Objective evidence of God

[Oncedeceived]

Show us how the objective evidence (the universe) SUPPORTS your claim. As an fyi, for objective evidence to support a conclusion, it must point to what you claim it points to.

READ CAREFULLY: The claim is that the "Universe" had a "BEGINNING". That is the claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

You don't even understand what I am saying so how in the world do you think that I am protecting my conclusions. I even said that my conclusions were subjective.

Right! Which is to say you have no objective evidence to link your god as a creator. It is your subjective belief, based on your personal faith, that your idea of the Christian god created the universe, and as such, cannot be objectively demonstrated to be true. It's only true in your opinion because you choose to accept it as such.

*bolding mine

 

[Sayre]

Is it even possible to have objective empirical evidence for such a claim?

The prime mover, or first cause, or God, whatever you want to call him/her/it/that... began from nothing and used nothing to produce something, or so the story goes.

So there is no natural law you can appeal to that explains an operation of law x on matter y. The law doesn't exist, and the matter doesn't exist. Only the prime mover exists, and by definition is not natural.

So are atheists asking for a round square, after Christians promising to deliver one, and complaining when none arrives?

What empirical evidence is possible??? None!

 

[Oncedeceived]

The first cause argument (if you believe it is solid) only gives you a first cause. It doesn't give you a Christian God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that IF there is a first cause, it must be the Christian God. That assumption has no empirical evidence, which is what the atheists in this thread are trying to point out.

Setting it out logically, the Christians appear to be arguing that:

1 - The universe exists
2 - Anything that begins to exist needs a cause outside itself
3 - (1+2) Therefore there is a cause outside the universe
4 - If there is a cause outside the universe, it is the Christian God
5 - (3+4) Therefore the Christian God.

Since (1) is objective, it follows in their argument that (5) is objective, so long as the argument is sound. Of course, it isn't, because (4) has no justifier.

I think the request for empirical objective evidence presumes too greater scope for the application of empiricism, but that's a topic for another thread.

Look, I can understand the conclusion is subjective please please understand that. I know the conclusion is subjective. I know it. The evidence I am using, that the universe had a beginning is the objective evidence. The claim that the Christian says that the Creation narrative makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. That is subjective. I am making the subjective claim: that the Christian God created the universe so it had a beginning. I am making a subjective conclusion: God created the universe. Can I get any clearer?

Look here is another example. I have personal experiences from God. So God exists. That is a subjective claim based on subjective evidence. Do you see that?

 

[bhsmte]

The first cause argument (if you believe it is solid) only gives you a first cause. It doesn't give you a Christian God. There seems to be an underlying assumption that IF there is a first cause, it must be the Christian God. That assumption has no empirical evidence, which is what the atheists in this thread are trying to point out.

Setting it out logically, the Christians appear to be arguing that:

1 - The universe exists
2 - Anything that begins to exist needs a cause outside itself
3 - (1+2) Therefore there is a cause outside the universe
4 - If there is a cause outside the universe, it is the Christian God
5 - (3+4) Therefore the Christian God.

Since (1) is objective, it follows in their argument that (5) is objective, so long as the argument is sound. Of course, it isn't, because (4) has no justifier.

I think the request for empirical objective evidence presumes too greater scope for the application of empiricism, but that's a topic for another thread.

I have said the same many times. If a God did cause the universe, it in no way points to a christian God. The christian God is described in the book that christians rely on and it is up to each person to decide whether they can reconcile the reality of the real world, with how christians describe the personal God of the bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

Look, I can understand the conclusion is subjective please please understand that. I know the conclusion is subjective. I know it. The evidence I am using, that the universe had a beginning is the objective evidence. The claim that the Christian says that the Creation narrative makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. That is subjective. I am making the subjective claim: that the Christian God created the universe so it had a beginning. I am making a subjective conclusion: God created the universe. Can I get any clearer?

Look here is another example. I am personal experiences from God. So God exists. That is a subjective claim based on subjective evidence. Do you see that?

And your conclusion would be wrong, based on lack of objective evidence to support your claim of "Christian God" did it.

Very clear.

 

[Loudmouth]

IF you can back up that claim. Can you back up that claim?

My objective evidence is the existence of rainbows.

Just for fun, we could have Christian Forums Mad Libs if you want. We could objectively prove the existence of thousands of make believe entities.

1. ____(noun)_____ makes ____(noun)_____

2. ___(second noun from 1.) exists.

3. Therefore, ___(first noun from 1.)____ exists.

We could go with Leprechauns and rainbows . . . Bigfoot and chocolate . . . Santa Claus and reindeer . . . take your pick. Just find something that you can show to exist, link it to the thing you want to exist, and then point again to the thing that does exist. Presto chango, that make believe entity suddenly becomes real.

 

[MarkT]

This is where you get into trouble at least logically.

If your premise is that "only" God can make the universe then if the universe exists, God exists then that would be a logical argument. The form here is
If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

This is valid form.

O.K.

The key here is the term "only". A statement that used "if" in the premise, would allow other possibilities to be considered and that is what makes the argument not a logical one.

huh? First you say it is valid then you say it is invalid.

 

[MarkT]

Maybe Bob created the universe. I mean, the universe exists, Bob exists, what more do you need?

