Prove to me.... (622)
Dusty45Louisville, Kentucky USA54 Threads 2,642 PostsEither way, I don't care. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
Dusty45: I believe in Miracles and within that thought belief
It's possible that you could very well get laid. Or not, if you choose not to believe.
It's possible that you could very well get laid. Or not, if you choose not to believe.
Isn't that a miracle that all of us would like?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Dusty45: Either way, I don't care.
Havent I been saying that to you for months now?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Anyway Lilly were you going to answer my question? In light of this man's alleged three days in cold storage (even though we dont know if he was actually dead) don’t you wonder why there are still atheists/agnostics even in existence? How could this be with so much gosh darn irrefutable evidence as you claim eh? 
------ This thread is Archived ------
Krimsa,
The problem I have with you is that instead of staying on one particular topic, you start jumping around and asking all kinds of questions which then lead to other topics and we can never get one thing established to agree on. I have noticed that you do this. Perhaps it is not intentional, but it throws you and the other person(s) off the main idea of what is being discussed. Maybe those questions are only statements in your own mind, but when you write them out in question form, you are challenging the other person to answer them as they are written. Then you get defensive and challenging when someone doesn't answer them. This is why I am unable to get specific criteria established with you.
I am trying to establish with you a specific criteria and now you are asking athe following:
How is that changing? You told me it was not specific enough so I said well does this satisfy you? How would that be me changing? (quote Krimsa)
EXAMPLES OF YOUR CHANGING YOUR CRITERIA:
Exp. 1-"IF today, someone was capable of raising either an animal or human from the dead, I would accept that as proof. But there are several variables involved. Proof of what? Which god? Would it be a human who is accomplishing this feat? "
Exp. 2 -"If an animal or human was raised from the dead after several days, I would declare that significant evidence. I would require that it break any current standing records."
Exp 3 - "It has not been accomplished based on the criteria I just listed above. Even if it had, who would take the credit for it? The Christians? The Muslims? The Wiccans? The Satanists? Every religious sect on the planet more than likely."
Exp 4 - "We are asking that something supernatural occur here. In order for it to qualify as such, it MUST defy medical science as you stated yourself."
You jump around too much with your thoughts Krim. You talk of generally raising humans or animals from the dead, supernaturual events, then go into low temps as the varying criteria everytime I give you proof. If you want to stick with trying to prove God's existence, then please line up a concise criteria instead of jumping to add another changing criteria, thus adding questions. Otherwise, you will never be able to have anyone answer, not myself or anyone else even.
As a nurse, I know that clincial death means not only cessation of vital signs, but also of brain stem function. In order for that baby in the article I posted to be considered clincally dead for 8 mins and then revived, there had to be no brain stem function. It was room temperature dead for 8 mins. That infant cannot tell us what transpired in those 8 mins while it was completely lifeless. Yet when an adult tells of the NDE, then you feel it isn't valid.
Your mother has revived babies that still had brain stem function, not that were clinically dead, maybe only those that appeared dead as you have stated. But real clinical death is something different as stated in that article. It was beyond the realm of normal science or else they wouldn't have posted that in a specific article if it was something that is done everyday. Eh?
The problem I have with you is that instead of staying on one particular topic, you start jumping around and asking all kinds of questions which then lead to other topics and we can never get one thing established to agree on. I have noticed that you do this. Perhaps it is not intentional, but it throws you and the other person(s) off the main idea of what is being discussed. Maybe those questions are only statements in your own mind, but when you write them out in question form, you are challenging the other person to answer them as they are written. Then you get defensive and challenging when someone doesn't answer them. This is why I am unable to get specific criteria established with you.
I am trying to establish with you a specific criteria and now you are asking athe following:
How is that changing? You told me it was not specific enough so I said well does this satisfy you? How would that be me changing? (quote Krimsa)
EXAMPLES OF YOUR CHANGING YOUR CRITERIA:
Exp. 1-"IF today, someone was capable of raising either an animal or human from the dead, I would accept that as proof. But there are several variables involved. Proof of what? Which god? Would it be a human who is accomplishing this feat? "
Exp. 2 -"If an animal or human was raised from the dead after several days, I would declare that significant evidence. I would require that it break any current standing records."
