Objective evidence of God

[HitchSlap]

Can you tell me why it bothers you that people claim there is objective evidence to support God?

*sigh

Because no one ever presents said evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Denying what evidence?

No one has yet to produce objective evidence, so there is no denying involved Once.

I will say again, if a believer states they believe based on personal experience and their faith, I would never tell that person they shouldn't believe based on their personal experience. I will certainly state those personal experiences are not objective evidence, as it would apply to others, but that doesn't mean the person with the experiences shouldn't believe, as that is up to them to decide.

 

[Queller]

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.

Any evidence that presupposes its answer is just begging the question and that isn't evidence.

 

[FredHoyle]

IF you dismiss everything presented as evidence as nothing that supports God out of hand then what are theist's suppose to think?

The same thing as if you were presented with YOUR KIND OF EVIDENCE that supported the Woofle.
What would you think?

 

[46AND2]

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.

Now you are claiming that there may have been a "natural" cause that the universe came from and I claim that it was God. Those are not necessarily opposing points. I see natural processes are not exclusive property to the atheist/agnostic and that natural processes are the processes in force and are not necessarily separate from God. The point of the claim that the universe had a beginning and that something or someone had to cause it I feel is a true assessment. The reason it gives support to God's existence is that 1. The universe had a beginning just as the claim..thus a beginning supports the claim. 2. Something or someone caused it...thus God as you have stated has the ability if He exists to create the universe and is the someone that validates premise #2. So:

The universe exists and has a beginning
Since the universe had a beginning it had to be caused.
Something or someone had to cause it.
God has the ability to cause the universe.
God caused the universe.

This is a valid argument. It is supported by objective evidence. It is reasonable to conclude that God created the universe.

It's not a valid argument. It's an argument meant to prove God, but already assumes he exists. EVEN IF I granted that God has the ability to cause the universe (and that he even exists), your conclusion STILL does not logically follow, as the ability does not necessitate the action. He could have had the ability to, but chosen not to cause the universe, and some other manner of causation occurred.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is easy. It bothers me because no one has ever produced "objective" evidence to show God exists.

They produce objective evidence to support the existence of God. That is not proof bhsmte. You seem to be confused by what is objective evidence and what that is to what we claim. Objective evidence is evidence that does not have a conclusion in itself. It is objective, it isn't the claim. Yes, it is the subjective claim that God exists..but the evidence used to support that claim is objective. Do you see that?

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.

So what is subjective about the evidence that the universe had a beginning? That is a conclusion based on "objective" scientific evidence. That is the evidence provided for the conclusions we are making claims on. So it is not subjective evidence. It is in evidence. The universe has objective evidence that supports the claim that it had a beginning. Correct? That is objective evidence, it doesn't matter what we might think or want to think it is what it is. So how are they (me) being dishonest?

So what you are really saying is that you don't believe the objective evidence used to support God really supports God. But that begs the question.

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.

You see the problem here right? You assume their motivation which you really have no access to, you claim that they are only claiming to be objective when that claim isn't even being made and then you assume that the evidence isn't objective when in fact it is. So this leaves us with the fact that theists who say they have objective evidence that supports God you are denying that the evidence falsely. You are not denying the evidence you are denying the conclusion made from it.

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.

See above.

I have much respect for believers that acknowledge the above, but many can not.

Is it respect or do you just feel more comfortable allowing belief as long as you have no responsibility to look at what they are claiming? Does blind faith deserve more respect than someone that examines their beliefs and has reasons and evidence to support it?

 

[bhsmte]

"IF you dismiss everything presented as evidence as nothing that supports God out of hand then what are theist's suppose to think?"

Once, this statement really tells a lot about how single focused you are on trying so desperately, to support your belief to yourself.

Are people supposed to ignore the fact that evidence needs to be objective, just because theists choose to believe in something that does not have any objective evidence to support?

Science and objective evidence doesn't care what people think, nor should it, because it would cease to be objective.

 

[bhsmte]

They produce objective evidence to support the existence of God. That is not proof bhsmte. You seem to be confused by what is objective evidence and what that is to what we claim. Objective evidence is evidence that does not have a conclusion in itself. It is objective, it isn't the claim. Yes, it is the subjective claim that God exists..but the evidence used to support that claim is objective. Do you see that?

Don't play that game. Objective evidence that POINTS to God.

So what is subjective about the evidence that the universe had a beginning? That is a conclusion based on "objective" scientific evidence. That is the evidence provided for the conclusions we are making claims on. So it is not subjective evidence. It is in evidence. The universe has objective evidence that supports the claim that it had a beginning. Correct? That is objective evidence, it doesn't matter what we might think or want to think it is what it is. So how are they (me) being dishonest?

I will say again, objective evidence that POINTS to God!

So what you are really saying is that you don't believe the objective evidence used to support God really supports God. But that begs the question.



You see the problem here right? You assume their motivation which you really have no access to, you claim that they are only claiming to be objective when that claim isn't even being made and then you assume that the evidence isn't objective when in fact it is. So this leaves us with the fact that theists who say they have objective evidence that supports God you are denying that the evidence falsely. You are not denying the evidence you are denying the conclusion made from it.

Motivation does not impact whether objective evidence points in the direction someone is claiming it is, now does it?

See above.



Is it respect or do you just feel more comfortable allowing belief as long as you have no responsibility to look at what they are claiming? Does blind faith deserve more respect than someone that examines their beliefs and has reasons and evidence to support it?

Once, if you have reasons to believe in what you do, than as I have always said; KEEP BELIEVING!!!!!!! Just don't tell anyone they are missing the boat, because they are not seeing the objective evidence that points to a God existing, because; NO ONE HAS PRODUCED ANY TO DATE.

 

[CabVet]

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.

