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.
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.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.
The same thing as if you were presented with YOUR KIND OF EVIDENCE that supported the Woofle.IF you dismiss everything presented as evidence as nothing that supports God out of hand then what are theist's suppose to think?
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.
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?That is easy. It bothers me because no one has ever produced "objective" evidence to show God exists.
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 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 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.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.
See above.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.
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?I have much respect for believers that acknowledge the above, but many can not.
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.
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.
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?
They produce objective evidence to support the existence of God.
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
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
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
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?
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?
They produce objective evidence to support the existence of God.
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?
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?