Exp 3 - "It has not been accomplished based on the criteria I just listed above. Even if it had, who would take the credit for it? The Christians? The Muslims? The Wiccans? The Satanists? Every religious sect on the planet more than likely."
Exp 4 - "We are asking that something supernatural occur here. In order for it to qualify as such, it MUST defy medical science as you stated yourself."
You jump around too much with your thoughts Krim. You talk of generally raising humans or animals from the dead, supernaturual events, then go into low temps as the varying criteria everytime I give you proof. If you want to stick with trying to prove God's existence, then please line up a concise criteria instead of jumping to add another changing criteria, thus adding questions. Otherwise, you will never be able to have anyone answer, not myself or anyone else even.
As a nurse, I know that clincial death means not only cessation of vital signs, but also of brain stem function. In order for that baby in the article I posted to be considered clincally dead for 8 mins and then revived, there had to be no brain stem function. It was room temperature dead for 8 mins. That infant cannot tell us what transpired in those 8 mins while it was completely lifeless. Yet when an adult tells of the NDE, then you feel it isn't valid.
Your mother has revived babies that still had brain stem function, not that were clinically dead, maybe only those that appeared dead as you have stated. But real clinical death is something different as stated in that article. It was beyond the realm of normal science or else they wouldn't have posted that in a specific article if it was something that is done everyday. Eh?
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: The problem I have with you is that instead of staying on one particular topic, you start jumping around and asking all kinds of questions
It’s okay for you to ask me dozens of questions (of which I have answered all if you scroll back) yet I can not ask you one? Okay, whatever you want to ask me now for a third and fourth time, I will answer again.
In response to: Maybe those questions are only statements in your own mind, but when you write them out in question form, you are challenging the other person to answer them
Exactly. I am well aware they are questions. Generally statements end in a . And questions in a ?. I have asked one question to quite possibly your 50 by now.
In response to: Then you get defensive and challenging when someone doesn't answer them.
Please quote when I have EVER on this forum become defensive with you. I am normally quite patient and I respond to ALL of your posts.
In response to: This is why I am unable to get specific criteria established with you.
Anyone can go back and see where I have established a criteria, and then you insist that I never stated a criteria. I actually challenged you to quote exactly where I had ever changed the criteria and of course you were not able to do this.
In response to: Exp. 1-"IF today, someone was capable of raising either an animal or human from the dead, I would accept that as proof. But there are several variables involved. Proof of what? Which god? Would it be a human who is accomplishing this feat? "Exp. 2 -"If an animal or human was raised from the dead after several days, I would declare that significant evidence. I would require that it break any current standing records."
Yes, no change there.
In response to: Exp 3 - "It has not been accomplished based on the criteria I just listed above. Even if it had, who would take the credit for it? The Christians? The Muslims? The Wiccans? The Satanists? Every religious sect on the planet more than likely.
And that is different how?
In response to: Exp 4 - "We are asking that something supernatural occur here. In order for it to qualify as such, it MUST defy medical science as you stated yourself."
Right. And how is that different? I am asking that it defy medical convention and you yourself admitted that was a logical requirement to place upon it. How has that changed?
In response to: You jump around too much with your thoughts Krim.
Okay since that has not changed at all.
A. Longer then existing medical record. You claim you found a man in Russia that went three days but as of yet, we can not establish that he was actually dead.
B. Not in cold storage. This man was in cold storage for three days.
C. Establish whether or not a human or an unknown source was indeed raising the person or animal from the dead. My concern is that if this were to actually occur (sans human involvement) then EVERY religious sect in the known world would attempt to take credit for it and claim it was their god at work.
None of that has changed back from my very first post.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Con.
See above.
