Prove to me.... (622)
krimsaMiddleton, New Hampshire USA6 Threads 2 Polls 1,345 PostsI think we will be able to clone a human and probably not all that far into the future. It’s been done with sheep and dogs and smaller mammals already but there are normally complications such as accelerated ageing. It’s a matter of fine tuning at this point. I think a human will need to come first before an entirely new species unless something extremely covert has been taking place which is possible.
------ This thread is Archived ------
StressFree: I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's (Judea-Christian-Islam God) existence. That's really the best I can do considering the parameters of this discussion...to be honest with you.
....
....
This is functional evidence on your behalf, and for you is complete enough as a base when combined with the evidence you have for the belief you hold.
I can easily accept that and thank you for the evidence of in substantial evidence to the contrary (not enough proof of the existence of God). Again it may not hold weight enough to prove anything on its own, but when combined with other disproofs, proofs of negatives, it does build weight for the truth behind a statement such as the one in the original post.
Again thank you for the willingness to accept scientific method and posting what you honestly feel.
me
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: .... I think a human will need to come first before an entirely new species ....
*whispers, so as to try and stay with the thread topic while still agreeing...*
------ This thread is Archived ------
Okay, I've only ever heard one arguement for the existence of a "supreme being" or "god", if you will, that has ever made sense to me. Keep asking the question, "and where did that come from." Eventually you get to the point of "something from nothing." Every science I know of says that cannot happen. So, evidently, there is something else "out there" that we do not know about. To some, that is "god". Jmo.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Shedman01: *whispers, so as to try and stay with the thread topic while still agreeing...*
Hey it’s your thread, go wherever you want. That’s just my opinion. I do feel we are very close to human cloning. Of course now Obama has lifted that prohibition on embryonic stem cell research so we might see things moving at a slightly faster clip. Not that stem cell research is directly related to cloning but in certain respects it’s a matter of allocation of time, resources and cash. It will move it all along I think.
------ This thread is Archived ------
woody636: Okay, I've only ever heard one argument for the existence of a "supreme being" or "god", if you will, that has ever made sense to me. Keep asking the question, "and where did that come from." Eventually you get to the point of "something from nothing." Every science I know of says that cannot happen. So, evidently, there is something else "out there" that we do not know about. To some, that is "god". Jmo.
Thanks for sharing that thought!
One evidence I have seen used against this evidence for a supreme being comes to my mind, and that is one that is also used to support the existence of infinity, that evidence is water.
I do not mention the following to argue your point made, I truly don't, I very much respect that you hold that evidence as your base and can easily agree with the premise of it.
The unchanging molecular composition of water more specifically. No matter what is done to it in any known natural way its basic structure/composition remains unchanged, perfectly stable, hence it remains the exact same molecule of water it has 'always' been.
This offers an evidence that more then one thing is capable of existing in such a way as to remain perfectly stable which is what is required by modern understandings to support the possibility of having always existed in a singular form and also the possibility of remaining in a singular form of existence eternally.
I merely used your point to offer the above as one more example of evidence to support the none-supremacy of the defined God being used in the thread thus far, which becomes an evidence of proving the non-existence of an entity, God, with that same definition.
Thank you very much for the posting and time given to make it, I very much appreciate it!
me
------ This thread is Archived ------
Shedman01: wow now THAT would be lazy...
Thanks for the links.. as for Sagan... hehe some interesting stuff have 'b.t.d.t.' long time ago...
and yeah great Styx song, also enjoyed Castle Walls
Thanks for the links.. as for Sagan... hehe some interesting stuff have 'b.t.d.t.' long time ago...
and yeah great Styx song, also enjoyed Castle Walls
Cool shedman...I'm not surprised that you've been there, done that.
I just listened to that Carl Sagan link again..."it is said, that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather, the Gods are the dreams of men."
Also, does me being an indigo child give me any credence as to my belief or intuitive sense that a God in the western sense does not exist?
------ This thread is Archived ------
StressFree: Cool shedman...I'm not surprised that you've been there, done that.
I just listened to that Carl Sagan link again..."it is said, that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather, the Gods are the dreams of men."
Also, does me being an indigo child give me any credence as to my belief or intuitive sense that a God in the western sense does not exist?
I just listened to that Carl Sagan link again..."it is said, that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather, the Gods are the dreams of men."
Also, does me being an indigo child give me any credence as to my belief or intuitive sense that a God in the western sense does not exist?
I had a feeling that you were an indigo child
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_children
lol...I don't like labels, but in school the teachers thought I had Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder and I was forced into a 'special class'. Still pissed about that.
