Objective evidence of God

[Subduction Zone]

And I am still waiting for testable proof that the tree (as well as everything else that exists) came from non-existence.

Don't you mean "evidence"?

 

[biggles53]

And I am still waiting for testable proof that the tree (as well as everything else that exists) came from non-existence.

You are the only one (along with many other Christians) who is making that claim.....

 

[CabVet]

And I am still waiting for testable proof that the tree (as well as everything else that exists) came from non-existence.

I, on the other hand, am still waiting for objective evidence that supports the existence of God. Since post 1.

 

[Old Ned]

And I am still waiting for testable proof that the tree (as well as everything else that exists) came from non-existence.

I'm sorry ED, you are detracting from the question.

The OP asked for Testable, Objective evidence of God.

You offered up a Tree.

You then argued whether or not a Tree could be objective evidence.
I asked how is the tree testable?

Whether or not Science has evidence of it's claims is irrelevant.

Question: Testable, Objective Evidence
Answer : Go look at a tree.
Question: How it the tree testable?
Answer: Show me evidence that it came from nothing
Question: Please just answer the question, how do we test the tree?

And this is where we currently are.

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm sorry ED, you are detracting from the question.

The OP asked for Testable, Objective evidence of God.

You offered up a Tree.

You then argued whether or not a Tree could be objective evidence.
I asked how is the tree testable?

Whether or not Science has evidence of it's claims is irrelevant.

Question: Testable, Objective Evidence
Answer : Go look at a tree.
Question: How it the tree testable?
Answer: Show me evidence that it came from nothing
Question: Please just answer the question, how do we test the tree?

And this is where we currently are.

You cold use your five senses. Touch it, smell it, feel it, taste it and listen to the wind swaying it's branches. Or you could take a bark sample and look at it under a microscope. It's not hard to test a tree.

 

[Old Ned]

You cold use your five senses. Touch it, smell it, feel it, taste it and listen to the wind swaying it's branches. Or you could take a bark sample and look at it under a microscope. It's not hard to test a tree.

And we have done pretty much all the tests we know of to trees... but not one of the results give evidence of God.

So again, How do we test the tree for evidence of God?

 

[CabVet]

You cold use your five senses. Touch it, smell it, feel it, taste it and listen to the wind swaying it's branches. Or you could take a bark sample and look at it under a microscope. It's not hard to test a tree.

The presence of a tree (or anything else in this universe) is not objective evidence for God unless you can demonstrate that God created it (which you cannot).

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have seen the problem with defining what objective evidence is and what constitutes as objective evidence. It seems that we need to determine that issue before we can even begin to provide that evidence. So I ask again. Does everyone agree that objective evidence is evidence outside of ourselves that is true separate from any theory or belief. It stands alone as something that has been determined by testing/experiment and/or is considered true by those who have the necessary knowledge from testing and experiment to conclude.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You cold use your five senses. Touch it, smell it, feel it, taste it and listen to the wind swaying it's branches. Or you could take a bark sample and look at it under a microscope. It's not hard to test a tree.

Ok wouldn't you agree that the tree is objective in the sense that it exists and is an object that we can sense with our five senses? Now the tree stands alone. It can be used as evidence for theories of other subjects such as disease or in your case the existence of God. However, the premise that it is objective evidence for God is a broad and too general piece of evidence for it to point to God in itself. Do you see how that is a problem?

A tree in your estimation is being used as "if not God" no tree or anything would exist, which then as you see is only a small piece of that whole. So while a tree is testament that something does exist rather than nothing, it is too broad and general to be very convincing in its part of the whole.

 

[CabVet]

We have seen the problem with defining what objective evidence is and what constitutes as objective evidence. It seems that we need to determine that issue before we can even begin to provide that evidence. So I ask again. Does everyone agree that objective evidence is evidence outside of ourselves that is true separate from any theory or belief. It stands alone as something that has been determined by testing/experiment and/or is considered true by those who have the necessary knowledge from testing and experiment to conclude.

You are the only one to seem to be having that problem. I defined it in post #1, the evidence has to be testable and physical, and that is the definition of objective evidence. If you can come up with a test that demonstrates that ED's tree was created by a deity (more specifically the Abrahamic God and not Thor or Zeus), I am willing to take that as evidence. However, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that tree came from a seed.

 

[Queller]

Yes it is. IT doesn't have a meaning or reason it just is. IT supports that trees exist.

And that is the ONLY issue for which a tree is objective evidence.

It could support that a certain other life form uses it as a habitat.

But in and of itself the tree is not objective evidence that something uses it as a habitat.

It could support theories that a certain tree is susceptible to one disease or another.

The tree alone does not support that theory.

A tree could be used to support a variety of propositions.

But the only objective one is that trees exist.

 

[Queller]

The only objective evidence for God has to be physical evidence?

What other type of evidence is not subjective?

 

[ChetSinger]

I think there's objective evidence for God. The Apostle Paul once wrote:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Is this still true in our age? I think it is, due to our increasing understanding of the complexity of life. The more we understand living things, the more complex and unlikely their spontaneous formation is.

This, imo, is evidence for design. And since the rules of chemistry appear the same no matter where we look in our universe, it's evidence for a designer that is not constrained by our universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's take ED's premise which I believe from what he is saying is this:

The universe exists. That is an objective fact. It stands alone. No one other than those that think everything is an illusion will agree. So this is an objective fact that can be used for a multitude of differing theories and beliefs. So we have this universe that we all agree exists, now we must determine what best explains its existence. There are three explanations that we can think of that can contribute to the universe and its existence.

