Objective evidence of God

[Oncedeceived]

These are the key points.

Evidence can be both objective and subjective, depending on what it is relating to. The claim and conclusion are linked to the classification of the evidence.

I disagree, I would agree that it can be circumstantial in nature.

The OP was asking for objective evidence that is objective with respect to God...not simply objective to ANYTHING.

It is. IF God exists as I claim, it is evidence that supports Him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's what it looks like. Although, I would go a bit further with your analogy and say whereas a dead body (any body) with three gunshots is evidence for a murder (any murder), a universe (any universe) is not evidence for a deity (any deity).

That a murder is a murder and a universe must be by necessity ours. The deity is the what one is making claims for.

 

[Loudmouth]

The rainbow exists. It is an objective subject. There is evidence that rainbows exist. So I assume that you don't disagree.

The conclusion or the claim is subjective. It says that Leprechauns make them.

There you go. Now you understand why the existence of the universe is not objective evidence of God.

Its not that I don't see your problem with what I am claiming. But what I am trying to show here is that it is not the evidence that you are having a problem with. It is the claim and the conclusion.

The claim that your conclusion is supported by objective evidence is clearly false.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is your definition of "objective".

Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.

​

What the?? Objective evidence DIRECTLY supports a claim. Subjective evidence circumstantially supports a claim.

No objective evidence supports or circumstantially supports or falsifies a subjective claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

IF God exists as I claim, it is evidence that supports Him.

If Leprechauns exist, then rainbows are evidence that supports them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There you go. Now you understand why the existence of the universe is not objective evidence of God

The claim was that it had a beginning. The Christian claims that the universe must have a beginning to support God's existence. That is the claim.

The claim that your conclusion is supported by objective evidence is clearly false.

How? I mean you can clearly claim that there is not sufficient evidence to support such a claim but what you are saying is false. How do you claim the conclusion is false.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If Leprechauns exist, then rainbows are evidence that supports them.

IF you can back up that claim. Can you back up that claim?

 

[HitchSlap]

I asked a question. Who else? Who can create a universe? I proposed God can and bhsmte seemed to agree. I would add God and only God can. So if God can then the existence of the universe is strong evidence.

Maybe Bob created the universe. I mean, the universe exists, Bob exists, what more do you need?

 

[HitchSlap]

IF you can back up that claim. Can you back up that claim?

That's the entire point! How do you keep missing this?!

There is no more evidence to support Leprechaun's make rainbows than there is Christian god made universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct!!!

I think you're starting to understand.

As has been pointed amply pointed out, you have no reason to assert your god over any other god or thing, "did it."

I do have reason. That is the point of the exercise. There is objective evidence that supports my claim. You may disagree with the claim and feel it is in error, but then we have to go on and see if I have reason to make the claim.

 

[bhsmte]

The claim was that it had a beginning. The Christian claims that the universe must have a beginning to support God's existence. That is the claim.




How? I mean you can clearly claim that there is not sufficient evidence to support such a claim but what you are saying is false. How do you claim the conclusion is false.

Once, if it hasn't sunk in yet why your conclusion has no objective connection to support your claim, you never will.

Therefore, it appears your efforts here are more to convince yourself and to protect your conclusions, which have been shown to be seriously flawed.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is. IF God exists as I claim, it is evidence that supports Him.

If Bob exists, as I claim, it is evidence that supports him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the entire point! How do you keep missing this?!

There is no more evidence to support Leprechaun's make rainbows than there is Christian god made universe.

In your subjective opinion...correct?

You and I are ok on the points. You agree that the evidence is objective, you just feel it is insufficient to provide support to my claim. That is an honest assessment.

 

[HitchSlap]

I do have reason. That is the point of the exercise. There is objective evidence that supports my claim. You may disagree with the claim and feel it is in error, but then we have to go on and see if I have reason to make the claim.

Then you concede there is evidence to support Leprechaun's make rainbows.

All I ask is when you eventually have that "light bulb" moment, would you please let us know so we can all have a light-hearted chuckle and breathe a sigh of relief?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If Bob exists, as I claim, it is evidence that supports him.

Ok so much for us being on the same page.

 

[bhsmte]

I do have reason. That is the point of the exercise. There is objective evidence that supports my claim. You may disagree with the claim and feel it is in error, but then we have to go on and see if I have reason to make the claim.

Show us how the objective evidence (the universe) SUPPORTS your claim. As an fyi, for objective evidence to support a conclusion, it must point to what you claim it points to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, if it hasn't sunk in yet why your conclusion has no objective connection to support your claim, you never will.

Therefore, it appears your efforts here are more to convince yourself and to protect your conclusions, which have been shown to seriously flawed.

You don't even understand what I am saying so how in the world do you think that I am protecting my conclusions. I even said that my conclusions were subjective.

 

[Sayre]

The first cause argument (if you believe it is solid) only gives you a first cause. It doesn't give you a Christian God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that IF there is a first cause, it must be the Christian God. That assumption has no empirical evidence, which is what the atheists in this thread are trying to point out.

Setting it out logically, the Christians appear to be arguing that:

1 - The universe exists
2 - Anything that begins to exist needs a cause outside itself
3 - (1+2) Therefore there is a cause outside the universe
4 - If there is a cause outside the universe, it is the Christian God
5 - (3+4) Therefore the Christian God.

Since (1) is objective, it follows in their argument that (5) is objective, so long as the argument is sound. Of course, it isn't, because (4) has no justifier.

I think the request for empirical objective evidence presumes too greater scope for the application of empiricism, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[HitchSlap]

In your subjective opinion...correct?

You and I are ok on the points. You agree that the evidence is objective, you just feel it is insufficient to provide support to my claim. That is an honest assessment.

No feelings involved. You don't have any objective to support your claim that Christian god made universe any more than I have support for my claim that Bob made universe.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok so much for us being on the same page.

Exactly! I have zero evidence linking Bob as a creator, just as you have zero evidence linking Christian god as creator.