Now I don't like labels and our need to label everything and you can easily pull the Forer effect ( personal validation fallacy) card, but I see myself and my daughter fitting the descriptions...who knows? Sorry to hijack the thread Shedman...I'll just branch off and start my own thread on this someday...when I get the urge...apparently I can be inherently lazy or just don't care to stir the pot...lol
"They share some characteristics with the Crystal Children. Both generations are highly sensitive and psychic, and have important life purposes. The main difference is their temperament. Indigos have a warrior spirit, because their collective purpose is to mash down old systems that no longer serve us. They are here to quash government, educational and legal systems that lack integrity. To accomplish this end, they need tempers and fiery determination.
Those adults who resist change and who value conformity may misunderstand the Indigos. They are often mislabeled with the psychiatric diagnoses of Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Sadly, when they’re medicated, The Indigos often lose their beautiful sensitivity, spiritual gifts and warrior energy. I wrote about the Indigos at length in my book, The Care and Feeding of Indigo Children. I also recommend The Indigo Children and An Indigo Celebration, two other Hay House books written by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober.
In contrast, the Crystal Children are blissful and even-tempered. Sure, they may have tantrums occasionally, but these children are largely forgiving and easy-going. The Crystals are the generation who benefit from the Indigos' trailblazing. First, the Indigo Children lead with a machete, cutting down anything that lacks integrity. Then the Crystal Children follow the cleared path, into a safer and more secure world. And now, the fearless Rainbow Children are pure givers ready to fulfill our needs."
- source available on the internet...search is your friend on google...always!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_children
"Psychologist Russell Barkley has said the New Age movement has yet to produce empirical evidence of the existence of indigo children, and that the 17 traits most commonly attributed to them are so vague that they could describe "most of the people most of the time" and were reminiscent of the Forer effect."
Somebody always has to interject reason and logic....
It kind of sounds like astrological traits. I’m a Taurus and I definitely possess those chsaracteristics but I also have Gemini, Aries, Aquarius...the list goes on. The lines are very blurry. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
Someone should take admission in the primiry School....
------ This thread is Archived ------
Shedman01: I see many people posting that they want proof that God exists. Sure this want, desire, demand, of proof that God exists is being manifested in many ways, such as biblical belief etc. But it really seems to boil down simply to many folks seeking proof that God exists.
Perhaps they are trying to change the minds of others, or perhaps they are looking for that proof so they too can believe. Perhaps some others are trying to convince themselves of their own belief whatever it may be. I surely can not guess to the reasons or motivations behind some of the very blatant postings I have seen some individuals post, and my above reflects only some views I have encountered in my many years on the Internet when I have asked people why they want proof of God, etc.
Anyway to the topic of the thread. I thought it might be interesting to flip the table a little on some of the more vocal posters that continue to ask for proof that God does exist or continue to assert that he is a mass delusion, or other some such humanistic imagination,
So here is my thread topic...
Prove to me... God does not exist.
I look forward to a few replies if anyone is willing to offer some proof that God is imaginary or does not exist etc, or perhaps since that may be difficult to do I will allow for a sideline proof as well...
Prove to me... that "omnipresence" is impossible, or in essence does not exist.
Now then because of the title and manner in which I have laid out the thread let us all assume that every posting made to this thread will be directed SOLELY at me, this may help keep folks from arguing among themselves and stick better to the request of the thread, prove to me... me
Perhaps they are trying to change the minds of others, or perhaps they are looking for that proof so they too can believe. Perhaps some others are trying to convince themselves of their own belief whatever it may be. I surely can not guess to the reasons or motivations behind some of the very blatant postings I have seen some individuals post, and my above reflects only some views I have encountered in my many years on the Internet when I have asked people why they want proof of God, etc.
Anyway to the topic of the thread. I thought it might be interesting to flip the table a little on some of the more vocal posters that continue to ask for proof that God does exist or continue to assert that he is a mass delusion, or other some such humanistic imagination,
So here is my thread topic...
Prove to me... God does not exist.
I look forward to a few replies if anyone is willing to offer some proof that God is imaginary or does not exist etc, or perhaps since that may be difficult to do I will allow for a sideline proof as well...
Prove to me... that "omnipresence" is impossible, or in essence does not exist.
Now then because of the title and manner in which I have laid out the thread let us all assume that every posting made to this thread will be directed SOLELY at me, this may help keep folks from arguing among themselves and stick better to the request of the thread, prove to me... me
I cant prove of his or her existence and refuse to read 15 pages however, if he rings my doorbell now! i will let him or her, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and Santa in and take a pic and post for the sake of the thread.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: "Psychologist Russell Barkley has said the New Age movement has yet to produce empirical evidence of the existence of indigo children, and that the 17 traits most commonly attributed to them are so vague that they could describe "most of the people most of the time" and were reminiscent of the Forer effect."
