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.
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.
Then just say that. Do claim that it isn't evidence because it is.
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.
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
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.
"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.
Then just say that. Do claim that it isn't evidence because it is. You might feel it is sufficient for you to believe that God exists but it is evidence. If I only had that evidence it might not be for me either. But it is a step, it is evidence that supports the conclusion. Do you see what I am saying?
bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective.
bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective. Your issue is not the evidence it is the claim.
bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective. Your issue is not the evidence it is the claim.
Please show me a scientific theory that presupposes its conclusion the way you have just done.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
No, it is not a valid argument and cannot be presented as objective evidence. The proper word for that is circumstantial evidence (evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact). What I am asking for is objective (direct) evidence, I even said testable and physical in the OP.
Because it is not objective.
If you need to make that question, it simply means the evidence is not objective.
Even if every human in the planet believed that Thor existed, that would not be objective evidence for the existence of Thor.
And you are only asking this because the simple existence of something that is claimed to be created by Thor does not constitute objective evidence.
Why present evidence at all if it does not support your claim?
How is a rainbow objective evidence for Leprechauns? Spell it out for me specifically because I don't get it.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?
Please show me a scientific theory that presupposes its conclusion the way you have just done.
BTW, nothing about the universe having a beginning is evidence for a god having caused it. Especially not the Christian God because it could be the Hindu God Brahma, the Greek God Zeus, or the Norse God, Odin.
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?