Supernatural meaning not explainable by medical science or something in which they have never witnessed before. If they can offer an explanation, wouldn’t you want to hear?
I told you back when we were very first discussing this phenomena that if a body is placed in cold storage or if a person falls through the ice or in some other manner is kept very cold, this will greatly increase the length the time a person can in fact be considered clinically dead and still revived.
The only "proof" you have offered is this man from Russia but the devil is in the details and so far, we don’t even know if he was actually dead. This took place in Russia.
Its you that is attempting to prove the existence of god, the god of Abraham in fact. Not I. You have been criticized for that.
Once again, when or where have I ever changed criteria?
That’s not true. You offered an answer but we DONT KNOW how long this man was dead or if he was dead. I can not locate any proof.
"Certain surgeries for cerebral aneurysms or aortic arch defects require that blood circulation be stopped while repairs are performed. This deliberate temporary induction of clinical death is called circulatory arrest. It is typically performed by lowering body temperature to +18°C (+64°F), stopping the heart, stopping the brain with drugs to conserve energy, turning off the heart lung machine, and draining blood to eliminate all blood pressure."
I also explained to you that my mom is a retired labor and delivery nurse of 26 years and she often saw this occur and she was also involved with several resuscitations that were even performed where there was no resulting brain trauma or damage. You pretty much ignored that comment.
No I stated the 8 minute baby mark did not fall outside of the realm of explainable phenomena. Then on the Russian man, we don’t know if he was clinically dead. That was the main point of contention that I was reading from several critical assessments of the case in question.
Do you want to ask her that yourself?
I NEVER stated “appeared dead,” I said clinically dead.
And that brings us back to the importance of my question, if as you seem to be implying, these cases are ALL irrefutable proof of a god (I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion) then why are there still Atheists or Agnostics in the world? I will await that answer on your next post. It has been strategically avoided several times now I’ve noticed.
In response to: You talk of generally raising humans or animals from the dead,
See above.
In response to: supernaturual events,
Supernatural meaning not explainable by medical science or something in which they have never witnessed before. If they can offer an explanation, wouldn’t you want to hear?
In response to: then go into low temps
I told you back when we were very first discussing this phenomena that if a body is placed in cold storage or if a person falls through the ice or in some other manner is kept very cold, this will greatly increase the length the time a person can in fact be considered clinically dead and still revived.
In response to: as the varying criteria everytime I give you proof.
The only "proof" you have offered is this man from Russia but the devil is in the details and so far, we don’t even know if he was actually dead. This took place in Russia.
In response to: If you want to stick with trying to prove God's existence,
Its you that is attempting to prove the existence of god, the god of Abraham in fact. Not I. You have been criticized for that.
In response to: then please line up a concise criteria instead of jumping to add another changing criteria, thus adding questions.
Once again, when or where have I ever changed criteria?
In response to: Otherwise, you will never be able to have anyone answer, not myself or anyone else even.
That’s not true. You offered an answer but we DONT KNOW how long this man was dead or if he was dead. I can not locate any proof.
In response to: As a nurse, I know that clincial death means not only cessation of vital signs, but also of brain stem function.
"Certain surgeries for cerebral aneurysms or aortic arch defects require that blood circulation be stopped while repairs are performed. This deliberate temporary induction of clinical death is called circulatory arrest. It is typically performed by lowering body temperature to +18°C (+64°F), stopping the heart, stopping the brain with drugs to conserve energy, turning off the heart lung machine, and draining blood to eliminate all blood pressure."
In response to: It was room temperature dead for 8 mins. That infant cannot tell us what transpired in those 8 mins while it was completely lifeless.
I also explained to you that my mom is a retired labor and delivery nurse of 26 years and she often saw this occur and she was also involved with several resuscitations that were even performed where there was no resulting brain trauma or damage. You pretty much ignored that comment.
In response to: Yet when an adult tells of the NDE, then you feel it isn't valid.
