Objective evidence of God

CabVet · Jan 15, 2014

bhsmte said:
It appears Once will feel better if she has acknowledgement that the universe is objective evidence by itself. Just as a dead body with three gunshot wounds is objective evidence in a murder case. Never mind whether the objective evidence supports whether a specific person committed the crime, it is still objective evidence, right?

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).

Queller · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
The evidence is objective regardless.

What is your definition of "objective".

If you want to have me say that we have objective evidence that circumstantially supports God I can accept that.

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

bhsmte · Jan 15, 2014

CabVet said:
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).

Yep, I am with ya.

Oncedeceived · Jan 15, 2014

Queller said:
How is a rainbow objective evidence for Leprechauns? Spell it out for me specifically because I don't get it.

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.

So you see the difference. I can say that I don't agree with the claim or that the claim is subjective but the rainbow is evident. It is evidence to support theories or hypothesis's.

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.

Dizredux · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Then science is in big trouble. We say in the scientific realm:

If A is true then we predict C. This holds true with my claim as well.

If A (God) is true then we predict C (universe has a beginning)
C is true
A is true

Quite simply it is an illogical argument, a logical fallacy called Affirming the consequent.

A implies B
B
Therefore A
is an invalid argument.

The reason is that there are other possible explanations for B that can be true, not just A.

Dizredux

HitchSlap · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
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.

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."

Queller · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
IF evolution is true we predict that we will find genetic similarities between life forms.

Great. Now tell me how a tree is evidence for the Christian God.

bhsmte · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
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.

So you see the difference. I can say that I don't agree with the claim or that the claim is subjective but the rainbow is evident. It is evidence to support theories or hypothesis's.

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.

Claims and conclusions require objective evidence that can be linked directly to the claim or conclusion you are making.

If you were in a court room with the argument you are making, the judge would uphold the other sides motion to have the case thrown out from lack of evidence, connecting their client to the crime.

Oncedeceived · Jan 15, 2014

HitchSlap said:
Your evidence is solid. It's your answer that's invalid.

Well at least you see my point.

The evidence is objective or solid if you'd rather but it is the conclusion that you feel is invalid or incorrect. So you don't really think that Christians are not providing objective evidence for their claims, you believe their claims are invalid.

Oncedeceived · Jan 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
It's in the first premise.

Leprechauns create rainbows.

We can then determine that you are not making a claim based on anything else?

MarkT · Jan 15, 2014

Dizredux said:
Mark T

You seem to be committing a logical fallacy in your postings.

If I have it correct you are proposing that if there is a God then that God made the universe. You then assert that the universe exists therefore God exists. If I have it wrong, please let me know.

This is a logical fallacy often called Affirming the consequent

Wiki on formal fallacy

As a simple example all cats have tails. This animal has a tail therefore it is a cat.

That does not mean that God did not make the universe as I feel he did but only that what you are saying is not a logical argument and in fact a logical fallacy.

You state If God then universe. There exists the universe Therefore God

If G then U
U
Therefore G

Affirming the Consequent-Logical Fallacy.

Just pointing out a possible lapse in logic, nothing more.

Dizredux.

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.

Queller · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
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.

Therefor the rainbow is is objective evidence only for the claim that rainbows exist. They are not objective evidence for Leprechauns.

So you see the difference. I can say that I don't agree with the claim or that the claim is subjective but the rainbow is evident. It is evidence to support theories or hypothesis's.

Here is where you are wrong. The fact that rainbows exist in NO WAY provides evidence for the claim the Leprechauns exist.

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 and conclusion are both subjective. That's the entire problem. Trees are objective evidence for TREES. They are subjective evidence for GOD.

HitchSlap · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Well at least you see my point. The evidence is objective or solid if you'd rather but it is the conclusion that you feel is invalid or incorrect. So you don't really think that Christians are not providing objective evidence for their claims, you believe their claims are invalid.

Of course they're invalid! You just admitted as much. The evidence linking your Christian god to the "beginning" is just as lacking as those who claim Odin did it.

Queller · Jan 15, 2014

MarkT said:
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.

Which God? Brahma, Odin, Zeus, or the Christian God?

46AND2 · Jan 15, 2014

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

Queller said:
Trees are objective evidence for TREES. They are subjective evidence for GOD.

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.

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

bbyrd009 · Jan 15, 2014

Queller said:
Therefor the rainbow is is objective evidence only for the claim that rainbows exist.

actually rainbows only exist in our minds, as a result of our perception, so...

Oncedeceived · Jan 15, 2014

bhsmte said:
Once, do you realize how many things you could place under A and get the same conclusion in your scenario?

It appears as though you have spent too much time listening to William Lane Craig.

Yes, I do. I also assume that when I present that first premise we have the necessary background to do so. We all know what claims the Bible makes about creation and what Christianity entails. So when I make the conclusions it originates from that. So what I am saying is that we all know the basic theology.

Sayre · Jan 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
"Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value."
Nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glad to hear.

I know what nihilism is, but that's for the link anyway

. I'll take your post as a tacit admission that my position is not nihilist.

Dizredux · Jan 15, 2014

MarkT said:
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.

This is where you get into trouble at least logically.

If your premise is that "only" God can make the universe then if the universe exists, God exists then that would be a logical argument. The form here is
If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

This is valid form.

The key here is the term "only". A statement that used "if" in the premise, would allow other possibilities to be considered and that is what makes the argument not a logical one.

There are two types of fallacies in this general format The first is Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
This in an invalid form

The second is Denying the antecedent, or inverse error.
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
This also is an invalid argument.

Keep in mind logic itself does not have to connected with reality and does not speak to
the accuracy or truth of the premises but does speak to the truth of the form of the
argument.

So if God can then the existence of the universe is strong
evidence.

I am only speaking of the form of the argument not the content. It is not very productive to use an invalid argument to make your point and that appears to be what you and others here are doing.

Dizredux

Loudmouth · Jan 15, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
We can then determine that you are not making a claim based on anything else?

I could also point out that if rainbows are made by Leprechauns then they would have the red and purple bands on opposite sides of the rainbow. We can show that this prediction is true, therefore rainbows are objective evidence of Leprechauns.

Objective evidence of God

Question everything

I'm where?

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

I'm where?

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

I'm where?

PROUDLY PRIMATE

I'm where?

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

I brought a Sword

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

Contributor

Similar threads