Shedman01 Forum Posts (1,029)

Prove to me....

*whispers, so as to try and stay with the thread topic while still agreeing...*

Prove to me....

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

Prove to me....

Indeed, and it does open the thoughts to various theories and explorations of the terms creation, and infinity ('always existing' - which is also the basis of some religions for 'who created God') so it is consideration in that it does have theoretical weight in which the search for further evidence is possible beyond the presumed question. Thanks very much for the contribution and time spent giving it. Very much appreciated.

Do you think that the fact we as humans have been able to create genetic alterations that in fact are new species (defined by their genetic separation from any other creature) helps to support that it is possible humanoids (used to define similar beings to ourselves as well as ourselves) are capable of "creating life" which could also be used as an evidence, even if only to prove more then one being is capable of creation therefore the one we have defined as God previously could not be considered "supreme" in that regard, to dis-prove the definition given to God thus far?

Yes it would be a light weight evidence but it could be one none the less...

Thanks again for the time given thus far!

me

Prove to me....

I respect and appreciate very much the time taken to explain your stance and a base of your beliefs. Truly do. Do you have evidence you can offer to support the comment I left above? In as much as what I aske bollywood to do earlier? Is there some eviidence that you feel supports the non-existence of a singular being that fits the existing parameters we have given in the thread thus far for God?



Again very much appreciate the contributions your offering to the thread subject and the search for truth in a scientific manner, as "human" as that may be


hehe
me

Prove to me....

I can respect this thought and would ask then with this being your belief could you provide evidence that God is not a physical being or singular entity?

For an example: "I have never personally seen anything that has been understood to my mind as being a supreme being or being of extraordinary powers." is a very common evidence to proving God is non-existent. Do you have others you believe are evidence of this kind?

Of course this kind of evidence holds only the same weight as another who states they "have" seen this, but the weight of the evidence on its own is not my concern, just the evidence itself that you see, or believe...

I am not trying to direct the above specifically at you bollywood, it is just another way I am trying to clarify what this thread is actually for.

Thanks very much for jumping in and offering your thoughts, I do hope that you will have some time to spare to perhaps add some of your evidence as described above...

Prove to me....

Ah Ambrose, first thank you very much for understanding the premise of the thread! And for contributing your willingness to pursue with further clarifications. Very much appreciate it and am glad to find a fellow scientific thinker present!

Next for the sake of this exploration lets go ahead and go with the definitions listed below taken from dictionary.com



And since we are on a singles connection site let as attribute #4 with "The God of Love.

Will these offer sufficient parameters to find evidence of the non-existence for you? Hope so but if not feel free to ascribe those attributes for which you can provide evidence I am not particular about which attributes are given the the term God in this thread, just the evidences that disprove the existence, or as I have said before prove the non-existence.


me

Prove to me....

Krimsa, I am not posting a debate, if you want one post one, this is not one. Sorry, it just isn't.

Prove to me....

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,

Prove to me....

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

Prove to me....

Read again I did no such thing. I changed to proving that omnipresence does not exist / is not possible / is impossible...

Prove to me....

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?

RE: If you were a Lolly Pop....

oooneeee, twwwooooo, threeeeeee, CRUNCH... sorry but those commercials ruined the "how many licks" thing for me...

RE: I've Got Wood....

RE: My quiet thoughts..

Uhm...cough...yes...ok... if I were to ever get a letter like that... well... yeah there would be absolutely nothing that would keep me from getting to that author...

whew... is it just me or iss it REAL hot in here?

Very enjoyable read Merc, thanks much for sharing it!

RE: I've Got Wood....

Should not use pine.... always use hard wood zee...always...

RE: A few of my favorite things...(My Poetry)

Beautiful Q simply beautiful! Thank you very much for posting it!


me

RE: write a quote about love!

For it consumes the soul as fire consumes the air it breaths, burning with desires expressed in the searing heat of passions that course through the body of flesh in waves of flowing emotion. It is the sensation of flight and escape of the solid reality in which a person dwells, lifting them from all the weight of life with a single connecting glance that transcends all else. It is the solitary release of the hearts truest power, the very core of that which creates new life, and thwarts all death, it is the depth and beauty of unadulterated Love.


me

Prove to me....

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

Prove to me....

Yes I can because I am NOT debating... I am researching... NOT debating...