No I stated the 8 minute baby mark did not fall outside of the realm of explainable phenomena. Then on the Russian man, we don’t know if he was clinically dead. That was the main point of contention that I was reading from several critical assessments of the case in question.
In response to: Your mother has revived babies that still had brain stem function, not that were clinically dead,
Do you want to ask her that yourself?
In response to: maybe only those that appeared dead as you have stated.
I NEVER stated “appeared dead,” I said clinically dead.
In response to: But real clinical death is something different as stated in that article. It was beyond the realm of normal science or else they wouldn't have posted that in a specific article if it was something that is done everyday. Eh?
And that brings us back to the importance of my question, if as you seem to be implying, these cases are ALL irrefutable proof of a god (I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion) then why are there still Atheists or Agnostics in the world? I will await that answer on your next post. It has been strategically avoided several times now I’ve noticed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: And that brings us back to the importance of my question, if as you seem to be implying, these cases are ALL irrefutable proof of a god (I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion) then why are there still Atheists or Agnostics in the world? I will await that answer on your next post. It has been strategically avoided several times now I’ve noticed.
Just for my own clarification here krimsa, are you saying that God and Atheists/Agnostics are mutually exclusive?
------ This thread is Archived ------
NeWildflower: Just for my own clarification here krimsa, are you saying that God and Atheists/Agnostics are mutually exclusive?
I am asking that if we allegedly have substantiated proof that people or animals have been raised from the dead, why there would still be ANYONE who doubts the existence of a god in the world (any god). This is the question I am posing to her.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: I am asking that if we allegedly have substantiated proof that people or animals have been raised from the dead, why there would still be ANYONE who doubts the existence of a god in the world (any god). This is the question I am posing to her.
Okay, so you are saying that the two are mutually exclusive. And I also gather then that you are saying that all Atheists would require the same proof and they would no longer be atheists?
Thank you for that clarification.
------ This thread is Archived ------
NeWildflower: Okay, so you are saying that the two are mutually exclusive. And I also gather then that you are saying that all Atheists would require the same proof and they would no longer be atheists?
Thank you for that clarification.
Thank you for that clarification.
I did not say that at all but thanks for reading in thouhgts and comments that were never made. Its a fairly straight forward remark. Lets see if she avoids it again.
Atheist=Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Agnostic=Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism, though it is not a religious declaration in itself.
------ This thread is Archived ------
And as a side note for the actual genesis of this question, an atheist on this thread made the comment that if it could be proven that someone or something had actually been raised up from the dead (like Jesus allegedly was) they would accept that as critical evidence. That’s what got me to thinking about this. If the gap still exists....then you have atheists and people that just can’t say one way or another as is the case with agnostics.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: I did not say that at all but thanks for reading in thouhgts and comments that were never made. Its a fairly straight forward remark. Lets see if she avoids it again.
I'm not reading in thoughts. I'm trying to clarify. And you have clarified twice now that the two things are mutually exclusive by asking WHY THERE WOULD STILL BE ATHEISTS and or AGNOSTICS if a resurrection could be substantiated. As if that were the only necessary thing to eliminate Atheist and Agnostics from being.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: And as a side note for the actual genesis of this question, an atheist on this thread made the comment that if it could be proven that someone or something had actually been raised up from the dead (like Jesus allegedly was) they would accept that as critical evidence. That’s what got me to thinking about this. If the gap still exists....then you have atheists and people that just can’t say one way or another as is the case with agnostics.
Right, but I think that even if there were substantiated proof, it would not be sufficient for everyone, and there would still be atheists and agnostics among us. That's just my opinion. IT SHOULD be enough, but I doubt it would... most would be too steeped in their thought to accept a "miracle" as such. Again, my opinion only.
------ This thread is Archived ------
NeWildflower: Right, but I think that even if there were substantiated proof, it would not be sufficient for everyone, and there would still be atheists and agnostics among us. That's just my opinion. IT SHOULD be enough, but I doubt it would... most would be too steeped in their thought to accept a "miracle" as such. Again, my opinion only.
