Objective evidence of God

[Loudmouth]

That is because you deny any evidence for Him.

What evidence?

 

[MarkT]

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

The physical universe is the evidence. It exists. The earth, man, living creatures, plants, trees, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, justice, mercy, the law, life and death. All of these things point to a Creator.

If you're looking for a natural explanation, there is none. God created nature. So everything is His work. Nature didn't create itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

The physical universe is the evidence. It exists. The earth, man, living creatures, plants, trees, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, justice, mercy, the law, life and death. All of these things point to a Creator.

Why do they point to a creator?

 

[bhsmte]

The physical universe is the evidence. It exists. The earth, man, living creatures, plants, trees, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, justice, mercy, the law, life and death. All of these things point to a Creator.

If you're looking for a natural explanation, there is none. God created nature. So everything is His work. Nature didn't create itself.

If they point to a creator for you, that is fine, but they do not point to a creator using objective reasoning.

 

[Jro]

The physical universe is the evidence. It exists. The earth, man, living creatures, plants, trees, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, justice, mercy, the law, life and death. All of these things point to a Creator.

If you're looking for a natural explanation, there is none. God created nature. So everything is His work. Nature didn't create itself.

Let's call that hypothesis A. Can you think of anything that we would encounter that would show that hypothesis A is incorrect?

 

[MarkT]

If they point to a creator for you, that is fine, but they do not point to a creator using objective reasoning.

If the existence of the physical universe isn't objective, I don't know what is.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the existence of the physical universe isn't objective, I don't know what is.

Why is it evidence?

Chocolate pudding is also objective, but it isn't evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had help. Something can be objective and not be evidence.

 

[Davian]

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.

That excerpt was not intended to address the origin of the cosmos. That would be a "quote mine".

[/I]“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?

Sure. Why not?

 

[MarkT]

Let's call that hypothesis A. Can you think of anything that we would encounter that would show that hypothesis A is incorrect?

I'm not talking about a theory. The physical universe exists.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not talking about a theory. The physical universe exists.

Why is the physical universe evidence that God exists?

Chocolate pudding exists, but it isn't evidence that Leprechauns exist.

 

[Jro]

I'm not talking about a theory. The physical universe exists.

Hypothesis A is that these things point to a creator. Can you think of any discovery possible that would make you reconsider this hypothesis?

 

[Loudmouth]

Judge Smith: The prosecution may approach and present its evidence.

Prosecutor: My evidence is simple. We can objectively demonstrate that Jody Jones was killed by a stab wound to the chest. Therefore, we ask you to convict Sam Jones based on this obvious objective evidence.

Judge Smith: That's not how objective evidence works, Mr. Prosecutor:

Prosecutor: What do you mean? We can show that a dead Jody Jones exists, and that is objective.

 

[Old Ned]

So we never actually got an answer of how to test the tree, or anything else for that matter.

I don't know what the debating is about really, other than the off-topic side debates.

It's simple, forget the word objective for a moment.
Those who believe there is Evidence for God.

Please present an object.
Please explain the type of test/experiment we perform on this object.

The results of the test would have to be at least clear if not concrete. But I think most of us here would settle for a close approximation of a test/experiment on a physical object that proves the Existence of God.

If the answer is "Yes" , please state what we test and how we test it for evidence of God.

 

[MarkT]

Why is the physical universe evidence that God exists?

Chocolate pudding exists, but it isn't evidence that Leprechauns exist.

Chocolate pudding doesn't make itself. Somebody has to make it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Chocolate pudding doesn't make itself. Somebody has to make it.

And yet it doesn't require God, or Leprechauns.

Lightning doesn't make itself. Water doesn't make itself. Waves don't make themselves. Guess what? They aren't made by God, either.

So why is the physical universe evidence of God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evidence?

Any evidence.

 

[MarkT]

Hypothesis A is that these things point to a creator. Can you think of any discovery possible that would make you reconsider this hypothesis?

It's not a theory. It's a fact. The evidence of a physical universe points to a Creator. You have the evidence of a physical universe, an earth inhabited by intelligent living creatures, not star dust.

Your question points to a mind and an ability to ask questions. This is a fact. Not a hypothesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any evidence.

If anything is evidence, then nothing is evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not a theory. It's a fact. The evidence of a physical universe points to a Creator.

How so?

 

[MarkT]

And yet it doesn't require God, or Leprechauns.

Lightning doesn't make itself. Water doesn't make itself. Waves don't make themselves. Guess what? They aren't made by God, either.

So why is the physical universe evidence of God?

Actually it does require God. He gave us the intelligence and the ability to make chocolate pudding.