Objective evidence of God

[Queller]

Yes. It is objective evidence. Somebody made it and it was made by someone who knew how to make it. Now the question is who made it not how did it make itself. The hypothesis that it made itself is kind of ridiculous.

What is the objective testable evidence that somebody made it?

 

[Queller]

How about a really big object? The physical universe.

OK, so how do we test it to prove that God made it?

 

[Queller]

Everything that exists came into existence by the word of God

Great. Provide objective evidence for this claim.

 

[FredHoyle]

Who else? if we can create things like cars and airplanes, it stands to reason that God can create a universe.

Perhaps if there was such a thing as a God he could, as could Thor, Zeus or a multitude of other imaginary beings,
the problem with making something up and calling it the answer is it's rarely if ever the answer,
Christians know that making something up and calling it the answer would not work in the rest of their lives so why would they think it would work for a creator? perhaps they don't care because they know a creator of the universe is just not true.

 

[Loudmouth]

The universe is the evidence; an earth inhabited by intelligent living creatures.

As to how God created it, we are told he declared it and it was so.

We are asking for the objective evidence which demonstrates that God did create the universe. Simply repeating the claim is not evidence.

 

[ChetSinger]

The hypothesis IS the scientific investigation. The hypothesis is the most important part of the scientific method.

Hardly. Anyone can hypothesize about anything. I can hypothesize all I want about turning lead into gold, but I've followed the scientific method only after I've run experiments that either confirm or deny my hypothesis. Honestly, I'm surprised I have to say that in a forum such as this.

Until you find out if RNA can be used to create simple life then you can not claim anything about probabilities.

I don't think there's a bridge between the RNA world and the cell. You, or anyone else, can try to demonstrate me wrong. Just call me a "skeptic" on the subject.

It is not the simplest cell. Not even close. They are taking genes away from organisms that have been evolving for 4 billion years. They are far from simple.

Then find a simpler one that exists somewhere other than your own imagination.

Because they have evolved interdependent systems over the last 4 billion years. Why do cities in first world countries require so much electricity? 300 years ago, cities had no electricity whatsoever. However, if you shut the power off to a modern city for a few days you get chaos. Why is that? It is due to the fact that operations of the city have become interdependent on the presence of electricity. It is the same in life.

Once again, find simpler life that exists somewhere other than your own imagination.

 

[46AND2]

In fact I would say that it has been proven that it had a beginning would you not agree?

Mmm, not exactly. The universe as we know it had a beginning. But we don't know what there was "before" the singularity. We don't know that "nothing" was the state of things prior to the singularity.

Does he? He uses the quantum physics that were created when the universe came into being. From what I gather from his theory is that the vacuum states are the nothing that was something that was really nothing that created something. What I think he forgets is that this nothing really is something without being nothing. It really is from the something (the universe) that came from really nothing (void of anything even nothing).

Yes, his nothing is not technically nothing. Can you show that there has ever been a state when literally nothing existed?

Even if you were to accept Krauss's nothing really being something, going back and farther and farther back then you have the same philosophical metaphysical you claim believers do. You also have the argument of turtles all the way down.

I don't necessarily accept Krauss's argument. I have not ruled out the possibility of God. I just have not been convinced of his existence. My point about Krauss was simply to show that your second premise "nothing can come from nothing" has not been confirmed.

You claim that it could have been a natural event outside of the universe, if it were and is not known as of yet you remain in the same boat as the theist. In that you think there is support for your convictions, you have faith that it is true also in this case and so you believe what you believe.

No, I am not in the same boat as a theist. I don't claim to know how the universe started. I simply don't know. Neither God, nor natural means have been eliminated or confirmed, so I don't hold a stance other than to say, I don't know.

There is evidence that supports an intelligent creator. The universe has laws that can be intelligently observed and measured by mathematical equation. We have constants that are precise to the smallest percentage which have allowed life to evolve. We have distances that are precise to the smallest percentage to allow for the evolution of all life on earth. I could go on and on with the necessity of precision in many many areas of our universe. In the universe one thing is certain and that is that intelligence comes from intelligence. Our lives and the lives of other species of life support intelligent design rather than intelligence arising from a mindless, non-intelligent unguided process.

Evolution is not an unguided process. Life has been forced to evolve a certain way, based on the limitations of nature. So, of course it "fits" perfectly. If it didn't, we'd go extinct.

In regards to the bolded comment above...how is that certain?

So what started the regression?

Don't know.

