Objective evidence of God

[Subduction Zone]

Put a seizure warning on your post, SZ.

I know, it is a bad one.

But what can I say, the ways of Bob are mysterious.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.





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



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.


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.



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



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




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

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang - YouTube

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.

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

What reason do we have to believe that there was something "prior" to the "natural realm" when you have included time as part of the natural realm? The question becomes nonsensical.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Explain natural conditions prior to natural conditions coming into existence?

You seem to be assuming that 'natural conditions', however you conceive them, are contingent on something else. That is just begging the question for the supernatural.

 

[46AND2]

You seem to be assuming that 'natural conditions', however you conceive them, are contingent on something else. That is just begging the question for the supernatural.

To be fair, she is simply responding to my poor wording, as I'm not well versed in cosmological topics.

 

[HitchSlap]

I know, it is a bad one.

But what can I say, the ways of Bob are mysterious.

Bob, the god of seizures and universes.

 

[MarkT]

We are asking for evidence of the "If" in your statement.

The evidence of 'if'?

I said if we can create cars and airplanes, then it stands to reason God can create a universe. If you agree with the premise, then the existence of the universe is pretty strong evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence of 'if'?

I said if we can create cars and airplanes, then it stands to reason God can create a universe. If you agree with the premise, then the existence of the universe is pretty strong evidence.

Nope, that is not what you said when he quoted you. Here is the full quote:

If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.

I don't see anything there about cars and airplanes. You are aware of the Ninth Commandment, aren't you?

 

[46AND2]

Nope, that is not what you said when he quoted you. Here is the full quote:



I don't see anything there about cars and airplanes. You are aware of the Ninth Commandment, aren't you?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7797934-10/#post64845970

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.

46and2, that was not the post that was being quoted. The post you linked may have been an earlier one. I just quoted the post that Loudmouth quoted, ironically it was post 426, that number is a combination of 46 and 2

 

[MarkT]

Bob, the god of seizures and universes.

Scoffers.

I've been expecting you. hehe

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scoffers.

I've been expecting you. hehe

Yes, looking at the quality of your posts I can see why you were expecting them.

 

[MarkT]

The main reason God sent His Son is no one believed God exists.

So it's not for a lack of evidence that people don't believe. It's that you can not know God exists except by Jesus Christ. He is the way. There is no other way to know but Christ. You can not know He exists another way.

 

[MarkT]

Yes, looking at the quality of your posts I can see why you were expecting them.

Whatever. I was expecting you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The main reason God sent His Son is no one believed God exists.

So it's not for a lack of evidence that people don't believe. It's that you can not know God exists except by Jesus Christ. He is the way. There is no other way to know but Christ. You can not know He exists another way.

It is for lack of evidence for the theist's claims that people don't believe.

 

[MarkT]

It is for lack of evidence for the theist's claims that people don't believe.

That's what you think.

 

[FredHoyle]

It is for lack of evidence for the theist's claims that people don't believe.

That's what you think.

Deny it all you like but you know as well as anyone that faith is only required when there is no evidence
and all religions are called faiths for that one simple reason, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY GODS.
Just because you say something is true does not make it true, you should question more and believe less.

 

[FredHoyle]

The main reason God sent His Son is no one believed God exists.

So it's not for a lack of evidence that people don't believe. It's that you can not know God exists except by Jesus Christ. He is the way. There is no other way to know but Christ. You can not know He exists another way.

Whatever. I was expecting you.

Of course you were expecting us because you were told lies and the first thing a liar tells the people he is lying to is,
'people will say I am telling lies', if they were not lies you could check for yourself, can you check if you were told lies?
no you can't, just because you want to believe it does not make it true.
I want to believe I am going to live forever, unfortunately I know I'm not, telling myself I am changes nothing.

 

[Sayre]

And hence, a tacit admission that there is NO objective evidence for God.

There are observations that are consistent with a belief in God, but nothing objective that I can think of. Plenty of subjective evidence which is suitable for personal belief but can't be transferred to others. The lack of objectivity doesn't bother me, if I am brutally honest, because I have personal experience to lean on.

Just being honest.

 

[Sayre]

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.

How on earth is it nihilism? I didn't say there can not be such a thing as objective evidence. I said that there is no objective evidence for the God claim. Objectivity exists.

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



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

I was responding to someone else's claim that Krauss had showed that something can come from nothing.

 

[Dizredux]

Mark T

You seem to be committing a logical fallacy in your postings.

If I have it correct you are proposing that if there is a God then that God made the universe. You then assert that the universe exists therefore God exists. If I have it wrong, please let me know.

This is a logical fallacy often called Affirming the consequent

The antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

Wiki on formal fallacy


As a simple example all cats have tails. This animal has a tail therefore it is a cat.

That does not mean that God did not make the universe as I feel he did but only that what you are saying is not a logical argument and in fact a logical fallacy.

You state

If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.

If God then universe. There exists the universe Therefore God

If G then U
U
Therefore G

Affirming the Consequent-Logical Fallacy.

Just pointing out a possible lapse in logic, nothing more.

Dizredux.