I don't know how else to get my point across then this... Sorry for the capitol "not's" but this is not a debate I am merely wishing for evidence of God's non-existence... is it truly that difficult to grasp this idea? I am not trying to be sarcastic in this at all I am very curious if the concept is just to difficult to grasp.


me

Prove to me....

I will try one last time to explain this is not an atheist verses theist thread, in fact this is not intended to be a "verses" thread at all. I do not and would not want to nor would I try to waste anyone's time with such indefinable arguments of arguments.

I have merely called for proof...as in evidence.. that God does not exist. that link only allows a 'theist' to lay claim to the exact same thing saying atheist always fall back on burden of proof etc.. it goes in a circle and expends energies from people that could go to SOOO many better things... and it just wastes everyone's time to go in circles such as that...

Does this help to understand the intention here is coming from someone who is not taking a side in any kind of argument... it is coming from someone who is unbiasedly looking for evidence of God, in this case evidence of God's non-existence.

I truly hope that helps so people can save their time and energy if they are only posting to argue and argument instead of trying to find evidences...


me

Prove to me....

Ah but even to that point it is a personal decision and choice... Let me try to explain...

The entire world you perceive and could communicate about is how you "believe" it to be...

For example, you believe the letter a follows certain rules within the English language, you do this because it was taught to you and you accept it as a fact. You believe that the word Apple refers to a kind of food... Why do I say these are beliefs and not actual facts? Because they are language. Language is an agreed upon belief as clearly seen in the many languages of the world that humans use to communicate.

The one exception to this is sensory communication. If I say the word "Tree" for example. Those who know the English language will immediately have an image in their mind of some kind of "tree" yet those who do not know that language and have not agreed to believe what it stands for will have no idea what it means...

For those who do though there is yet another problem... what tree do they think of when the word is said? A leafless one in fall? an evergreen covered in snow?, a fruit tree blooming? etc. This is because they have a specific "belief" of the word that was given to them when they first learned it, or that they have developed over their lifetime as their favorite kind of "tree"...

This is where the key to truly human wide language lays. if I have no eyesight and someone shows me a tree by letting me feel the bark and leaves and how it branches out etc... that term becomes that exploration of feeling, an "image" of sorts is built within my mind so that anytime I hear the word tree that "image" comes back to me.

Same if I never touch it but am able to smell it and only it, that smell will then be the "image" my brain gets when the word tree is used as a description for it. etc

However, If I show a picture of an apple tree that has ripe fruit on it to someone who has never spoken my language but has seen that tree they will know instantly what I am saying, or let someone smell an apple and they have smelled it before, etc.

This is a human wide, pre-existing understanding, that is not learned or forgotten, this makes it come in outside of the "belief" factors, because it is common and understood to every human regardless of any outside influence. It is something an infant with no outside conditioning would also be able to do with any other human, once they had experienced that specific detail, such as the apple from the tree etc...

That mental image be it a smell, touch, sight, taste, or sound, is the truth of the entire human perception, the rest is literally suggested "beliefs" that have been agreed on or are being debated as to if they should be agreed on or not etc.

See what I mean?


me

RE: CS friends...

2 if you mean in ways other then the forums,

otherwise I would have to say the same number of people who post in the forums daily


me

Prove to me....

But here again these children are being raised inside a belief system... see what I mean? They are being raised in an environment that does not provide God as an answer to questions of what makes birds sing... So again, show a child raised completely free of all previous concieved notions, beliefs, facts, theories, etc and show me what this child knows or does not know and then these can be used as claims for one side or the other. Thanks for time spent making this posting perhaps it helps me to clarify what I mean a bit more.


me

Prove to me....

I very much appreciate your posting. It offers evidence of the "fall" of specifically referenced terms of God. This is supportive through weight in that it increases the odds of non-existence through the further understanding of humans and the world around them. Thank you VERY much for your posting.

What has been offered here is the defining of several of the deities that have been referred to as God by the people who believed in them. What it brings to the argument is that in several past cases the beliefs of masses were in fact lost among newly rising beliefs and scientific findings that explained many of the things that had been attributed to "God" prior to discoveries that become repeatable scientific evidence as to how the event transpired in a normal way even though when it first happened there was no way to define it.

The trouble is that this also can in fact be supportive that there is God yet the definitions and terms given to define God have been incorrect thus far. So it still does not prove the non-existence of God but it does lean the argument in that direction in as much as the humanistic definition attributed to the word God thus far.

