Objective evidence of God

[Loudmouth]

Notice that I am not rejecting evidence. I am simply not given any. All I have been given are empty assertions.

 

[HitchSlap]

No. God is the source.

Do you have a demonstrable example of a "source" coming into existence from nothing?

 

[MarkT]

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.

How about a really big object? The physical universe.

 

[HitchSlap]

Given our increasing knowledge of what's going on inside living things, then yes, I think the evidence points to a supernatural origin.

Which begs the question, given those who work in their relevant fields to increase our knowledge, why do you think they are overwhelmingly agnostic/atheist/nones?

 

[Loudmouth]

How about a really big object? The physical universe.

What objective evidence demonstrates that it was created by God?

 

[Old Ned]

How about a really big object? The physical universe.

I asked for 2 things.

An Object.
And a test/experiment that can be performed on that object which could prove the existence of god.

We can stick with the tree if you want, it doesn't matter how big the object is, as long as it can be tested for evidence of god.

 

[HitchSlap]

Once again, empty assertions and appeals to incredulity.

*sigh

 

[MarkT]

That is an assertion. That is not objective evidence.

What objective evidence do you have which demonstrates that God made anything?

It's a fact not an assertion. What governs your reasoning? Fact or fantasy?

Do waves make themselves? Does lightning make itself? Do clouds make themselves?

The answer to all of those is no. Does God make any of those things? No. Natural processes produce those things.

Just because something does not make itself in no way indicates that it had to be made by a supernatural deity.

The physical universe includes the forces that hold it together, the laws that govern motion, gravity, etc.

Everything that exists came into existence by the word of God, by his knowledge, by his understanding, and one day it is going to dissolve into nothingness.

BTW that's a prediction not a hypothesis.

 

[Old Ned]

It's a fact not an assertion. .

What evidence makes it fact?

You have been asked to offer up testable evidence. You have yet to do so. And that was the point of this thread.

Sooooo... could we get an example of evidence and HOW TO TEST IT?

 

[Davian]

He said that the materials of the stars were not made at the beginning of time which is a false statement,

Why do you think it false?

It is my understanding that the materials of the first stars (hydrogen, helium) did not form until the recombination epoch, approx 378,000 years after the big bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

and does indeed suggest that he is talking about the origin of the cosmos.

No, he is talking of the origin of the atoms in your body.

IF you would like to show context of the quote is incorrect then by all means provide the rest of the material this quote was taken from. This is a stand alone quote that I got when I looked for articles from Krauss. IF I am wrong about what he is saying by missing something in the full discussion from which this quote was taken, then certainly I will admit my mistake.

I find that unlikely.

So why should we care what he has to say?

How does his metaphysical speculations disqualify the balance of his work?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a fact not an assertion.

It is very much an assertion. If you can't understand the difference between an assertion and a fact then you need to do some studying before discussing this further.

Everything that exists came into existence by the word of God, by his knowledge, by his understanding, and one day it is going to dissolve into nothingness.

What evidence demonstrates that anything came into existence by the word of God?

BTW that's a prediction not a hypothesis.

It's a prediction bereft of any objective evidence.

If Leprechauns exist then rainbows will form in the sky. We see rainbows, and rainbows are an objective fact. Therefore, Leprechauns exist.

Do you consider that to be objective evidence for the existence of Leprechauns? Of course not, right? Why is that? It is because I supply no evidence for Leprechauns producing rainbows. It is just an assertion. The same thing applies to your assertions.

 

[MarkT]

Once again, empty assertions and appeals to incredulity.

*sigh

The fact is it exists. There's your evidence - an earth inhabited by intelligent creatures.

 

[Old Ned]

The fact is it exists. There's your evidence - an earth inhabited by intelligent creatures.

What is your definition of testable evidence? Not an example, your definition.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is it exists. There's your evidence - an earth inhabited by intelligent creatures.

Then a dead body is all that is needed to convict someone of murder, correct?

 

[HitchSlap]

The fact is it exists. There's your evidence - an earth inhabited by intelligent creatures.

This is a tautology based on an appeal to incredulity. Nothing about your assertion is remotely appealing from an intellectual standpoint.

 

[MarkT]

Then a dead body is all that is needed to convict someone of murder, correct?

If the murderer admits to the crime. Yes.

 

[MarkT]

This is a tautology based on an appeal to incredulity. Nothing about your assertion is remotely appealing from an intellectual standpoint.

I don't hypothesize about how the universe made itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the murderer admits to the crime. Yes.

Let's try this again.

Then a dead body is all that is needed to convict someone of murder, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't hypothesize about how the universe made itself.

You don't hypothesize about how the universe was created by God, either. You simple assert it and then refuse to test the hypothesis with evidence when asked to.

 

[ChetSinger]

How?.... Why?

I'm too lazy to repeat myself. Perhaps you could you do a 'find posts' on my name.