If we remain in the natural realm we don't see anything that doesn't have a first cause. In the natural realm nothing is self existing without cause.

What's to say that there is not a metaverse in which the same physics do not apply in other universes....or other somethings which spawned our universe as an offshoot?

I don't have to believe that this is the case to defeat your logic argument. All I need show is that natural explanations have not been ruled out. I'm not trying to rule out God, but for the logic argument to work, and for God to be accepted by default, natural explanations must be ruled out.

Explain natural conditions prior to natural conditions coming into existence?



See above.

Demonstrate that natural conditions had a beginning.

 

[Loudmouth]

In fact I would say that it has been proven that it had a beginning would you not agree?

You forgot the second part where you claimed that there was nothing prior to the beginning of the universe. There are theories in astrophysics which posit that there was something prior to the beginning of our universe.

"The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.[6]"
Brane cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Far from being proven, your first premise is still very much up for debate.

Even if you were to accept Krauss's nothing really being something, going back and farther and farther back then you have the same philosophical metaphysical you claim believers do. You also have the argument of turtles all the way down.

Therefore, lightning is caused by God because we have an infinite regress, right?

You claim that it could have been a natural event outside of the universe, if it were and is not known as of yet you remain in the same boat as the theist.

You mean we both don't have objective evidence?

There is evidence that supports an intelligent creator. The universe has laws that can be intelligently observed and measured by mathematical equation. We have constants that are precise to the smallest percentage which have allowed life to evolve. We have distances that are precise to the smallest percentage to allow for the evolution of all life on earth. I could go on and on with the necessity of precision in many many areas of our universe. In the universe one thing is certain and that is that intelligence comes from intelligence. Our lives and the lives of other species of life support intelligent design rather than intelligence arising from a mindless, non-intelligent unguided process.

You have yet to produce objective evidence that this precision requires an intelligent designer, or that one was involved.

So what started the regression? If we remain in the natural realm we don't see anything that doesn't have a first cause. In the natural realm nothing is self existing without cause.

So how do you conclude "God did it" from that?

Explain natural conditions prior to natural conditions coming into existence?

We don't know, and neither do you.

Another God of the Gaps fallacy on its way?

 

[Loudmouth]

Hardly. Anyone can hypothesize about anything. I can hypothesize all I want about turning lead into gold, but I've followed the scientific method only after I've run experiments that either confirm or deny my hypothesis. Honestly, I'm surprised I have to say that in a forum such as this.

Your experiments are based on your hypothesis. The most important aspect of any scientific investigation is the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. The greatest scientific minds were those that could construct hypotheses in such a way that they could be tested by experiments.

I don't think there's a bridge between the RNA world and the cell.

We are asking for objective evidence, not unfounded opinion. If you want to claim that abiogenesis is impossible then you need evidence demonstrating that abiogenesis can never occur through RNA replicators. I have not seen anything approaching that in your posts.

Then find a simpler one that exists somewhere other than your own imagination.

Show me that one can never exist. It is your claim, so support it.

 

[ChetSinger]

We are asking for objective evidence, not unfounded opinion. If you want to claim that abiogenesis is impossible then you need evidence demonstrating that abiogenesis can never occur through RNA replicators.

Actually, no, I don't. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence. In the case of abiogenesis through RNA replicators, that's you.

Show me that one can never exist. It is your claim, so support it.

Once again, the burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence. In the case of a simpler form of life, that's you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, no, I don't. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence.

You are making positive claims that the probability of abiogenesis is too low to have occurred naturally. That is YOUR CLAIM. You need to support it with evidence.

Also, even if we had no idea how abiogenesis could occur, this ignorance in no way is evidence for God. This is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Once again, the burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence.

Right, so you need to provide positive objective evidence that God created life. Trying to cast doubt on Abiogenesis is not it. You need to supply the evidence.

 

[Davian]

Mmm, not exactly. The universe as we know it had a beginning. But we don't know what there was "before" the singularity. We don't know that "nothing" was the state of things prior to the singularity.



Yes, his nothing is not technically nothing. Can you show that there has ever been a state when literally nothing existed?





I don't necessarily accept Krauss's argument. I have not ruled out the possibility of God. I just have not been convinced of his existence. My point about Krauss was simply to show that your second premise "nothing can come from nothing" has not been confirmed.



No, I am not in the same boat as a theist. I don't claim to know how the universe started. I simply don't know. Neither God, nor natural means have been eliminated or confirmed, so I don't hold a stance other than to say, I don't know.




