Manny Pacquiao became an ATG at 24 years old. Will never be done again.

PAC becoming great at 24 is nothing to Tyson becoming champ at 19. But Tyson becoming champ at 19 get trump by TBE helping to shield his dad from bullet before age 5.

 

Justification for faith is not sola fide. Faith goes hand in hand with evidence. Christian denominations encourage their practitioners to give a reason for the beliefs that they hold. Many hold that God gave us two books to know him by, the bible, and the natural world. That's one reason why so many scientists are believers. They see the hand of God in nature. Now, you could say that there is no evidence that you are personally willing to believe in, but that is not the same as saying that there is no evidence, and it might be compelling to someone else.

I think you are laboring under some mistaken assumptions about how faith and religion works. If you read something like the papal encyclical Fides et Ratio you would find that Pope John Paul II felt that reason and faith were essential to one another. Faith without reason leads to superstition. Reason without faith leads to nihilism and relativism. The beliefs of the major religions and people of faith are often quite intellectual, well justified, and worthy of your respect.

 

No, it does not. Any evidence for God always relies on the unprovable assumptions of its advocate. Such thoughts as 'well I can't see how it could have been done any other way'.... that's about as far as the evidence goes. Which God, anyway? There are thousands of them. It's so blindingly obvious that man created God, which is why he's always such a hideous and despicable character.

As for scientists being believers, you're wrong. Those in the academy of sciences (i.e the top scientists) are overwhemingly non-religious. And even more non-religious are those who deal with evolution and bio-science. Oh and by the way, I will decide for myself what is and isn't worthy of respect, thanks.

 

There is abundant evidence for the existence of God. For instance, everything that exists could be said to be proof. And frankly, people interact with God all the time. Millions of people have seen or felt God. Eye witness evidence is evidence. It's just not empirical evidence, which seems to be the only type you are willing to accept. Which God? There is only one God, but he is known by many names. Think of the group of blind men who encounter an elephant. One feels it's side and thinks it is a wall. One feels the tail and thinks it is a rope. One touches a leg and thinks it is a pillar. They are all describing the same elephant, but none of them have all of the relevant information to complete a full description.

Actually, I've seen the studies on scientists and their religious beliefs. Half of them are believers. How religious they are depends on their field and it's socio-political culture. Astronomers and mathematicians are more likely to be believers than biologists. Doctors are actually likely to be more religious than the normal population. Their beliefs are often an effect of their training and the peer environment that they find themselves in, just like the politics and religious beliefs of other professions. You see a lot of groupings and homogeneity in professions. In academia 2/3rds of English professors are women. But that doesn't mean that women are better at English. 3/4 of philosophers are men but likewise that is a cultural thing more than an intrinsic property of the field. It's sort of like how philosophers are highly likely to be liberal while economists and businessmen are likely to be conservative.

I'll just leave you with this thought. There is as much reason to believe that God exists as there is to believe that other people exist.

 

I never said he wasn't an ATG - only that the wins mentioned didn't make him one outright.

 

You're doing exactly what I said you would - you're giving moronic answers such as 'look around you, that's proof'. And then you talk about people 'feeling and speaking to god'. I'm sorry, but this is not evidence at all. If someone says they have been abducted by aliens (and many thousands have), that is not proof aliens have visited earth. We tend to ask for evidence which is accesible outside of the other person's perception. That's what evidence is. That's also why there's no evidence for God - because nobody can ever define what God is. You can't test something which isn't definable. And I'll ask you again - what God are you talking about? The thousands and thousands of Gods people believe in are all different from each other.

'I'll just leave you with this thought. There is as much reason to believe that God exists as there is to believe that other people exist.'

Another truly pathetic statement. I know other people are around me. Not only do I interact with them and can see others interact with them , but I can test that they are real in every imnaginable way. It's not even worth my time going any further on it.

 

Evidence is evidence and eye witness testimony is evidence. It might not be the kind of evidence you prefer but it is definitely evidence. Also, looking around and seeing that there is something rather than nothing is compelling evidence for some. It's called indirect evidence, like how astronomers can infer that another planet rotates around a sun, even though they cannot see the planet. They note the effect it has on other objects that they do observe and infer it's existence.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God because science only deals in physical objects. If God is not physical then he falls outside of the purview of science and is unknowable by it's methods. But that's not a reason to assume that he doesn't exist. Many things fall outside the sphere of science which exist: ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, etc.

You ask which God I'm talking about. I've already told you that there is only one, known by many names. If you would take a class on the study of religion then you would see that there is broad agreement between religions and many points of mutual similarity in how they worship and think about God. I don't see how you can get to the assumption that there is no God from the premise that almost everyone says that there is something out there, even though they don't agree 100% on what. That premise leads to pluralism, not atheism, unless you are already biased to believe in atheism.

You know that other people exist because you can sense them. But tell me, have your senses ever deceived you? Have you ever seen a mirage, or an optical illusion, perhaps a heat wave on the highway that made it look wet? Have you ever walked around a table and noticed that it appears different to your sight at different angles? If your senses are so unreliable, then why do you trust them to tell you that other people are there? You could be in a computer simulation right now, for all you know.

 

I don't like stepping on people's toes when it comes to religion and stuff, don't see it this way but it just seems tainted by human interpretation when we have to look to very elaborate analogies that are hard to grasp for the laymen and it's very easy to fall into heresy as a result, when the prophets of the Old Testament have been banging on about Worshipping One God and God just saying He's One without dividing Himself into distinct persons - but all of a sudden God is revealed as a trinity. Concepts like trinity were very common during that landscape that was heavily influenced by Greco-Roman concepts of God(s). Also, I just don't get that impression from Jesus's own reported words. I think he's a man, the Christ but God is God. But that's just me.

 

But Pac went on to beat guys infinitely better therefor establishing his ATG status .

Hop was once 0-1-0. Does this mean he's not an ATG?

 

I believe there is enough evidence. The existence of us human beings that are able to comprehend things like God and reason I believe are self evidently remarkable. There are 8.7m animal species and not one can comprehend purpose the way we can - many believers in God/Higher power believe we were chosen above all species - but that does make us 1 in 8.7m species. Now if you add to that the many ridiculous probabilities of the world existing in its current form, the probabilities of the stages of evolution ending up to its current formation, and all of the other probabilities - that adds into a significant whole. The scientist must always keep his head down and not draw any final conclusions because it's not their job to do so, but there's got to be a point where you just think to yourself, God is true.

If someone killed your kid and there's a 99.99999999999999999etc% chance it was him and you had the chance of smashing the murderers face in, will you hold out for that 0.000000000etc1%? For me, it wasn't about these crazy scientific arguments - truth doesn't just come from scientific thinking in life. Hell, the scientific method is not the teller of truth either as there's a lot of real phenomenon it can never account for.

 

How many divisions a fighter is a champ in doesn't mean **** nowadays when there are literally 4 belts per division. Fighters like Henry Armstrong would have won a belt in every division from featherweight to middleweight. Drug free too.

 

Every generation has greats no doubt... Joe Calzaghe, Dariusz Michalczewski, Sven Ottke, Chris Eubank, Nigel Benn, Henry Maske, Artur Grigorian

 

We need to make you supreme leader of the world or something because you claim to have all the answers and always be right.

But in reality your are just a sad sack on the internet. Only you fear not existing, certainly not me. God is obviously very real and anyone with half a brain can realize that. You can't be the only one right and every one else is wrong.

No man in this world is all knowing and always right. I would only trust someones word that there is no God if they were always innately right about everything and all knowing.

 

Pac recovered from those fights and achieved great things. What did those guys do aftewards? Nothing.