Objective evidence of God

[Old Ned]

So no treeists are going to answer my question then?

Still waiting to hear how we test this tree for evidence that God made it.

 

[bhsmte]

I had not. I stand corrected. I am appalled. I have spent years, literally years and years studying all religions.

I have posted this information numerous times.

What is shows? It backs the theory that atheists tend to be very thorough in regards to studying issues, before they decided to believe, or not believe.

There is no question in my mind, that a large percentage of christians, no nothing about the historicity of the bible or have done any reading from scholars as to the NT content. If they did with any objectivity, it would be a revelation to most.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No I am not...

Oh I think you are smart...why don't you?

I'm a mathematician, so I know the limits of 'proof'....

The limits in math are the rules and the same applies to most things.

What I am saying is that, in order for you to have objective evidence for, well anything, the evidence must link specifically and directly to that thing you are claiming......

Most certainly.

to assert that the existence of trees is a piece of objective evidence for a god is ridiculous in that there is no specific link between the two....trees only become evidence for a god in the minds of those who so choose to view them that way...!

I said the same. I see where he is at in his view. I think it is too general and broad for any meaning. I told him that if you had read the thread.

Objective evidence should be free of personal interpretation....any person should be able to examine it and come to the same conclusion as to what it represents...

Objective evidence is separate, it can never be free of personal interpretation..we have to interpret the evidence.

Take another example.....you (sometimes) have claimed that your 'experience' of a god's presence is evidence for you that such a being exists....Fine, but this is 'evidence' that exists only for you and perhaps for a minority if people like you who claim a similar phenomenon.....it is NOT evidence which can be universally examined, nor is it evidence that others could link specifically to your claim....it's subjective evidence....

I've always said that the personal experience of the believe is not something that can be shared and I have never used it as evidence for others.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have posted this information numerous times.

Perhaps, but I didn't see it.

What is shows? It backs the theory that atheists tend to be very thorough in regards to studying issues, before they decided to believe, or not believe.

It appears to be so.

There is no question in my mind, that a large percentage of christians, no nothing about the historicity of the bible or have done any reading from scholars as to the NT content. If they did with any objectivity, it would be a revelation to most.

That is not true. Many many have done the same thing and came out being more convinced. Take Erhman and Metzger.

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps, but I didn't see it.



It appears to be so.


That is not true. Many many have done the same thing and came out being more convinced. Take Erhman and Metzger.

You couldn't be more wrong.

In the 9 months or so I have been on this board, I have conversed with numerous christians who were dumbfounded, when I posted information from a consensus of scholars and historians about 3 basic points:

-The gospels were not written until 30-70 years after Jesus died
-The authors of the gospels are anonymous and the label Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were placed on them by the powers at be much later.
-The originals of the NT are lost, we only have copies of copies starting about 200 years after Jesus lived.

Three very simple points, that are well accepted by scholars and historians, yet, some christians either initially refuse to accept this information, or they are completely baffled and go running away.

For a book to be given so much weight by a group of people, it sure is not analyzed in an objective way by many.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That is not true. Many many have done the same thing and came out being more convinced. Take Erhman and Metzger.

Ehrman? Really? Is he a christian?

 

[FredHoyle]

Ehrman? Really? Is he a christian?

He was a Christian fundamentalist but he's not any more, not since he went to seminary and studied the bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You couldn't be more wrong.

In the 9 months or so I have been on this board, I have conversed with numerous christians who were dumbfounded, when I posted information from a consensus of scholars and historians about 3 basic points:

-The gospels were not written until 30-70 years after Jesus died
-The authors of the gospels are anonymous and the label Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were placed on them by the powers at be much later.
-The originals of the NT are lost, we only have copies of copies starting about 200 years after Jesus lived.

We know from the Muratorian Fragment that the gospels were already considered well established and being collected much earlier that the fragment itself which was around 170 AD. So this establishes much earlier copies that what you are claiming. If the gospels could be in list form by 170 AD it stands to reason they had been around much earlier than that. So even a couple of decades would mean writings were earlier by almost 1/2 the time you are claiming.

The earliest church documents give credit to the authors specified by their names and the books that we see today were established by authority and their history. They yes are anonymous, but considering outside sources giving authorship credibility to those authors.

Three very simple points, that are well accepted by scholars and historians, yet, some christians either initially refuse to accept this information, or they are completely baffled and go running away.

I know. I've seen it.

For a book to be given so much weight by a group of people, it sure is not analyzed in an objective way by many.

It is good that there are those that have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He was a Christian fundamentalist but he's not any more, not since he went to seminary and studied the bible.

The Gospel According to Bart Ehrman - Apologetics 315

 

[Mr Strawberry]

We know from the Muratorian Fragment that the gospels were already considered well established and being collected much earlier that the fragment itself which was around 170 AD. So this establishes much earlier copies that what you are claiming. If the gospels could be in list form by 170 AD it stands to reason they had been around much earlier than that. So even a couple of decades would mean writings were earlier by almost 1/2 the time you are claiming.

