community and social hierarchy.But in the end, we went back to square 1; You failed to explain how it happened that only humans can do such a feat.

You dont see animals selling their children, killing homosexuals and giving rights to an inferior species. Admit it, the uniqueness of humans is what makes the concept of a heartless evolution seem a little bit weird and inexplicable

sigh

Notice how the wisest scientists have an open mind towards spirituality? It is not a jump in logic, but an idea that gives your life a meaning.

As a species though we put a high value on our type of intelligence.We are different than other animals in 'X' way.

I agree that every animal is different from the other. Each one has their own uniqueness and such. My point is; why is it that the one who sits on the top of the food chain is the one who has the least weapons and the only one who can formulate a religion?

Dont you find it odd that only humans has the ability of reasoning and keeps track of time?

It is impossible to prove nor disprove the existence of God using the scientific formula. But believing in one does not change anything.

There is plenty written about how social behaviors are selected.

You failed to explain the reason for having a belief system, philosophical rule. Our History is also ridden with dark tales such as slavery, genocide and slaughter homosexuals. It does not contribute to our survival rate, and yet it exists.

Sorry for the late reply. Ill try to keep up with my messy schedules

I do not think anything you wrote promotes intelligent design as it seems to show we are still deeply flawed is all

It does actually. Together with other animals, we all had a single common parent gene but we humans are the only ones who has the ability to question our belief. In fact, it appears like we are the only ones who can even create a belief system

Believing in the existence of a creator does not change anything in the equation of how the universe came to be. It simply adds purpose to being alive

I don't see this, we are highly social mammals. Social creatures have an intelligence we can relate to.

You dont see dolphins (2nd smartest animals) making their own religion, formulating a government, not even have a concept of time.

Same goes to apes, wolves, elephants and other social animals.

Extreme intelligence is something unique only to humans. And if Evolution happens in order to adapt to the environment, then how does having a belief system, moral code and philosophical learning improves our survival?

Just passing by to say that I am too busy right now.

I will reply tomorrow (i hope)

Humans used to hunt by wearing out our prey, we are long distance runners.

Indeed. Then came the time when humans has learned how to farm. Ever since then, being "persistence hunters" has contradicted our way of life.

We discovered the art of settling down and forming communities. We invented agriculture and selective breeding. But considering how we were built, none of those should have ever been.

My only point there is that man is adaptable via intellect.

Surviving through the use of intelligence is one thing. But wont you agree that mankind has become way too intelligent?

Every living creature fears death, but only mankind was able to create religion and formulate philosophies to cope up with those fears

Self sacrifice is not rare in the animal world. But only humans will kill another human in sadistic ways for an illogical reason. E.g, burying people alive to assist the Pharoah, sacrifice for the gods, and so on

All creatures fear what they do not understand but why would humans slaughter homosexuals, commit genocide, and discriminate other religions or ethnic groups when they do not cause any harm to our society

The more you look at it, the more illogical it looks. I vote for intelligent design. How bout you? Will you really consider this as mere coincidence in the gene pool?

Sorry if I was unable to reply yesterday-too much work

Evolution favors those who are best suited to the environment they are in

As far as I can see...mankind was never made to adapt to anything. Our long legs made us unable to live in the swamps, slow and easy to tire made living in the plains too hard, and slow birthrate should have doomed us to extinction. But we didn't

Intelligence was our only weapon. We used shoes against mud, bow and arrows in the plains and medicine made our life longer.

Mankind was never gifted with any skill to even survive in the wild, and yet, here we are controlling the food chain and restricting ourselves from destroying too much.

Dont you find that weird?

I know that evolution is real, but I vote for intelligence design over random mutations

Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting?

Oh so thats what you are asking. Try this then

It is complete with enough researches done by Harvard University and Oxford. And it is approved by scientists

What is your definition of a miracle?

event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency

Stop running in circles, already. It hurts me more than it does to you

If you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research.

Done

How do you know thier isn't a valid hypothesis on it?

Easy. Because you dont see any scientist standing up against it. All who dares to are poorly made articles with limited views and laughable contents

Sorry I missed this one.

I am saying that not understanding something scientifically, does not mean that it was supernatural

It is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation.

The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it.

That's not research, that is an article

It is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs.

How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a god

Simple:

1. It has a background story

2. The painting itself is an icon of a religious figure

3. It is inexplanable

It all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up?

Where did you get this from?

Research mate.

Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed.

I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate.

I already gave you one

Could you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you.

Its easy. The moment that science start to recognize the existence of the paranormal is the moment that the definition of logic will change.

Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet.

Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that?

Admit it. It's all a matter of denial.