1. It always has existed.
2. It created itself.
3. It was created by something else outside of itself.

1. Science has determined that the universe had a beginning and that nothing existed before it.

Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmologist, says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

2. Nothing comes from nothing. How would the universe which didn't exist prior to existing create itself?

3. Number 3 is the only answer that fits with reality and scientific discovery.

If something outside of the universe created the universe, that something had to have certain attributes:

1. Creative power. IF the universe was indeed created it had to be created from something or someone.
2. Had to be eternal. IF not eternal, then there would be a limit to how far back this creative force could go before we are back to the same question.
3. Has to explain how the laws of physics of the universe are the way they are and how they arose themselves.


This evidence supports the existence of God by the claims that the Bible makes for God. That God is eternal and has always existed. HE is an intelligent being that has creative power to create the universe. He is an intelligent being who can make rules that the universe would contain. He has an intelligent mind which could provide a mathematical intelligible universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence that supports God's existence. This is one piece of evidence that supports His existence.

 

[Davian]

...you will go out on a limb? I will leaf that one alone.

 

[bhsmte]

Let's take ED's premise which I believe from what he is saying is this:

The universe exists. That is an objective fact. It stands alone. No one other than those that think everything is an illusion will agree. So this is an objective fact that can be used for a multitude of differing theories and beliefs. So we have this universe that we all agree exists, now we must determine what best explains its existence. There are three explanations that we can think of that can contribute to the universe and its existence.

1. It always has existed.
2. It created itself.
3. It was created by something else outside of itself.

1. Science has determined that the universe had a beginning and that nothing existed before it.

Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmologist, says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

2. Nothing comes from nothing. How would the universe which didn't exist prior to existing create itself?

3. Number 3 is the only answer that fits with reality and scientific discovery.

If something outside of the universe created the universe, that something had to have certain attributes:

1. Creative power. IF the universe was indeed created it had to be created from something or someone.
2. Had to be eternal. IF not eternal, then there would be a limit to how far back this creative force could go before we are back to the same question.
3. Has to explain how the laws of physics of the universe are the way they are and how they arose themselves.


This evidence supports the existence of God by the claims that the Bible makes for God. That God is eternal and has always existed. HE is an intelligent being that has creative power to create the universe. He is an intelligent being who can make rules that the universe would contain. He has an intelligent mind which could provide a mathematical intelligible universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence that supports God's existence. This is one piece of evidence that supports His existence.

No, the evidence does not point directly at God creating the universe. Is a God a possibility? Sure, that is one potential cause, but even if a God did initiate the universe, it does not mean this God is a personal God as described in the bible.

 

[Davian]

Let's take ED's premise which I believe from what he is saying is this:

The universe exists. That is an objective fact. It stands alone. No one other than those that think everything is an illusion will agree. So this is an objective fact that can be used for a multitude of differing theories and beliefs. So we have this universe that we all agree exists, now we must determine what best explains its existence. There are three explanations that we can think of that can contribute to the universe and its existence.

1. It always has existed.
2. It created itself.
3. It was created by something else outside of itself.

1. Science has determined that the universe had a beginning and that nothing existed before it.

Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmologist, says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

The question of what was "before" may not even make sense, from our perspective.

2. Nothing comes from nothing. How would the universe which didn't exist prior to existing create itself?

We do not have knowledge of the conditions prior to the instantiation of the cosmos. There is no way to know that the cause-and-effect that we observe within the universe applied at that point.

3. Number 3 is the only answer that fits with reality and scientific discovery.

Not in any way that you have been able to demonstrate.

If something outside of the universe created the universe, that something had to have certain attributes:

1. Creative power. IF the universe was indeed created it had to be created from something or someone.

How did you get to a "someone"? Explain.

2. Had to be eternal. IF not eternal, then there would be a limit to how far back this creative force could go before we are back to the same question.

If it were eternal, how long did it wait prior to the instantiation of our cosmos?

3. Has to explain how the laws of physics of the universe are the way they are and how they arose themselves.

We do not know if they could be any different, do we? We lack access to other (hypothetical) universes. Agreed?

This evidence supports the existence of God by the claims that the Bible makes for God. That God is eternal and has always existed. HE is an intelligent being that has creative power to create the universe. He is an intelligent being who can make rules that the universe would contain. He has an intelligent mind which could provide a mathematical intelligible universe.

A series of untestable, unfalsifiable assertions about a character in a book.

The existence of the universe is evidence that supports God's existence. This is one piece of evidence that supports His existence.

Or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, the evidence does not point directly at God creating the universe. Is a God a possibility? Sure, that is one potential cause, but even if a God did initiate the universe, it does not mean this God is a personal God as described in the bible.

Now you are moving the goal posts. We are arguing for the Christian God. WE can make arguments for the Christian God but that is the side issue. The issue is whether the Christian has evidence for God. You are not asking Muslims nor Hindus or any other adherent of other religions.

So for the purpose of this thread being directed at Christians for God let us assume the God we provided evidence for is the Christian God.

 

[Queller]

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

What is that objective evidence? A tree, a rabbit, and a human are not objective evidences for God, they are objective evidences of trees, rabbits, and humans. To consider them as evidence for God is a subjective decision.

 

[Queller]

The fossil record was not deposited by natural means over time. It was deposited by the flood.

The order of the fossil record does not support this claim.