Prove to me.... (622)
Apparently it is to difficult to grasp that I am not here to prove God exists.
I am here in search of evidence...
Some has already been given in the way of previous definitions of God that have fallen in history and have no followers anymore. Another gave some evidence in the way of an all "loving" (as we accept the term loving to mean) God would not allow innocent death if God was all powerful (again as we accept the definition of all powerful) these things have been pointed out and are recognizable as evidence of the non-existence of God.
But it seems to be to easy to adopt a "side" and not focus on the actual interest when the term God is applied. Perhaps shifting then to the second alernative would enable some others to post further evidence.
That is prove that omnipresence is impossible. Or, provide evidence that supports this statement.
Lets see if anyone has thoughts on that one.
It truly does amaze me that the concept of unbiased search for truth can be so difficult to grasp and fought against so fiercely by people even when they recognize that debating it will go nowhere yet all they continue to do is debate the debate... It amazes me, and saddens me in a way, I rather enjoy seeking truth regardless of its outcome to my personal beliefs, I truly believed I could find more information here then what I did. But at least not all has been for nothing thus far, and maybe with a shift in the call for evidence/proof more can be gained.
me
I am here in search of evidence...
Some has already been given in the way of previous definitions of God that have fallen in history and have no followers anymore. Another gave some evidence in the way of an all "loving" (as we accept the term loving to mean) God would not allow innocent death if God was all powerful (again as we accept the definition of all powerful) these things have been pointed out and are recognizable as evidence of the non-existence of God.
But it seems to be to easy to adopt a "side" and not focus on the actual interest when the term God is applied. Perhaps shifting then to the second alernative would enable some others to post further evidence.
That is prove that omnipresence is impossible. Or, provide evidence that supports this statement.
Lets see if anyone has thoughts on that one.
It truly does amaze me that the concept of unbiased search for truth can be so difficult to grasp and fought against so fiercely by people even when they recognize that debating it will go nowhere yet all they continue to do is debate the debate... It amazes me, and saddens me in a way, I rather enjoy seeking truth regardless of its outcome to my personal beliefs, I truly believed I could find more information here then what I did. But at least not all has been for nothing thus far, and maybe with a shift in the call for evidence/proof more can be gained.
me
------ This thread is Archived ------
Galactic_bodhi: Nor can you prove he does. Stalemate. Get the lawn darts out and make some vodka punch.
I'm with you....but can I get a doobie with that???
------ This thread is Archived ------
pretzelman: I'm with you....but can I get a doobie with that???
Dude, come to Oregon sometime. I'll get you some Medicinal that will rock your world.
------ This thread is Archived ------
RillyNiceGuy: I do not have to prove it to you or anyone who does not want God. Those who want god already have their proof.
Check this!
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: It truly does amaze me that the concept of unbiased search for truth can be so difficult to grasp and fought against so fiercely by people even when they recognize that debating it will go nowhere yet all they continue to do is debate the debate...
I sense a bit of unwarranted condescension on your part here sir. All we have explained to you, is it is impossible to produce evidence for a negative assertion. Either demanding that we partake in an irrational argument or a cohesive debate is still asking for a debate.
Negative Proof refers to the fallacy of using an argument, about a phenomenon P, of the form:
P has not been observed
Therefore P does not exist
An argument of this form is most convincing when the existence of P seems implausible.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Are you actually going to copy 590+ proofs of God's existence?
I'd put the site name up but you seem to be having
too much fun trying to be 'right'.
Gotta love ya for your effort.
------ This thread is Archived ------
sigh.. you like quotes...
Please note: Contrary Evidence in the above...
Again this is not a debate, it is a a method of collecting evidence and in this case it is collecting contray evidence to fill qualifications of falsification techniques in scientific methodology.
I have done all I can to try and make this understood and yet it keeps being dragged back to a pointless debate of proper debating technique. This is not a debate, it is a scientific method of evidence collection. ok?
In response to: The Purpose of The Scientific Method
The basic purpose is to refine, extend, and apply knowledge, and to seek the "truth," although the "truth" can probably never be determined. Results must always be held open to extension, modification, even possible replacement.
Some of the Procedural Principles & Theories
Experimentation - Testing and experimentation, whether on a blackboard or computer, or in the lab, are usually essential activities in the use of The Scientific Method. Government standards must be observed in experiments involving people, animals, and the environment.
Replicable - Results must be reproducible, communicable, and communicated.
A Skeptical Attitude - A Skeptical Attitude toward authoritative statements is required in seeking the truth. Data used in your thinking must be "true" insofar as it is possible to determine "truth." It may be useful to determine key terminology.
Values and Ethics - As much as humanly possible, a researcher should strive to be free of prejudice and bias that often creep into human judgment and action. They must give due credit to their team or collaborators. Ethical conduct is expected.