Somebody always has to interject reason and logic.... It kind of sounds like astrological traits. I’m a Taurus and I definitely possess those chsaracteristics but I also have Gemini, Aries, Aquarius...the list goes on. The lines are very blurry.
Somebody always has to interject reason and logic.... It kind of sounds like astrological traits. I’m a Taurus and I definitely possess those chsaracteristics but I also have Gemini, Aries, Aquarius...the list goes on. The lines are very blurry.
Now I'm feeling kind of blue...
------ This thread is Archived ------
It is amazing how loosely the Term "Theory" is bandied around in this Thread.
Creationism is NOT a Scientific Theory!
Never was and never will be!
Theory-Practice Dichotomy
[Consider the catch phrase:] “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man’s actions. Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory. If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standard can it be estimated as “good”? If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man’s mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man’s actions. (The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man’s conceptual faculty.)
Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who Needs It
Creationism is NOT a Scientific Theory!
Never was and never will be!
Theory-Practice Dichotomy
[Consider the catch phrase:] “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man’s actions. Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory. If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standard can it be estimated as “good”? If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man’s mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man’s actions. (The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man’s conceptual faculty.)
Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who Needs It
------ This thread is Archived ------
Who referred to Creationism as "theory?" on this thread? Slap. 
Was it that same person form earlier Conrad that was confusing Darwin and Natural Selection with the Big Bang?
Was it that same person form earlier Conrad that was confusing Darwin and Natural Selection with the Big Bang?------ This thread is Archived ------
Why is there so much animosity against the Large Hadron Collider from so many theists? Do they really think it will cause the end of the world?
Well, the end of their world anyway.
I'll tell you why. By proving the existence of the Higgs Boson, we will be well on the road to proving the theory of everything. Dark Matter, Anti-matter, the Cosmic Big Band Symphony, all of it. Take away all mystery from the Universe, as to its fundamental nature, constituents, and origin, and the theists have nothing left to argue about.
Not rationally anyway.
Well, the end of their world anyway.
I'll tell you why. By proving the existence of the Higgs Boson, we will be well on the road to proving the theory of everything. Dark Matter, Anti-matter, the Cosmic Big Band Symphony, all of it. Take away all mystery from the Universe, as to its fundamental nature, constituents, and origin, and the theists have nothing left to argue about.
Not rationally anyway.
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: Outnumbered?
What?
What?
I’m taking a wild guess based on who is more vocal on the threads. It wouldn’t exactly matter if you went by what people check off on their profiles because sometimes they check, "spiritual but not religious" and then they act as apologetic.
There are only a handful of people who have actually designated themselves as atheists on their profiles and who actually post on forum and are outspoken. I would classify at least three. You can’t necessarily count me in that group. I don’t do the label things that well. I avoid all that crap in profiles. I am CONSTANTLY reffered to as an Atheist however which is interesting.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: I’m taking a wild guess based on who is more vocal on the threads. It wouldn’t exactly matter if you went by what people check off on their profiles because sometimes they check, "spiritual but not religious" and then they act as apologetic.
There are only a handful of people who have actually designated themselves as atheists on their profiles and who actually post on forum and are outspoken. I would classify at least three. You can’t necessarily count me in that group. I don’t do the label things that well. I avoid all that crap in profiles. I am CONSTANTLY reffered to as an Atheist however which is interesting.
There are only a handful of people who have actually designated themselves as atheists on their profiles and who actually post on forum and are outspoken. I would classify at least three. You can’t necessarily count me in that group. I don’t do the label things that well. I avoid all that crap in profiles. I am CONSTANTLY reffered to as an Atheist however which is interesting.
She's a scientolig...I mean a scientist.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Galactic_bodhi: Why is there so much animosity against the Large Hadron Collider from so many theists? Do they really think it will cause the end of the world?
Well, the end of their world anyway. I'll tell you why. By proving the existence of the Higgs Boson, we will be well on the road to proving the theory of everything. Dark Matter, Anti-matter, the Cosmic Big Band Symphony, all of it. Take away all mystery from the Universe, as to its fundamental nature, constituents, and origin, and the theists have nothing left to argue about.
Not rationally anyway.
Well, the end of their world anyway. I'll tell you why. By proving the existence of the Higgs Boson, we will be well on the road to proving the theory of everything. Dark Matter, Anti-matter, the Cosmic Big Band Symphony, all of it. Take away all mystery from the Universe, as to its fundamental nature, constituents, and origin, and the theists have nothing left to argue about.
Not rationally anyway.
This one is for Galactic_bodhi:
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Thinking out loud #3
Your Mental Health
a question
Name A Book In The Bible That Begins With The First Letter Of Your Name
Blast From The Past
New here. Single Guy from Grand Rapids, MI.
What Clothes Do You Feel Comfortable Wearing?
A question
Wondering
Isis
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).