Objective evidence of God

[bhsmte]

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.

Showing evidence for the Christian God goes far beyond who created the universe and no objective evidence exists presently that the universe was created by any God.

To show the existence of the christian God, one would have to provide objective evidence that the christian God of the bible exists, along with all the descriptions applied to him.

 

[Queller]

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.

So how do you test a tree to support the claim that God made it?

 

[Queller]

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



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.

Even if this could be claimed as objective evidence, how is it objective evidence for God?

 

[ChetSinger]

Even if this could be claimed as objective evidence, how is it objective evidence for God?

Taking it one step at a time, I believe life is evidence for extra-dimensional engineering, requiring an extra-dimensional engineer. Put another way, the living things we see didn't originate from natural events, but from supernatural ones.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

There is a fourth option; that the laws of physics are subjective and meaningless, and science means only what certain people claim it means. That's why we get statements like, "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."

This statement assumes that somehow natural law could be linked to something other than the property of physical objects, which lets people pretend that the universe could have just popped into existence by itself because there was no natural law to prevent it. This is what passes for science when you're desperate and you understand that the basic laws of physics disallow any possible natural explanation for origination. You have to go back and question the integrity of natural law. You have to say that the laws of physics aren't absolute. In other words, you have to lie. when called on the lie, you puff out your chest and arrogantly say "You just don't understand science."

The fact is, the existence of God cannot be proven. Even if there was overwhelming physical evidence most would still deny it. They choose not to believe, and they manipulate science to support their rejection of the Creator. Nothing we say is going to convince them otherwise. The best we can do is to show the falseness of their arguments so that the faithful aren't swayed by their false teaching.

 

[bhsmte]

Taking it one step at a time, I believe life is evidence for extra-dimensional engineering, requiring an extra-dimensional engineer. Put another way, the living things we see didn't originate from natural events, but from supernatural ones.

Can you connect the dots for us?

What about life, provides objective evidence that points to supernatural engineering?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

How does that change that there was nothing prior to the existence of the universe?

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.

How could there be conditions in nothing?

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

Do you have one that I haven't addressed?

How did you get to a "someone"? Explain

.


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

We know that things are created by something or someone.

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

How is this pertinent?

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

We do know they could be different in ours and we are discussing ours.

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

We take an explanation, God created and justify that explanation. We are making an argument for the existence of God. WE have claims and we in our argumentation present evidence to support those claims.

Or not.

Anyone can deny outright anything. Does that mean they are correct...No. If you would like to give some form of argument for another alternate explanation feel free to do so.

 

[ChetSinger]

Can you connect the dots for us?

What about life, provides objective evidence that points to supernatural engineering?

We now know what the simplest life is, due to efforts such as the Minimal Genome Project. So we now know why we don't see life spontaneously emerging (like the ancients thought it did). There are too many required parts. And those parts aren't even laying around.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is a fourth option; that the laws of physics are subjective and meaningless, and science means only what certain people claim it means. That's why we get statements like, "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."

This statement assumes that somehow natural law could be linked to something other than the property of physical objects, which lets people pretend that the universe could have just popped into existence by itself because there was no natural law to prevent it. This is what passes for science when you're desperate and you understand that the basic laws of physics disallow any possible natural explanation for origination. You have to go back and question the integrity of natural law. You have to say that the laws of physics aren't absolute. In other words, you have to lie. when called on the lie, you puff out your chest and arrogantly say "You just don't understand science."

The fact is, the existence of God cannot be proven. Even if there was overwhelming physical evidence most would still deny it. They choose not to believe, and they manipulate science to support their rejection of the Creator. Nothing we say is going to convince them otherwise. The best we can do is to show the falseness of their arguments so that the faithful aren't swayed by their false teaching.

Which is what I said at the outset. I am not claiming proof of God. However God claims the heavens declare His existence. That there is evidence that points to Him.

However, I agree that anyone can deny evidence if it doesn't point to what they personally believe.

 

[CabVet]

We take an explanation, God created and justify that explanation. We are making an argument for the existence of God. WE have claims and we in our argumentation present evidence to support those claims.

You keep repeating that there is evidence, you even said that there was objective evidence (and I can quote you on that), but as of yet, no objective evidence supporting the existence of God was presented by you or anybody else.

 

[CabVet]

However, I agree that anyone can deny evidence if it doesn't point to what they personally believe.

In other words, the evidence is not objective. So, do you agree that there is no objective evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

We now know what the simplest life is, due to efforts such as the Minimal Genome Project. So we now know why we don't see life spontaneously emerging (like the ancients thought it did). There are too many required parts. And those parts aren't even laying around.

I don't see how this connects the dots you need to connect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Showing evidence for the Christian God goes far beyond who created the universe and no objective evidence exists presently that the universe was created by any God.

In argumentation, we set our boundaries, we for the Christian God. It doesn't matter whether you agree that it is the Christian God per se. the point is whether or not we can bring a case in support of Him.

To show the existence of the christian God, one would have to provide objective evidence that the christian God of the bible exists, along with all the descriptions applied to him.

So are you telling me that to claim a cause the cause can not be presupposed?

That seems to put much of the scientific evidence at risk. The whole method based on "if this is true then we predict this" falls.

 

[Davian]

There is a fourth option; that the laws of physics are subjective and meaningless, and science means only what certain people claim it means. That's why we get statements like, "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."