Evolution is not an unguided process. Life has been forced to evolve a certain way, based on the limitations of nature. So, of course it "fits" perfectly. If it didn't, we'd go extinct.

In regards to the bolded comment above...how is that certain?





Don't know.



What's to say that there is not a metaverse in which the same physics do not apply in other universes....or other somethings which spawned our universe as an offshoot?

I don't have to believe that this is the case to defeat your logic argument. All I need show is that natural explanations have not been ruled out. I'm not trying to rule out God, but for the logic argument to work, and for God to be accepted by default, natural explanations must be ruled out.





Demonstrate that natural conditions had a beginning.

Well said.

 

[ChetSinger]

You are making positive claims that the probability of abiogenesis is too low to have occurred naturally. That is YOUR CLAIM. You need to support it with evidence.

Nope. The table turned, and you did it to yourself. While responding to me you made two claims of existence (RNA replicators, simpler forms of life). There's nothing wrong with that, but the burden of proof remains on the individual proposing existence. And in those two instances that's you. I get to briefly be a skeptic (and being a skeptic is easy).

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope. The table turned, and you did it to yourself. While responding to me you made two claims of existence (RNA replicators, simpler forms of life). There's nothing wrong with that, but the burden of proof remains on the individual proposing existence. And in those two instances that's you. I get to briefly be a skeptic (and being a skeptic is easy).

Well, RNA/DNA and simpler life forms exist, so it's just a matter of time until we figure it out. Not really sure what your hang-up is?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Mmm, not exactly. The universe as we know it had a beginning. But we don't know what there was "before" the singularity. We don't know that "nothing" was the state of things prior to the singularity.

The universe as we know it is what we have to talk about. We also know that nothing in our universe existed prior to its existence and that includes space.

Yes, his nothing is not technically nothing. Can you show that there has ever been a state when literally nothing existed?

That is the consensus of most astrophysicists, that literally nothing existed. The singularity came out of nowhere into nowhere and began the somewhere.

I don't necessarily accept Krauss's argument. I have not ruled out the possibility of God. I just have not been convinced of his existence. My point about Krauss was simply to show that your second premise "nothing can come from nothing" has not been confirmed.

Most astrophysicists and physicists disagree. From all evidence so far, the universe had a beginning and that there was no space, matter, energy or time. Space which is needed for a vacuum did not exist.

No, I am not in the same boat as a theist. I don't claim to know how the universe started. I simply don't know. Neither God, nor natural means have been eliminated or confirmed, so I don't hold a stance other than to say, I don't know.

Fair enough. I can respect that. In fact, let me take this moment to congratulate you on your objectivity and open-mindedness. Even though we disagree I can respect a person who responds in honesty regardless of how that relates to mine in viewpoints. Thanks. The hug is for actually making an argument against the conclusion rather than claiming there is no objective evidence to support it.

Evolution is not an unguided process. Life has been forced to evolve a certain way, based on the limitations of nature. So, of course it "fits" perfectly. If it didn't, we'd go extinct.

What I am talking about are the conditions that allowed for the process at all.

In regards to the bolded comment above...how is that certain?

Can you cite one example when intelligence did not arise from intelligence?

Don't know.

Of course we don't know but you do see the problem do you not? If it was a backward flowing regression we would still need the first cause no matter how far back the regression went. But I don't know is an acceptable answer.

What's to say that there is not a metaverse in which the same physics do not apply in other universes....or other somethings which spawned our universe as an offshoot?

What started the metaverse? See the same problem as with the regression.

I don't have to believe that this is the case to defeat your logic argument. All I need show is that natural explanations have not been ruled out. I'm not trying to rule out God, but for the logic argument to work, and for God to be accepted by default, natural explanations must be ruled out.

Well first of all I want to say upfront that the universe's beginning is just one piece of the puzzle and that it is only one cog in the whole argument for God's existence. The natural explanations as shown above are not probable due to their problems and give rise to the question how natural causes can attribute to the natural world that didn't exist prior to the natural world or the natural realm, then this cause was outside the natural realm by necessity.

Demonstrate that natural conditions had a beginning.

