Objective evidence of God

[Davian]

...

No a logical improbability.

When you posit an improbability, you need to back that up with the data and math for how you established it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When you posit an improbability, you need to back that up with the data and math for how you established it.

No, I have to show how it is logically improbable. I didn't give a mathematical estimation on its mathematical improbability. I gave a logical reason for it being improbable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I agree that Hawking usually has a sound argument for his ideas. I don't always agree with everything he concludes but I do enjoy his ideas.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I am moving on. Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

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).

I said that you need to rule out RNA replicators and simpler forms of life as part of calculating your probabilities. The burden is on you to support your claim that the probability of abiogenesis is too low for life to have formed naturally.

You also need to supply positive evidence that God created life.

 

[Old Ned]

In the case of a simpler form of life, that's you.

No. In this thread, the OP asked those who propose God exists, to offer testable, objective evidence.

YOU are the ones making the claim that God exists, WE cannot prove he does or doesn't, WE do NOT know how, but WE are not claiming anything in this thread.

WE asked YOU to offer testable, objective evidence for the existence of something you tell us factually exists.

The onus is on you to offer evidence for what YOU tell US exists, we are simply waiting for an answer and deflecting your attempts to spin subjective evidence instead of Objective and TESTABLE evidence.

I think I'm going to hotkey the term "Testable, Objective Evidence" I seem to have typed it a great many times

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It hasn't been disproven, nor has anyone proven that there was nothing prior to the beginning of our universe.

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

Lightning didn't exist prior to the existence of lightning as is the case with the universe. They are directly comparable.

No, that is not what I meant.

Then where is your objective evidence?

Logic supports that conclusion.

Your premises are not supported by evidence.

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

Does it make more sense that a cloud that looks like a bunny is really a bunny?

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

How is it evidence?

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.

So how does that lead to "God did it"?

 

[Sayre]

In the end, you have an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy. Even if we don't know how universes come about, that in no way evidences God. This is often called the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

How is this a God of the gaps fallacy? I claim God did it even when we have scientific evidence of the natural processes involved. There is no gap.

It is not ignorance to point out that Krauss has overstated the strength of his argument.

 

[bhsmte]

How is this a God of the gaps fallacy? I claim God did it even when we have scientific evidence of the natural processes involved. There is no gap.

It is not ignorance to point out that Krauss has overstated the strength of his argument.

As time goes on, I believe more and more christians are with you on this stance.

The obvious question then becomes; what is your objective evidence that God was required to produce the natural processes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It hasn't been disproven, nor has anyone proven that there was nothing prior to the beginning of our universe.

So are you saying it is not a string theory?

Lightning didn't exist prior to the existence of lightning as is the case with the universe. They are directly comparable.

Lightening could not exist without the universe to exist in. The universe did not have something it could exist in, because nothing existed to be in.

Then where is your objective evidence?

You don't even know the difference between objective evidence and the conclusions we infer from them. It makes it hard to provide something that fits with your definition of it when you don't understand what it is.

Your premises are not supported by evidence.

Ok, how are they not?

Does it make more sense that a cloud that looks like a bunny is really a bunny?

:o

How is it evidence?

Yeah...see that is the problem.

So how does that lead to "God did it"?

It is evidence that support that God did it.

 

[ChetSinger]

I said that you need to rule out RNA replicators and simpler forms of life as part of calculating your probabilities. The burden is on you to support your claim that the probability of abiogenesis is too low for life to have formed naturally.

Well, we just see it differently then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps the problem here is that the term "objective evidence" can be overly broad. That is why "empirical evidence" may be a better term. Or even better yet "scientific evidence";

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the definition of scientific evidence is more limited it may be a better term to use.

So what is the scientific evidence for God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps the problem here is that the term "objective evidence" can be overly broad. That is why "empirical evidence" may be a better term. Or even better yet "scientific evidence";



Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the definition of scientific evidence is more limited it may be a better term to use.

So what is the scientific evidence for God?

It is not the definition of the evidence that seems to be the problem. It is distinguishing between the evidence and the conclusions based on it.

 

[Old Ned]

It is not the definition of the evidence that seems to be the problem. It is distinguishing between the evidence and the conclusions based on it.

He asked you for Scientific evidence for God.

Why did you not answer the question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He asked you for Scientific evidence for God.

Why did you not answer the question?

It was a bit of a "dirty trick" on my part. I know that there are no hypotheses, much less theories of God. Therefore there can be no scientific evidence for God by definition. Of course that does not mean that a hypotheses could not be developed. The problem is that a part of a hypothesis or theory is some sort of test that could conceivably debunk it. I have yet to see a creationist be that honest about their beliefs that they would propose a reasonable test for them that they could conceivably fail.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, we just see it differently then.

Again, we are asking for objective evidence, not unfounded opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

So are you saying it is not a string theory?

I am saying that it hasn't been falsified, nor have you proven your claim that there was nothing prior to the emergence of our universe.

Lightening could not exist without the universe to exist in. The universe did not have something it could exist in, because nothing existed to be in.

You still need to supply evidence for this claim.

You don't even know the difference between objective evidence and the conclusions we infer from them.

Yes, I do.

Ok, how are they not?

You have yet to supply evidence that nothing existed before the emergence of our Universe, for a start. All you do is assert it. That is not evidence.

Yeah...see that is the problem.

The problem is that you can not differentiate between objective evidence and your faith based beliefs.

It is evidence that support that God did it.

How?

 

[Sayre]

As time goes on, I believe more and more christians are with you on this stance.

The obvious question then becomes; what is your objective evidence that God was required to produce the natural processes?

Im glad you acknowledge it isn't a God of the gaps argument.

Empirical evidence is not able to differentiate between (atheistic, for want of a better term) natural processes and God authored natural processes.

All that is left is arguments from logic, philosophy and experience. None of which are truly objective.

 

[Loudmouth]

Empirical evidence is not able to differentiate between (atheistic, for want of a better term) natural processes and God authored natural processes.

If it isn't able to differentiate between the two, then it isn't evidence to begin with.

What you are promoting is intellectual nihilism. Since the objective evidence can not demonstrate God you take a stance that disallows for the existence of objectivity. It is the intellectual equivalent to taking your ball and going home. If you can't play, no one else can.

 

[Loudmouth]

How is this a God of the gaps fallacy? I claim God did it even when we have scientific evidence of the natural processes involved. There is no gap.

Then why discuss the lack of a solid explanation for the beginning of the universe?

It is not ignorance to point out that Krauss has overstated the strength of his argument.

Why mention it at all? We are asking for objective evidence of God.