I don't follow you maths there. How does it not fit in with the gospels being written 30-70 years after jesus's death?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The Gospel According to Bart Ehrman - Apologetics 315

Your link doesn't show Ehrman as a christian.

 

[CabVet]

1. One would have to have a infinite mind to argue there is "No God". But that could be the same for a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Similarly, and according to the Bible itself, one would have to have an infinite mind to understand God. Furthermore, not being able to argue that there is "No God", as you say, does not provide evidence supporting the existence of God.

2. One could observe life as being created by God as stated in his word, or one could observe the universe as something that evolved as stated by Darwin.

If reading Genesis is "observe life being created", reading an evolutionary biology textbook is "observing life evolving".

3. If you could measure any attributes of God then I would say it's not God. The Bible says God is light. So, I would ask if darkness is the absence of light, What is the measurement for the absence of darkness?

Ok, so you cannot measure God.

4. As for other means of research that Science uses; I would ask one question like science does If God did have observable evidence, would He be infinite, if He was fully understood by the finite mind?

In other words, there is no objective evidence supporting the existence of God. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

 

[CabVet]

I've always said that the personal experience of the believe is not something that can be shared and I have never used it as evidence for others.

Does that mean there is no objective evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Ehrman? Really? Is he a christian?

One could make a legit case, that Ehrman's credentials are 2nd to none when it comes to NT scholarship and historical work. He studied under Metzger (considered the top NT scholar for decades), he attended Moody Bible, Wheaton college, PHD from Princeton theological and was a Baptist minister for many years. The dude even learned Greek and other languages, so he could read the text before it was translated.

He was a devout christian when he was young and he was devout up until his studies of the NT got very serious and he started to see the chinks in the story. He is now agnostic and claims this for two reasons; his discoveries in decades of studying the NT and the issue of suffering in the world, which he could not longer reconcile with an all loving God.

 

[CabVet]

What do you mean all fossils fit the evolutionary paradigm.

He means exactly what he said. Fossils have intermediate morphology between what came before and after them. In addition, the order in which fossils appear in the geological column is compatible with the predictions of evolution. The fossil record, however, is incompatible with the Genesis narrative, it neither fits Genesis timeline, nor the order in which organisms appear.

 

[CabVet]

One could make a legit case, that Ehrman's credentials are 2nd to none when it comes to NT scholarship and historical work. He studied under Metzger (considered the top NT scholar for decades), he attended Moody Bible, Wheaton college, PHD from Princeton theological and was a Baptist minister for many years. The dude even learned Greek and other languages, so he could read the text before it was translated.

He was a devout christian when he was young and he was devout up until his studies of the NT got very serious and he started to see the chinks in the story. He is now agnostic and claims this for two reasons; his discoveries in decades of studying the NT and the issue of suffering in the world, which he could not longer reconcile with an all loving God.

Exactly, here is a recent interview with him:

Agnostic Scholar Bart Ehrman on 'Who Wrote the Bible and Why It Matters'

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does that mean there is no objective evidence?

Absolutely not. There is objective evidence that supports God's existence. Personal experience is not objective evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One could make a legit case, that Ehrman's credentials are 2nd to none when it comes to NT scholarship and historical work. He studied under Metzger (considered the top NT scholar for decades), he attended Moody Bible, Wheaton college, PHD from Princeton theological and was a Baptist minister for many years. The dude even learned Greek and other languages, so he could read the text before it was translated.

He was a devout christian when he was young and he was devout up until his studies of the NT got very serious and he started to see the chinks in the story. He is now agnostic and claims this for two reasons; his discoveries in decades of studying the NT and the issue of suffering in the world, which he could not longer reconcile with an all loving God.

Metzger had the same information available to him and his credentials were excellent as well and he did not come to the same conclusions that Erhman came to. There are many scholars that do not agree and they too have learned the other languages to make sure they were translating accurately.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He means exactly what he said. Fossils have intermediate morphology between what came before and after them. In addition, the order in which fossils appear in the geological column is compatible with the predictions of evolution.

Predictions have been made but most of those predictions are after the fact. WE see certain patterns in the way life arose which allows us to make those predictions.

The fossil record, however, is incompatible with the Genesis narrative, it neither fits Genesis timeline, nor the order in which organisms appear.

It is not incompatible with the Genesis narrative. The timeline of the narrative is an unknown variable. The fossil record is only what it is. WE have fossil evidence that supports a certain age but is never definite.

 

[CabVet]

Absolutely not. There is objective evidence that supports God's existence. Personal experience is not objective evidence.

Please, do come forward and tell us (and the entire planet), what objective evidence you speak of.