Space, matter, energy and time did not exist to have natural condition in or on or from in any time.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I recall reading an argument for the universe having a beginning stating that the evidence is to be found in the fact that energy is still found clumped together. If the universe had existed forever then energy would be spread out pretty much equally everywhere and we would have no stars. I'm not a physicist, so I can't expand on that argument or quibble with it, but I find it a very pleasing idea that the existence of stars proves the universe had a beginning. Perhaps someone who knows more than me about physics (or astrophysics) could comment.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You forgot the second part where you claimed that there was nothing prior to the beginning of the universe. There are theories in astrophysics which posit that there was something prior to the beginning of our universe.

"The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.[6]"
Brane cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Far from being proven, your first premise is still very much up for debate.

From your site: As of now, no experimental or observational evidence of large extra dimensions, as required by the Randall–Sundrum models, has been reported. An analysis of results from the Large Hadron Collider in December 2010 severely constrains theories with large extra dimensions.[7]

Isn't this a string theory? I thin it is and if it is it has been proven false.

Therefore, lightning is caused by God because we have an infinite regress, right?

Loudmouth, lightning didn't exist prior to the universe's existence. You are talking about the natural world elements vs. the natural world.

You mean we both don't have objective evidence?

No, that is not what I meant.

You have yet to produce objective evidence that this precision requires an intelligent designer, or that one was involved.

Logic supports that conclusion. Does it make more sense that the universe which has the appearance of design is actually designed or that it is an illusion.

So how do you conclude "God did it" from that?

It is one piece of the evidence that supports God's existence.

We don't know, and neither do you.

You are right I don't know, but I do know that if conditions are a state in which something exists you must have something that exists to have a state in.

Another God of the Gaps fallacy on its way?

No a logical improbability.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I recall reading an argument for the universe having a beginning stating that the evidence is to be found in the fact that energy is still found clumped together. If the universe had existed forever then energy would be spread out pretty much equally everywhere and we would have no stars. I'm not a physicist, so I can't expand on that argument or quibble with it, but I find it a very pleasing idea that the existence of stars proves the universe had a beginning. Perhaps someone who knows more than me about physics (or astrophysics) could comment.

That sounds like Hawkings. I can't say for certain but I think that is where I would look if you are interested.

 

[bhsmte]

The truth bhsmte? Who's truth...yours or mine? Truth can be painful but what is more painful is when there is no objective truth but just what is true for you or what is true for me.



Really, those who want to rely on objective evidence before drawing a conclusion? It is one thing for you and I or any of the theists or non-theists to reach conclusions based on objective evidence however it is another thing for those in the highest positions in science to leave objectivity behind and crusade against God, and not even just any ol'god but the Christian God specifically. Where in science is there room for religious or non-religious motives? I have joined in the past with those unbeliever's that spoke out against those in the religious community that would alter or spin facts to suit their agendas. Science was to be held to a higher standard than one man's one religion's ideology. Krauss's goal should be to find an answer and leave the philosophy of religion to those in those fields. I ask how is Krauss any better than any person that makes metaphysical declarations citing the evidence to back it? Now if Krauss wants to share his personal worldview and take his evidence as support for that worldview then by all means outside of the scientific realm that is acceptable. It seems, and I am just now researching it so I could be wrong, but it seems that rather than his book and theory being scientific in nature it has a goal which is not scientific. That is to me wrong.



First of all, failed in what way? I think it is in the eye of the beholder perhaps. Regardless, I don't "feel bad" that my evidence is not accepted by all. What disturbs me are the arguments against it. The only one in this entire thread that gave any sort of good argumentation was 46AND2 and I wanted to jump through the screen and give him a big hug. Did he agree with me, no, but he gave his honest assessment of the argument and didn't just put it out there that there was no objective evidence. He needs an award for knowing the difference between objective evidence and that in which is used in support. KUDOS to him.



Well there my not be anything wrong with it, but if someone doesn't have something to base that faith upon, I have to question their reasons for having it.

Once, you are taking this like science has a personal vendetta against your belief. Sorry, science concerns itself with objective evidence, not what anyone believes or doesn't believe.

You can claim there exists objective evidence to support the christian God's existence from what you have listed as the same, but it simply doesn't meet the standard. Lastly, I can respect believers who acknowledge this lack of objective evidence and they state; I believe on faith. But, when someone keeps claiming certain evidence exists when it doesn't, it can tell you a bit about that person's motivation to do so.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That sounds like Hawkings. I can't say for certain but I think that is where I would look if you are interested.

Ah, well if it was Hawking then I'm happy that the idea is sound. I do find it very satisfying though that the existence of our sun and hence us shows that the universe had a beginning. If the universe hadn't had a beginning we wouldn't be here to argue about it.