Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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.
The main reason God sent His Son is no one believed God exists.
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.
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.
That's what you think.
Where is the objective evidence that a god sent anyone to the Earth?
We have recorded history. It's called a bible.
Originally Posted by Sayre
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.
Thank you for the first honest response in the entire thread. Meanwhile, others are still insisting that there is plenty of objective evidence for God.
Couldn't agree more!
I never have a problem with someone who says they believe based on personal experiences, as long as they qualify it as personal and it is not objective evidence that others are missing, if they do not acknowledge the same.
Can you tell me why it bothers you that people claim there is objective evidence to support God?
Can you tell me why it bothers you that people claim there is objective evidence to support God?
Originally Posted by Sayre
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.
Thank you for the first honest response in the entire thread. Meanwhile, others are still insisting that there is plenty of objective evidence for God.
Can you tell me why it bothers you that people claim there is objective evidence to support God?
That is easy. It bothers me because no one has ever produced "objective" evidence to show God exists. So when someone claims they have objective evidence and when asked to produce, they only deliver subjective evidence (that they claim is objective), and they are being dishonest. Why would someone do this? Likely, because they have a need to solidify their own belief to themselves and one way to do this is to claim they are being "objective" and they possess objective evidence that God exists. Simply stating; I realize objective evidence does not exist to show God exists, but I choose to believe on personal faith and my faith tells me God exists.
I have much respect for believers that acknowledge the above, but many can not.
Can you tell me why it bothers you that people claim there is objective evidence to support God?
The problem is that God can be used to explain ANYTHING that we don't yet know. As I have stated before, I'm not arguing against the position of theism, or attempting to disprove him. I don't think that is within the scope of scientific discovery.
My claim is that the Bible states that God said He created the universe, that it had a beginning. My claim which was number three was that if the universe had a beginning something or someone had to bring into being. It had a cause.So your question is whether or not what we know about the origin of the universe is consistent with what the Bible claims about his abilities. Well...yes, of course. Because his abilities can encompass anything.
This example is showing that a god was put forth to explain the unexplained. What I have just shown was that with what we know (not what we don't) substantiates the claims.But the same could have been said about Ra before we understood what the sun is (in a limited sense, as he was not claimed to have had all-encompassing powers as the Christian God is). What was claimed about Ra was consistent with what they observed about the sun at that time, limited as it was. But as we have progressed further in our understanding about the universe, so too has God's interaction with the universe changed. (and no, I'm not trying to equate Ra to the Christian God, but rather speaking in terms of god in general.)
Considering I am OEC and worship the Christian God I would agree.Perhaps a better example concerns those who have accepted theistic evolution. The fact that God exists has not changed in their minds, but the degree in which he interacts with us, has. OEC and YEC both claim to worship the Christian God. And because his abilities are limitless, his interaction boils down to choice, rather than capability. Therefore, an old earth and/or evolution do not debunk the Christian God.
I agree.So what if we do find out if the singularity was caused naturally. Would that really debunk God? I don't think so. It would be just one more thing that he allowed to happen naturally, and the scope of his involvement would change.
I think it comes down to a world with or without Him that makes the case. My claims are valid. I think that we can both agree. Having a valid argument is not proving it. So my claims support His existence just as other arguments can be made with objective evidence to support them.Because God has such a broad range of abilities, I don't think it is possible to debunk him.
AS with any conclusion that we humans make, we do so by the accumulated evidences and experience we have. So evidence is important to us and I think can provide support to God's existence.As such, if a conclusion is to be made, it can only be in the affirmative of his existence, once any natural explanations have been ruled out, (or, of course, if he decides to make his presence known to all humanity). Failing that, there will always be a debate between the two, regardless of the evidence at hand.
What it comes down to is that tipping point where one conclusion becomes more consistent and cohesive with the reality we perceive. No one comes to a conclusion in a vacuum. All the pieces of our perceptions come together to create our worldview. That is why it is so difficult to change that worldview, it is not a view without reason on any side of the issue.What this means is that as long as the evidence can support either idea, it cannot be used as evidence either for or against either. Because evidence is used to differentiate between two or more ideas. If it can't do that, it isn't evidence.
Atheists are told that we reject God because we don't want someone bossing us around, even though there is ample evidence that God does exist. Christians put on a show of confidence, telling each other that the evidence for God is so obvious that atheists must be in denial.
We don't appreciate this type of projection. Threads like this one demonstrate just how hollow those claims are.
OK.We do know that the universe had a beginning.
Well I was looking for a more personal answer (his).
However since you did answer I will respond.
Let me say that your actions seem to reinforce that attitude. IF you dismiss everything presented as evidence as nothing that supports God out of hand then what are theist's suppose to think?
If there is a logical argument and you just claim it isn't logical because it presupposes God, it makes you look like you are denying the evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?