Objective evidence of God

[bhsmte]

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

If I did, the dots would be connected.

 

[Loudmouth]

So we can't provide experiments and testing to determine if the universe exists?

Notice the use of deceitful language here. You use "universe" in one sentence, and then switch it to "God" in a later sentence, hoping that no one will notice.

The evidence should not presuppose evolution or prove evolution exists before the evidence can be used to support evolution.

It doesn't. The pattern of expected ERV homology and orthology was predicted before the ERV's were sequenced.

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.

Doubtful. At one point in history it was claimed that the Earth moving about the Sun would disprove scripture:

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

The falsification of a recent global flood, the shared ancestry of life, and the ancient age of the Earth were at one time said to be potential falsifications of scripture and God as well. What happened?

You can't say that evolution must be proven before the ERV's in a genome can be shown to support it.

I never said that.

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

My evidence is christians using the supernatural as an excuse for not having evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

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

I don't have time to watch an hour video. But I know somewhat what Krauss is claiming. That something did come from nothing just as we see particles coming from nothing in our universe. Which begs the question, is the universe nothing?

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

?

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?

Like I said, if the universe did not create itself, it either has something or someone that created it. We know that cause is from someone or something.

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?

Does the length of time that we waited to create a car seem relevant or pertinent to whether we created the car or anything for that matter. Your point.

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

On the authority of physicists and cosmologists it has been determined that our constants and laws could have been different.

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

Which is only based on your opinion.

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

If you feel the three premises that I provided are not accurate or adequate then you must show how that is true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Notice the use of deceitful language here. You use "universe" in one sentence, and then switch it to "God" in a later sentence, hoping that no one will notice.

I should have made a new paragraph. In the first sentence I am asking you if the universe is not objective and able to be used to provide evidence for theories and beliefs. I was not trying to be deceitful at all.

It doesn't. The pattern of expected ERV homology and orthology was predicted before the ERV's were sequenced.

So? You have shifted from evolution to ERV's. You said and I quote:

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.

You were using ERV's and fossils as evidence for evolution. Now you are shifting and placing ERV's in place of evolution. You are using them as evidence to claim that evolution is true. The theory or claim (evolution) is supported by the prediction from it and the evidence that supports that prediction. However, you are not proving evolution prior to the evidence which is what you are demanding of us.

Doubtful. At one point in history it was claimed that the Earth moving about the Sun would disprove scripture:

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

What scripture are you referring to that says the earth was moving around the sun? I am not aware of one, I could be wrong but I don't remember one that does.

The falsification of a recent global flood, the shared ancestry of life, and the ancient age of the Earth were at one time said to be potential falsifications of scripture and God as well. What happened?

How recent? What date did the Bible give for a global flood? How does the ancestry of life falsify the Bible and what scripture says there will be no shared ancestry of life?

I never said that.

No? However, you claim that the theist must prove God before evidence is accepted that supports His existence. If you don't think that evolution should be proven prior to the evidence given to support it, why do you demand it of us?

My evidence is christians using the supernatural as an excuse for not having evidence.

That is not what you said. You said that the supernatural was invented for that. What evidence do you provide that the supernatural was invented for that purpose?

 

[Davian]

I don't have time to watch an hour video.

Based on what you are arguing against, I am surprised that you have not already taken the time to read Krauss' books or watch his videos. Inform yourself.

But I know somewhat what Krauss is claiming. That something did come from nothing just as we see particles coming from nothing in our universe. Which begs the question, is the universe nothing?

Watch the video.

?


Like I said, if the universe did not create itself, it either has something or someone that created it. We know that cause is from someone or something.

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?

Does the length of time that we waited to create a car seem relevant or pertinent to whether we created the car or anything for that matter. Your point.

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? It is a thought experiment.

On the authority of physicists and cosmologists it has been determined that our constants and laws could have been different.

Provide a citation for this or retract. We do not know that they could have been different, do we?

Which is only based on your opinion.

An informed opinion. Have you any objective, testable evidence for God? No?