Again many thanks for the posting GoodHeartforyou!! very much appreciate the time given!!


me

Prove to me....

Stressfree - Let me put it this way.. you make an extrodinary claim that we are all born athiest, could you support that with evidence of a child who has been raised with absolutely no outside influence from any other form of thought then its own which shows undeniable evidence that it in fact has never believed in a power higher then itself in any way shape or form?

That is why I say it is a belief, there is no evidence presented that we are born athiestic. There are also studies that claim infants are born with more knowledge then the oldest human alive could gather. Some say they are born with the ability to communicate with pure telepathy and that skill is lost when introduced to speech. Again beliefs in my opinion since I have not found evidence provided to the contrary of either position being held, that of born knowing nothing verse born knowing things later forgotten...

Does this help clarify my position on your posting I responded to before?

Hope so. Again thank you for the previous posting and the follow ups, I agree with quite a number of things you have mentioned as well as others. I am very pleased thus far with everyone posting in the thread.


me

Prove to me....

Just a couple of things on this portion of your posting... I appreciate the time spent providing all the rest I truly do, but this is not about Jesus, or religion, this is about "omnipresent God".

We assume we are born into the world with but curiosity and questions, key here is we "believe this to be true" It is then that those who have lived in the world provide their "beliefs" of what their experiences and others have made them to be.

Your argument is good but it contains holes in this sense.

For many generations the world was "believed" to be flat, everyone "believed" this to be true, it took but a few people who went against the "belief" of the masses to prove it was in fact not flat but round. This is but one example of "belief" When we are born we do not "believe" anything, beyond what our primary senses tell us is real to our own perception of our own reality.

As we grow we alter and change those perceptions based on our experiences and the "beliefs" of those who shared their experiences and "beliefs" with us through our lives.

Sometimes we counter the beliefs we adopted because of new things we find. For example and to show why your argument does not sway me from looking for proof of the non-existence of God... Some who began as "believing" in God (since they never doubted until much later) now in fact can only be seen as changing their "belief" to one that God does not exist, which in turn does make it a belief.

Again I am in no way trying to say you can not prove one does not exist, I am in fact asking you to offer evidence that supports the non-existence, and no I am not asking so I can say then obviously one does exist. Again I am merely looking for evidence that supports the non-existence of God. ie Why some people firmly "believe" there is none. such as those who firmly believed the world was flat prior to it being discovered.

I will add again... seeking the truth does not require a direction or line of sight, it merely requires asking every question that can be asked regardless of what the answer may reveal. Unbiased, pursuit of the question does God exist therefore must include the question is God non-existant. Hence my posting.

Thank you very much for your posting Stress, I very much appreciate the time spent writing and gathering links etc, very much appreciate it.

Very much!

Prove to me....

Correct one does not have to prove it... nor does one have to prove it true. The proof is saught by those who seek the truth. It does not matter in which direction the proof is gathered it matters only that it is sought after from every possible direction.

As to which "God" I have provided a parameter to assist in the definition for those who are wanting it to be better clarified, but this is not a 'religious' debate, this is a scientific search for proof that God does not or can not exist. That's all.

thanks for your thoughts offered, I appreciate the time taken top share them.

Prove to me....

No worries you did just fine.

What seems to be missing here is the "side" factor is all. Scientist have spent countless hours either in pursuit of proof they are correct, or in pursuit that others are incorrect. Sometimes they even try to find their own negative proofs in order to assist in validating their proof.

What turning the table is doing is merely saying I hold this to be my truth and fact, my scientific hold as it were, such as, the earth is held in place by a crytaline sphere, the world is flat, we have never landed on the moon etc, prove to me it isn't... this is the same situation, prove to me that God does not exist and is only a manifestation of mans mind, just as the supporting crystaline sphere of earth etc.

Be a fellow scientist and provide proof that supports the non-existence. That's all it really is.

I do truly appreciate the obvious time your spent to provide your thoughts and I greatly appreciate them they were wonderful to read and made a great deal of sense to me as well.


me

Prove to me....

A very valid point and should be considered since the definition might cause trouble. So I will place for my requested argument the following parameter...

Omnipresent

That should narrow it down some since there are definitions of God that do not include omnipresent...

Prove to me....

Sounds like an interesting topic, make it and I might throw a hand into it Heck broaden it to include prove human did not originate on another planet and move to Earth in an 'ark'! Lots of interesting discussion to be had there I imagine.