Maybe you should ask me.

For the record, I did not create the universe!

 

[EternalDragon]

My objective evidence is the existence of rainbows.

Just for fun, we could have Christian Forums Mad Libs if you want. We could objectively prove the existence of thousands of make believe entities.

1. ____(noun)_____ makes ____(noun)_____

2. ___(second noun from 1.) exists.

3. Therefore, ___(first noun from 1.)____ exists.

We could go with Leprechauns and rainbows . . . Bigfoot and chocolate . . . Santa Claus and reindeer . . . take your pick. Just find something that you can show to exist, link it to the thing you want to exist, and then point again to the thing that does exist. Presto chango, that make believe entity suddenly becomes real.

I love mad libs....

1. _Squirrels__ make ___Nuts____

2. Nuts exists.

3. Therefore, __Squirrels__ exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

I love mad libs....

1. _Squirrels__ make ___Nuts____

2. Nuts exists.

3. Therefore, __Squirrels__ exist.

Replace Squirrels with Bigfoot and see if you are still convinced.

 

[46AND2]

I love mad libs....

1. _Squirrels__ make ___Nuts____

2. Nuts exists.

3. Therefore, __Squirrels__ exist.

Squirrels don't make nuts...

 

[Loudmouth]

Squirrels don't make nuts...

They do make nuts since the existence of nuts are objective evidence that squirrels make nuts. At least according to the logic put forward by theists.

 

[Dizredux]

Posted by Dizredux

This is where you get into trouble at least logically.

If your premise is that "only" God can make the universe then if the universe exists, God exists then that would be a logical argument. The form here is
If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

This is valid form.

O.K.

The key here is the term "only". A statement that used "if" in the premise, would allow other possibilities to be considered and that is what makes the argument not a logical one.

huh? First you say it is valid then you say it is invalid.

I didn't explain it well I suspect.

Your argument was

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

That is a invalid logical form.
If God then universe
Universe
Therefore God
This is not a valid argument as there are other possible explanation for the existance of the universe. Basically you cannot reverse the implication of a premise and have it be valid.

Much of this thread is reaction to posters who keep trying to use this form of argument. It may sound logical but it is not at least according to the rules of formal logic. Let me give an example
All cats have tails
There exists an animal with a tail
Therefore the animal is a cat.
This is invalid because there is a possibility of other animals with tails.

If you use the term "only God" your premise rules out any other other possibility. Let me give an example on this:
Only cats have tails
There exists an animal with a tail.
Therefore the animal is a cat.
This has an incorrect premise but it is a valid argument, the one you used is not.

It is sometimes hard explaining logic to someone who has not had some kind of formal training in it. The fault lies with me for not being able to explain it well enough.

The reason that I am addressing this is that using an invalid argument only hurts what you are trying to show.

Hope this helps you understand a little.

Dizredux

 

[MarkT]

Maybe Bob created the universe. I mean, the universe exists, Bob exists, what more do you need?

The existence of the universe points to a Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who sent us His Son so that we may know He exists and He keeps His promises.

 

[HitchSlap]

The existence of the universe points to a Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who sent us His Son so that we may know He exists and He keeps His promises.

And replacing "God" with "Bob" changes nothing. It's evidence I'm interested in, not your opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

The existence of the universe points to a Creator,

Just like the existence of rainbows points to Leprechauns.

 

[MarkT]

I didn't explain it well I suspect.

Your argument was That is a invalid logical form.
If God then universe
Universe
Therefore God
This is not a valid argument as there are other possible explanation for the existance of the universe. Basically you cannot reverse the implication of a premise and have it be valid.

Much of this thread is reaction to posters who keep trying to use this form of argument. It may sound logical but it is not at least according to the rules of formal logic. Let me give an example
All cats have tails
There exists an animal with a tail
Therefore the animal is a cat.
This is invalid because there is a possibility of other animals with tails.

If you use the term "only God" your premise rules out any other other possibility. Let me give an example on this:
Only cats have tails
There exists an animal with a tail.
Therefore the animal is a cat.
This has an incorrect premise but it is a valid argument, the one you used is not.

It is sometimes hard explaining logic to someone who has not had some kind of formal training in it. The fault lies with me for not being able to explain it well enough.

The reason that I am addressing this is that using an invalid argument only hurts what you are trying to show.

Hope this helps you understand a little.

Dizredux

There is no other possibility. Your argument is an argument from ignorance. You don't know what I know.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no other possibility. Your argument is an argument from ignorance. You don't know what I know.

But if what you knew included objective evidence, we would all know.

 

[CabVet]

Look, I can understand the conclusion is subjective please please understand that. I know the conclusion is subjective. I know it. The evidence I am using, that the universe had a beginning is the objective evidence. The claim that the Christian says that the Creation narrative makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. That is subjective. I am making the subjective claim: that the Christian God created the universe so it had a beginning. I am making a subjective conclusion: God created the universe. Can I get any clearer?

Look here is another example. I have personal experiences from God. So God exists. That is a subjective claim based on subjective evidence. Do you see that?

The evidence does not support your claim. I very specifically asked for objective, testable evidence supporting the existence of God. Your evidence only shows that there is a universe, and that, in and of itself, is not supporting evidence for the existence of God.