If you feel the three premises that I provided are not accurate or adequate then you must show how that is true.

1) The question of what was "before" may not even make sense, from our perspective. Perhaps a difficulty in language.
2) 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 cosmos would apply to itself at that point.
3) Even if a cause was required, all you provided was a series of untestable, unfalsifiable assertions to get from there to "God".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Based on what you are arguing against, I am surprised that you have not already taken the time to read Krauss' books or watch his videos. Inform yourself.


Watch the video.

Ok when I have an hour without needing to do something else I will but lets look at one or two quotes from Krauss:



A Universe from Nothing Quotes (showing 1-11 of 11)
“The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

So this one is claiming that we don't need Jesus because we have the stars and they died for us. However, Krauss forgets that stars must have birth and all that happened in the first few moments of the beginning of the universe all that ever is to be is there. Stars do not give us the universe the universe encompasses stars.

“Metaphysical speculation is independent of the physical validity of the Big Bang itself and is irrelevant to our understanding of it.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

Is he not making metaphysical speculation?

 

[ChetSinger]

If I did, the dots would be connected.

Going back to my original post, it's a two-part step:

1. Life is too complicated to arise from random chemical processes here on earth.
2. Because chemistry appears the same everywhere in our universe we look, life couldn't have been brought here from elsewhere in our universe.

Therefore the origin of life is outside our universe.

 

[bhsmte]

Going back to my original post, it's a two-part step:

1. Life is too complicated to arise from random chemical processes here on earth.
2. Because chemistry appears the same everywhere in our universe we look, life couldn't have been brought here from elsewhere in our universe.

Therefore the origin of life is outside our universe.

We don't know the answer to either point you make above. You are making assumptions.

 

[ChetSinger]

We don't know the answer to either point you make above. You are making assumptions.

I am making a conclusion based on what I've learned of living things. My conclusion can be disproved by either finding and observing the naturalistic creation of new life, or by simulating natural conditions in the lab and observing the creation of new life there.

 

[Loudmouth]

I should have made a new paragraph. In the first sentence I am asking you if the universe is not objective and able to be used to provide evidence for theories and beliefs. I was not trying to be deceitful at all.

You have never shown how the universe can be used to evidence God. Never. You simply assume that God did it, and then expect us to swallow that belief without any evidence that God did anything.

So? You have shifted from evolution to ERV's.

Evolution is the theory, and ERV's are the evidence. That is how I have always presented it. Evolution predicted the pattern of ERV's, and then we measured the ERV's to see if they matched that prediction. They did. Therefore, ERV's are objective evidence that support evolution because they were used to determine the accuracy of the theory.

You were using ERV's and fossils as evidence for evolution. Now you are shifting and placing ERV's in place of evolution. You are using them as evidence to claim that evolution is true.

Evolution makes the prediction. ERV's are used to test that prediction. I can't make it more obvious than that.

The theory or claim (evolution) is supported by the prediction from it and the evidence that supports that prediction.

How can you get something this twisted from such a simple concept?

However, you are not proving evolution prior to the evidence which is what you are demanding of us.

I am demanding no such thing. This is just your twisted concept of how science works that in no way is like the real thing.

What scripture are you referring to that says the earth was moving around the sun? I am not aware of one, I could be wrong but I don't remember one that does.

How recent? What date did the Bible give for a global flood? How does the ancestry of life falsify the Bible and what scripture says there will be no shared ancestry of life?

Se what I mean? Claims about God are completely unfalsifiable. There is a ready made excuse no matter which way the evidence goes.

However, you claim that the theist must prove God before evidence is accepted that supports His existence.

I am only asking for the evidence. That's it.

That is not what you said. You said that the supernatural was invented for that. What evidence do you provide that the supernatural was invented for that purpose?

Because that is the purpose it is being used for.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am making a conclusion based on what I've learned of living things. My conclusion can be disproved by either finding and observing the naturalistic creation of new life, or by simulating natural conditions in the lab and observing the creation of new life there.