This statement assumes that somehow natural law could be linked to something other than the property of physical objects, which lets people pretend that the universe could have just popped into existence by itself because there was no natural law to prevent it. This is what passes for science when you're desperate and you understand that the basic laws of physics disallow any possible natural explanation for origination. You have to go back and question the integrity of natural law. You have to say that the laws of physics aren't absolute. In other words, you have to lie. when called on the lie, you puff out your chest and arrogantly say "You just don't understand science."

The fact is, the existence of God cannot be proven.

As I have said in previous responses to you, I am not looking for proof, just something testable, that does not appear to be an exercise in self-deception.

Even if there was overwhelming physical evidence most would still deny it.

How do you know this?

They choose not to believe,

What I choose is not to accept your unevidenced, untestable, and unfalsifiable claims.

and they manipulate science to support their rejection of the Creator.

Do you know the science well enough to demonstrate that?

Nothing we say is going to convince them otherwise.

Not if you limit yourself to unevidenced, untestable, and unfalsifiable claims.

The best we can do is to show the falseness of their arguments so that the faithful aren't swayed by their false teaching.

Okay then. Let us see your best.


Got anything? No?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In other words, the evidence is not objective. So, do you agree that there is no objective evidence?

So if someone doesn't believe that evolution occurs, does that mean there is no objective evidence for it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You keep repeating that there is evidence, you even said that there was objective evidence (and I can quote you on that), but as of yet, no objective evidence supporting the existence of God was presented by you or anybody else.

Are you claiming that the universe is not an objective fact that can stand alone?

 

[Loudmouth]

So if someone doesn't believe that evolution occurs, does that mean there is no objective evidence for it?

The difference is that we can use objective experiments that allow us to predict what we should and should not see in nature if evolution is true. Belief has nothing to do with it. The pattern of ERV's in a genome is not a belief, nor is the prediction made by the theory of evolution. Both are objective. We can use genomes and fossils to determine if evolution is true.

This is not so as it applies to god claims. There is no evidence that they would accept as falsifying their beliefs. None. It is a dogmatic belief. It is also nonsensical, such as "tree" being a supposed valid piece of evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

The reality is that the supernatural was invented in order to avoid having to give evidence. Look at this very thread. Paraphrasing, people are saying that they don't have to give evidence because it is supernatural. When you don't have the evidence on your side it is probably best to find an excuse that allows you to ignore the evidence. Hence, the modern view of the supernatural.

 

[Davian]

How does that change that there was nothing prior to the existence of the universe?

Again, the question of what was "before" or "prior" may not even make sense, from our perspective.

How could there be conditions in nothing?

Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

Do you have one that I haven't addressed?

You haven't addressed the ones in my previous post.

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

We know that things are created by something or someone.

Let me ask again: How do you get to a "someone" existing prior to the existence of the universe, other than as some apologetic maneuver that claims that it had to be a "someone" or else the god claims fall apart?

How is this pertinent?

You made the claim it was eternal. It begs the question, if it were eternal, how long did it wait prior to the instantiation of our cosmos?

We do know they could be different in ours and we are discussing ours.

No, we do not know that they could have been different, do we?

We take an explanation, God created and justify that explanation. We are making an argument for the existence of God. WE have claims and we in our argumentation present evidence to support those claims.

Indeed. This thread is about the absence of such evidence.

Anyone can deny outright anything. Does that mean they are correct...No. If you would like to give some form of argument for another alternate explanation feel free to do so.

No, let's avoid setting up a false dichotomy, and stick to the OP.

 

[ChetSinger]

I don't see how this connects the dots you need to connect.

Do you get as far as an extra-dimensional designer?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The difference is that we can use objective experiments that allow us to predict what we should and should not see in nature if evolution is true.

So we can't provide experiments and testing to determine if the universe exists? The evidence supports evolution just as the evidence supports God. The evidence should not presuppose evolution or prove evolution exists before the evidence can be used to support evolution. Do you see the problem? You can't say evolution must be proven before the evidence can be used to prove it. The Bible makes claims that if God didn't exist could be used against His existence. For instance, that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had been proven to have always existed it would have proven that claim false.

Belief has nothing to do with it. The pattern of ERV's in a genome is not a belief, nor is the prediction made by the theory of evolution. Both are objective. We can use genomes and fossils to determine if evolution is true.

Again, that is evidence that supports evolution is true. You can't say that evolution must be proven before the ERV's in a genome can be shown to support it. That is illogical. The evidence is in support of the theory or the claim. Do you see?

This is not so as it applies to god claims. There is no evidence that they would accept as falsifying their beliefs. None. It is a dogmatic belief. It is also nonsensical, such as "tree" being a supposed valid piece of evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

In this case we can see that if God exists and created the universe as is claimed, had a beginning like is claimed, if the universe didn't exist that would falsify the claim (we wouldn't be here to argue the point) and if it didn't have a beginning it would falsify the claim. However, the universe exists and had a beginning. That provides evidence that God is true.

The reality is that the supernatural was invented in order to avoid having to give evidence.

What evidence do you have that the supernatural was invented to avoid having to give evidence?

Look at this very thread. Paraphrasing, people are saying that they don't have to give evidence because it is supernatural.

We have people saying many things. People can say many things. Do they have reason behind what they say? Do they have evidence to back what they say? That is what must be determined and each claim must be backed by objective evidence to support it.

When you don't have the evidence on your side it is probably best to find an excuse that allows you to ignore the evidence. Hence, the modern view of the supernatural.

But if you have evidence that supports your claims then one must address that.