Well that’s what I meant by "gap". There is still not enough substantiated evidence obviously to create that affirmation in a LOT of people's minds. In fact the number of atheists is growing in the world. That was the other part of the question when I had first posed it (about three pages back.) I am not a materialist atheist so I can’t tell you exactly what it would take. I can tell you that it would require more than what we have seen thus far. But I still would like to hear her response if you don’t mind.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: Well that’s what I meant by "gap". There is still not enough substantiated evidence obviously to create that affirmation in a LOT of people's minds. In fact the number of atheists is growing in the world. That was the other part of the question when I had first posed it (about three pages back.) I am not a materialist atheist so I can’t tell you exactly what it would take. I can tell you that it would require more than what we have seen thus far. But I still would like to hear her response if you don’t mind.
No, I don't mind. I was just confused by the question and wanted more clarification to put it together with the whole picture.
------ This thread is Archived ------
It’s pretty straight forward. I was trying to come up with something that would convince an atheist and raising someone from the dead is probably it. That’s the most convincing evidence. Second to that might be the "laying of hands" to heal a person. But I would prefer reanimation of dead tissue.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: Anyway Lilly were you going to answer my question? In light of this man's alleged three days in cold storage (even though we dont know if he was actually dead) don’t you wonder why there are still atheists/agnostics even in existence? How could this be with so much gosh darn irrefutable evidence as you claim eh?
No, I have never wondered why there are so many atheists/agnostics in existence. Everyone has their own belief system of whether they do or don't believe in God's existence. I've met a Wiccan once, she was my coworker. Beyond that, I have never personally met an atheist. In fact, I was surprised when there were so many atheists on this website that got offended by people who believe in God and yet they themselves could not positively prove the non existence of God. It's like positively prove the existence of God and positively prove the non existence of God like Ambrose said.
I have never condemned anyone's non belief in God nor the Wiccan's belief in the "mother nature" god nor will I insist to anyone that my religion is the only correct way to reach God.(some people insist that their way is the only way and that if you don't believe as they do, you're damned)
I really do think that perhaps you may be the best qualified to answer the question that you asked me.
You see Krimsa, in my attempt to prove to you of God's existence and provide people's stories, it will still most likely never change your mind. You will always be a doubter no matter what. The only thing that can really change your mind or an atheist's mind is a personal experience of your own or perhaps of someone very close to you who was also a non believer. It is only then that you may come to understand things that are not of this world but are in the realm of God or as some people might call a divine intervention that goes beyond medical science.(not alien outer space stuff though)
I'm sorry I cannot find the article I had recently read as I didn't know we were going to discuss the issue. I wish I had saved it. From now on, I will try to save articles. It's hard to try to find an article on a newspaper website that may have been printed weeks ago, unless you know the exact title of the article. I'll have to concede when it comes to this article as I don't remember the exact recent day I read it or the title so I am unable to produce it here. I'll print something off from now on to refer back to.
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: I am asking that if we allegedly have substantiated proof that people or animals have been raised from the dead, why there would still be ANYONE who doubts the existence of a god in the world (any god). This is the question I am posing to her.
With substantiated proof of people being raised from the dead as I have posted in articles like Emanuel Tuwagirairmana and you would still deny the existence of God (or any god as you state), then the ball is in your court Krim to prove and explain to us why you don't believe in God's existence.
Perhaps the answer may lie in the fact that you don't believe that a person had that personal experience. Even to see it yourself, I doubt you would believe it. I do believe that only a personal experience of your own Krimsa could really honestly and truly change your non-belief system.
You have searched very hard to substantiate your non belief because you've never had an experience to validate the belief of God. Whereas others have had that experience in different ways, whether through their children or someone whom they've had the honor to meet in life as some CS forum posters pointed out.