Infallibility - No claims should be made that "The Scientific Method" produces infallible solutions. State rather: "On the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that ..."
Gather All Evidence - If bias or inadequate effort causes you to ignore or fail to find contrary evidence, you will not arrive at the "truth."
Mathematics - Qualitative and quantitative methods of mathematics should be used whenever possible.
Society - There is a growing interest in the concept that science is a social activity.
All Steps or Stages of The Scientific Method - Each has various procedural principles and theories peculiar to them. See Steps or Stages 1 to 11.
The basic purpose is to refine, extend, and apply knowledge, and to seek the "truth," although the "truth" can probably never be determined. Results must always be held open to extension, modification, even possible replacement.
Some of the Procedural Principles & Theories
Experimentation - Testing and experimentation, whether on a blackboard or computer, or in the lab, are usually essential activities in the use of The Scientific Method. Government standards must be observed in experiments involving people, animals, and the environment.
Replicable - Results must be reproducible, communicable, and communicated.
A Skeptical Attitude - A Skeptical Attitude toward authoritative statements is required in seeking the truth. Data used in your thinking must be "true" insofar as it is possible to determine "truth." It may be useful to determine key terminology.
Values and Ethics - As much as humanly possible, a researcher should strive to be free of prejudice and bias that often creep into human judgment and action. They must give due credit to their team or collaborators. Ethical conduct is expected.
Infallibility - No claims should be made that "The Scientific Method" produces infallible solutions. State rather: "On the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that ..."
Gather All Evidence - If bias or inadequate effort causes you to ignore or fail to find contrary evidence, you will not arrive at the "truth."
Mathematics - Qualitative and quantitative methods of mathematics should be used whenever possible.
Society - There is a growing interest in the concept that science is a social activity.
All Steps or Stages of The Scientific Method - Each has various procedural principles and theories peculiar to them. See Steps or Stages 1 to 11.
Please note: Contrary Evidence in the above...
In response to:
Scientific Method Hypothesis
Experimenting, Testing, & Challenging the Hypothesis
Falsification: Sir Karl Popper advocated trying to prove a hypothesis to be false rather than trying to prove it right. This may save time and avoid bias.
Verification: Many disagree with his falsification theory and believe various methods should be used to verify the hypothesis.
Who Is Right?: This is an extremely controversial and difficult question to answer. Try both approaches mentioned above. Gather evidence both for and against your hypothesis.
Scientific Method Hypothesis
Experimenting, Testing, & Challenging the Hypothesis
Falsification: Sir Karl Popper advocated trying to prove a hypothesis to be false rather than trying to prove it right. This may save time and avoid bias.
Verification: Many disagree with his falsification theory and believe various methods should be used to verify the hypothesis.
Who Is Right?: This is an extremely controversial and difficult question to answer. Try both approaches mentioned above. Gather evidence both for and against your hypothesis.
In response to:
Logical Methods (in the broadest sense)
Any method based on sound reasoning is classified here as logical. Some researchers may apply logical methods based on accepted rules of reasoning standardized by logicians.
Usually, though, people use "semi-intuitive" logic resulting from their base of experiences, thinking skills, and knowledge. Examples of well-known logical methods based on reasoning and experience are methods of:
surveying
controlled variations
falsification
artificial intelligence
trial and error
pattern identification
classification
reviewing the literature
Logical Methods (in the broadest sense)
Any method based on sound reasoning is classified here as logical. Some researchers may apply logical methods based on accepted rules of reasoning standardized by logicians.
Usually, though, people use "semi-intuitive" logic resulting from their base of experiences, thinking skills, and knowledge. Examples of well-known logical methods based on reasoning and experience are methods of:
surveying
controlled variations
falsification
artificial intelligence
trial and error
pattern identification
classification
reviewing the literature
Again this is not a debate, it is a a method of collecting evidence and in this case it is collecting contray evidence to fill qualifications of falsification techniques in scientific methodology.
I have done all I can to try and make this understood and yet it keeps being dragged back to a pointless debate of proper debating technique. This is not a debate, it is a scientific method of evidence collection. ok?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Dusty45: Are you actually going to copy
590+ proofs of God's existence?
I'd put the site name up but you seem to be having
too much fun trying to be 'right'.
Gotta love ya for your effort.
590+ proofs of God's existence?
I'd put the site name up but you seem to be having
too much fun trying to be 'right'.
Gotta love ya for your effort.
Yeah, I thought they were funny. Shall I keep going?
Actually I was amazed that we have actually heard these arguments. I think some out of your own mouth! Miss has on her profile that she is a Taoist yet attempts to act as apologetic on these forums? 