You are still not getting it. There is no objective evidence (you presented none, and nobody else did), therefore saying that there is objective evidence is wrong.

 

[CabVet]

They produce objective evidence to support the existence of God. That is not proof bhsmte. You seem to be confused by what is objective evidence and what that is to what we claim. Objective evidence is evidence that does not have a conclusion in itself. It is objective, it isn't the claim. Yes, it is the subjective claim that God exists..but the evidence used to support that claim is objective. Do you see that?

If the evidence does not support your claim it is not objective. Finding a dead body (and nothing else) is not objective evidence that John Doe is a murderer. The fact that the universe exists is not objective evidence that God exists. The fact that I have a car is not objective evidence that I can drive it. The fact that someone is in an airport is not objective evidence that they just landed on a plane.

In other words, if you want to use the universe as evidence to support the existence of God, what you have to demonstrate is not that there is a universe, but that God created it.

 

[Loudmouth]

They produce objective evidence to support the existence of God.

1. Leprechauns make rainbows.

2. We see rainbows.

3. Rainbows are objective evidence of Leprechauns.

Do you consider rainbows to be objective evidence of Leprechauns? If not, are you just in denial given the fact that I have objective evidence of Leprechauns?

If I replace Leprechaun with God, why would that make the argument any more compelling?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Any evidence that presupposes its answer is just begging the question and that isn't evidence.

Then science is in big trouble. We say in the scientific realm:

If A is true then we predict C. This holds true with my claim as well.

If A (God) is true then we predict C (universe has a beginning)
C is true
A is true

 

[Loudmouth]

Then science is in big trouble. We say in the scientific realm:

If A is true then we predict C. This holds true with my claim as well.

If A (God) is true then we predict C (universe has a beginning)
C is true
A is true

If Leprechauns exist then we predict that we will see rainbows.
We see rainbows.
Leprechauns exist.

Do you accept the objective evidence of Leprechauns?

 

[bhsmte]

Then science is in big trouble. We say in the scientific realm:

If A is true then we predict C. This holds true with my claim as well.

If A (God) is true then we predict C (universe has a beginning)
C is true
A is true

Once, do you realize how many things you could place under A and get the same conclusion in your scenario?

It appears as though you have spent too much time listening to William Lane Craig.

 

[CabVet]

Then science is in big trouble. We say in the scientific realm:

If A is true then we predict C. This holds true with my claim as well.

If A (God) is true then we predict C (universe has a beginning)
C is true
A is true

That is not science, not by a long shot. Like I said in my previous post, if you want to use the universe as evidence to support the existence of God, what you have to demonstrate is not that there is a universe, but that God created it.

If Thor is true then we predict lightning and thunder
Lightning and thunder are true
Thor is true

Is the above objective evidence for the existence of Thor?

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Leprechauns make rainbows.

2. We see rainbows.

3. Rainbows are objective evidence of Leprechauns.

Do you consider rainbows to be objective evidence of Leprechauns? If not, are you just in denial given the fact that I have given objective evidence of Leprechauns?

If I replace Leprechaun with God, why would that make the argument any more compelling?

First of all rainbows are objective evidence that can be used to support theories or conclusions. So yes, it is objective evidence. Do I believe that it support the existence of Leprechauns? Where does the claim originate that Leprechauns make rainbows?

 

[CabVet]

First of all rainbows are objective evidence that can be used to support theories or conclusions. So yes, it is objective evidence. Do I believe that it support the existence of Leprechauns? Where does the claim originate that Leprechauns make rainbows?

Oh my... This is too much. Yes, it can be used to support conclusions, but not the conclusion that Leprechanus exists.

 

[46AND2]

First of all rainbows are objective evidence that can be used to support theories or conclusions. So yes, it is objective evidence. Do I believe that it support the existence of Leprechauns? Where does the claim originate that Leprechauns make rainbows?

See? You need further corroboration for the Leprechauns. Just as the rainbow is not evidence, in itself, for the existence of Leprechauns, neither is the existence of the universe sufficient to prove God.

 

[HitchSlap]

They produce objective evidence to support the existence of God.

You seem to be confused as to what "objective" means. Objective is a term that is used to describe facts, observations and data that can be derived independently from one observer to another. It does not require the observer to speak a certain language, live in a certain geographical locale, or beholden to a particular religion (or lack thereof). Once data is gathered, and compared, then assimilated, the best explanation is then posited. And one of the hallmarks of science is that the explanation should be parsimonious, that is, not positing an answer that itself has yet to be demonstrated as reality.

So, you see, you keep using the word "objective," when in actuality, what you keep suggesting is "subjective." Your argument is one from incredulity, and your answer presupposes your question. That is to say, no matter where the real objective (see above definition) leads, you will always say 'my Christian god did it.' This is an intellectually dishonest position to hold, as the reasonable thinker must be courageous enough to accept whatever direction the evidence may lead.

I hope this helps clear up your apparent consternation at what you perceive to be our misunderstanding. If you want to discuss things on a level playing field, then it's imperative you understand what we mean when we use the word "objective." Words have meanings, and our chances of understanding each others point of view will be successful if we all are using the same definitions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not science, not by a long shot. Like I said in my previous post, if you want to use the universe as evidence to support the existence of God, what you have to demonstrate is not that there is a universe, but that God created it.

If Thor is true then we predict lightning and thunder
Lightning and thunder is true
Thor is true

Is the above objective evidence for the existence of Thor?

It could be. It is a valid argument is it not? Do I feel it is sufficient evidence, no. Why? Is there any evidence other than this to justify it as being true? Does anybody in the world today believe that he really existed or have physical evidence to support that he did? So while thunder and lightening might support the existence of Thor there is no other convincing evidence for me to conclude that Thor exists. I would also ask for what authority the source of claim had. Where did the claim originate? That is a piece that would be considered.