The people who have had God experiences in their lives do not have to continue searching to prove the existence as there is an inner sense of spiritual calm in their lives after they experience God's power. But those who have never experienced God or are so closed minded to a supernatural experience, are left in a state of constant searching. I believe that is where you are at as to why you tear apart the Old and New Testament or the Koran and keep questioning paragraphs.
I do believe that your personal experience will eventually happen and we(meaning CS family)will not be surprised. At least I won't. God of Abraham, God of Jesus or God of man in general, God does exist and eventually will present to you directly. None of us whom believe in God will doubt your experience.
Now I'm not being nasty here Krim but I do see a pattern in your obsessive searching various scriptures and what people tell about their own experiences.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Krimsa,
This article hit right onto the point of why atheists/non believers have such a difficult time with the God concept.
Where is God?
Adonia Wylie
Copyright Feb 23 07
If one searches for God using only the deductive reasoning and logic of the left-brain one is doomed to failure.
Richard Dawkins having explored the further reaches of his left-brain has declared in his book The God Delusion, “There is no God”.
If one searches for God using only the deductive reasoning and logic of the left-brain one is doomed to failure no matter the quality of the left-brain thus employed. Logic and reason are not the portals to God. Indeed, they may be more of a hindrance than a help. It is true that a study of quantum physics, ancient scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible may help our understanding along the pathway to the Divine and for these studies, a reasonable left-brain is necessary. However to access and interact with the Divine, the whole being must necessarily be employed.
Today, many of us in our left-brain focussed educated world live almost entirely in our left-brains, we live almost wholly in the physical explicate world and believe only in that which our physical senses can confirm. To find God, we must first choose to move out of this limiting paradigm and into the world of our whole being, a world in which we will discover what extraordinary electrical beings of enormous as yet untapped potential we really are.
If we were to look for anything at all in the ordinary way in the physical world, in order to have half a chance of finding it, we would first need to believe the thing we were looking for existed. If we attempted to find something we were quite sure did not exist, we would almost certainly be guaranteed that our search would fail. Yet so many of us do just that, or to be more correct, so many of us set off to prove God does not exist and of course under such circumstances come up with a reasonable, (to the left-brain) thesis as to how and why there is no God. Richard Dawkins is merely another case in point.
pg 1
This article hit right onto the point of why atheists/non believers have such a difficult time with the God concept.
Where is God?
Adonia Wylie
Copyright Feb 23 07
If one searches for God using only the deductive reasoning and logic of the left-brain one is doomed to failure.
Richard Dawkins having explored the further reaches of his left-brain has declared in his book The God Delusion, “There is no God”.
If one searches for God using only the deductive reasoning and logic of the left-brain one is doomed to failure no matter the quality of the left-brain thus employed. Logic and reason are not the portals to God. Indeed, they may be more of a hindrance than a help. It is true that a study of quantum physics, ancient scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible may help our understanding along the pathway to the Divine and for these studies, a reasonable left-brain is necessary. However to access and interact with the Divine, the whole being must necessarily be employed.
Today, many of us in our left-brain focussed educated world live almost entirely in our left-brains, we live almost wholly in the physical explicate world and believe only in that which our physical senses can confirm. To find God, we must first choose to move out of this limiting paradigm and into the world of our whole being, a world in which we will discover what extraordinary electrical beings of enormous as yet untapped potential we really are.
If we were to look for anything at all in the ordinary way in the physical world, in order to have half a chance of finding it, we would first need to believe the thing we were looking for existed. If we attempted to find something we were quite sure did not exist, we would almost certainly be guaranteed that our search would fail. Yet so many of us do just that, or to be more correct, so many of us set off to prove God does not exist and of course under such circumstances come up with a reasonable, (to the left-brain) thesis as to how and why there is no God. Richard Dawkins is merely another case in point.
pg 1
------ 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
the death nail for dating websites
What does it mean to be a man or a woman?
a question
"Emotions at the Crossroads"
Too many fake profiles here ...
It's been a long time....
Your Mental Health
Note
Isis
New here. Single Guy from Grand Rapids, MI.
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).