------ This thread is Archived ------
I am here, but I truly want to respect Shedman's request
from here on out. I apologize to Shedman.
from here on out. I apologize to Shedman.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: I have done all I can to try and make this understood and yet it keeps being dragged back to a pointless debate of proper debating technique.
Yes, Im afraid the nasty atheists are sticklers for the details!
Anyway, last night you had relented and said instead you would accept actual proof for God's (have you defined which god yet?) existence. That would be the substantiation of a positive assertion which is possible. In that sense, you had modified the debate from illogical to logical.
What happned to that?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Dusty45: I am here, but I truly want to respect Shedman's request
from here on out. I apologize to Shedman.
from here on out. I apologize to Shedman.
You are what?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Shedman01: sigh.. you like quotes...Please note: Contrary Evidence in the above...
Again this is not a debate, it is a a method of collecting evidence and in this case it is collecting contray evidence to fill qualifications of falsification techniques in scientific methodology.
I have done all I can to try and make this understood and yet it keeps being dragged back to a pointless debate of proper debating technique. This is not a debate, it is a scientific method of evidence collection. ok?
Again this is not a debate, it is a a method of collecting evidence and in this case it is collecting contray evidence to fill qualifications of falsification techniques in scientific methodology.
I have done all I can to try and make this understood and yet it keeps being dragged back to a pointless debate of proper debating technique. This is not a debate, it is a scientific method of evidence collection. ok?
You can't collect evidence out of a debate?
------ This thread is Archived ------
krimsa: Yes, Im afraid the nasty atheists are sticklers for the details!
Anyway, last night you had relented and said instead you would accept actual proof for God's (have you defined which god yet?) existence. That would be the substantiation of a positive assertion which is possible. In that sense, you had modified the debate from illogical to logical.
What happned to that?
Anyway, last night you had relented and said instead you would accept actual proof for God's (have you defined which god yet?) existence. That would be the substantiation of a positive assertion which is possible. In that sense, you had modified the debate from illogical to logical.
What happned to that?
Read again I did no such thing. I changed to proving that omnipresence does not exist / is not possible / is impossible...
------ This thread is Archived ------
buzzy: You can't collect evidence out of a debate?
Especially not out of a logical fallacy.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Shedman01: Read again I did no such thing. I changed to proving that omnipresence does not exist / is not possible / is impossible...
That is the same premise you started out with....
------ This thread is Archived ------
buzzy: You can't collect evidence out of a debate?
not when the only thing being dabted is the debate process... and this has not been presented as a debate from the very beginning it called for a singular perspective of evidence in the proof that God does not exist, not a debate on the issue, only evidence supporting one side of an issue, there is no debate in that.
hiya Buzzy------ This thread is Archived ------
Nice semantic dance, but ultimately you're asking us to prove something that people have been attempting to prove or disprove since time began. You're asking us to set aside centuries of "debate" in order to what? Do something different? There is no third option, unless you want to debate the merits of dependent origination rather than a literal semantic definition known as "God". Its not your question that's a problem, its the definitions behind your premise.
God is many different things to many different people. He can't bring me heaven, when heaven is already here.
God is many different things to many different people. He can't bring me heaven, when heaven is already here.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Why not just shift the argument to the substantiation of a positive assertion? Ask members to post why they feel that the existence of a god or omnipotent, divine being is feasible. Ask them to provide supportive evidence and to identify which god they are addressing as there are people of other faiths on this site of course.
That is something that can be logically debated and argued.
That is something that can be logically debated and argued.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Galactic_bodhi: ....
God is many different things to many different people. He can't bring me heaven, when heaven is already here.
God is many different things to many different people. He can't bring me heaven, when heaven is already here.
Indeed and if that is the stance you hold then by all means feel free to provide evidence to the other option, that of omnipresence... There are not multiple definitions for that to my knowledge. Existence in all places at all times, is the basic acceptance of omnipresence, so simply show evidence that supports it is impossible or does not exist.
I still can not believe this is so difficult, I really expected much more as I have gotten a great deal in many times past asking this same question, including some from a minister of the Seventh Day Adventist Church (a rather strict religion), and members of a few other churches as well as college professors. I am sorry I simply do not see the trouble that folks are having with providing evidences to the non-existence of God, but I have left the other option open which in turn provides for many of the definitions applied to God from various cultures and religions, that God is omnipresent.
Off to bed for me, hopefully if people have no evidence to offer they will then just let this fall I guess as the debate of debate is simply wasting to much of everyone's time and is something I apparently can not get people to move away from on this site.
take care all, back in a few hours,
------ 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
Blast From The Past
It's been a long time....
"Emotions at the Crossroads"
When you look inside your heart ? what do you truly want..
Thinking out loud #3
Isis
Too many fake profiles here ...
A question
Note
Your Mental Health
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).
Yes its like a really crappy game of chess.