They used to say the same thing about new species. Evolution didn't falsify the existence of God, so I doubt abiogenesis would either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Going back to my original post, it's a two-part step:

1. Life is too complicated to arise from random chemical processes here on earth.
2. Because chemistry appears the same everywhere in our universe we look, life couldn't have been brought here from elsewhere in our universe.

Therefore the origin of life is outside our universe.

You need to present evidence to support your first premise.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, if the universe did not create itself, it either has something or someone that created it. We know that cause is from someone or something.

That could be said of every single natural process. Lightning did not create itself. It either has something or someone that created it. Waves did not create themselves. They either have something or someone that creates them. On and on we go. So how has this track record been? Well, for almost everything that was once claimed to be the result of the supernatural turned out to have a natural cause.

Prior to the scientific revolution, the supernatural was not considered to be a separate realm from ours where the supernatural had no measureable effect on the natural. The natural and supernatural were one in the same. It wasn't until we began to find simple, mechanistic causes that did not involve gods or deities that the supernatural was reinvented as a realm for which there could be no evidence.

On the authority of physicists and cosmologists it has been determined that our constants and laws could have been different.

The drawings of the past 5 lotteries could have been different . . . BUT THEY WEREN'T.

Is this your best evidence for God, that if things were different, they would be different?

 

[Sayre]

They used to say the same thing about new species. Evolution didn't falsify the existence of God, so I doubt abiogenesis would either.

Correct. Why would it?

Anything God did in terms of bringing about life is manifest in the physical. A physical description then cannot contradict the genetic God hypothesis. It can only refute specific instances.

 

[bhsmte]

I am making a conclusion based on what I've learned of living things. My conclusion can be disproved by either finding and observing the naturalistic creation of new life, or by simulating natural conditions in the lab and observing the creation of new life there.

Of course. And because this hasn't been accomplished yet, does not mean it was God that did it, by default.

Science has discovered quite a lot about the universe and earth over the last 100 years and I would anticipate science figuring out a few other things in due time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That could be said of every single natural process. Lightning did not create itself. It either has something or someone that created it. Waves did not create themselves. They either have something or someone that creates them. On and on we go. So how has this track record been? Well, for almost everything that was once claimed to be the result of the supernatural turned out to have a natural cause.

So? That is the natural universe. The laws of cause and effect. However, it is a result of the laws of the universe which came about at the birth of the universe. So those physical laws can not be the cause of the physical laws. See the problem.

Prior to the scientific revolution, the supernatural was not considered to be a separate realm from ours where the supernatural had no measureable effect on the natural. The natural and supernatural were one in the same. It wasn't until we began to find simple, mechanistic causes that did not involve gods or deities that the supernatural was reinvented as a realm for which there could be no evidence.

When?

The drawings of the past 5 lotteries could have been different . . . BUT THEY WEREN'T.

Your point?

Is this your best evidence for God, that if things were different, they would be different?

What?:o I was answering a question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct. Why would it?

Anything God did in terms of bringing about life is manifest in the physical. A physical description then cannot contradict the genetic God hypothesis. It can only refute specific instances.

In my experience, a belief in God has nothing to do with the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In my experience, a belief in God has nothing to do with the evidence.

That is because you deny any evidence for Him.

 

[Loudmouth]

So? That is the natural universe. The laws of cause and effect. However, it is a result of the laws of the universe which came about at the birth of the universe. So those physical laws can not be the cause of the physical laws. See the problem.

No, I don't. How is that any different than lightning needing wind and clouds because lightning can not create itself?

When?

Starting with Galileo and continuing to this very day.

"Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete."--Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)

Your point?

My point is that your argument is rather pointless. If the past were different then the present would be different . . . therefore, God. Just doesn't make much sense.

 

[bhsmte]

That is because you deny any evidence for Him.

I believe it would be more like, he does not see any objective evidence to believe in a God and the evidence you posted claiming to be objective evidence of God, was not what you claim it was.