Objective evidence of God

[Oncedeceived]

The tree is objective evidence that there are trees. It is NOT objective evidence for a god.....that's a subjective view....

Correct. It is objective evidence that there are trees. I would agree it is a subjective view that it is evidence for God. However, it doesn't mean that a tree is not evidence of God. The purpose of all forms of evidence is to discover reality. What pieces fit with what we view as reality according to our knowledge and experience.

Oh...and neither is it evidence for a 'cause'.....that's also a subjective view, no matter that it may be a view held by most people.....

Sorry missing your point on this one.

 

[biggles53]

Correct. It is objective evidence that there are trees. I would agree it is a subjective view that it is evidence for God. However, it doesn't mean that a tree is not evidence of God. The purpose of all forms of evidence is to discover reality. What pieces fit with what we view as reality according to our knowledge

Yes, but the OP specifically asked for OBJECTIVE evidence for a god......a tree don't cut it.....

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but the OP specifically asked for OBJECTIVE evidence for a god......a tree don't cut it.....

No it actually says Objective evidence of God, but that is not here nor there. You can claim that the objective evidence is not supportive in your opinion of God and give your reasons. You can't say it is not objective evidence because a tree is objective evidence for many different things.

 

[biggles53]

No it actually says Objective evidence of God, but that is not here nor there. You can claim that the objective evidence is not supportive in your opinion of God and give your reasons. You can't say it is not objective evidence because a tree is objective evidence for many different things.

If it requires your opinion for a conclusion, then it's not objective....

Look....there simply is no objective evidence for a god....for that to be the case, we would have to witness the god itself....all of us, not just a select group who claim to be able to perceive things that the majority can't....all other evidence is simply CHOSEN by people to support whatever claim they are making, it is not objective evidence of the claim itself....

 

[Oncedeceived]

If it requires your opinion for a conclusion, then it's not objective....

biggles biggles. You are one sharp cookie, I don't understand what you are not getting here. The conclusion is indeed subjective. The evidence is objective.

Look....there simply is no objective evidence for a god....for that to be the case, we would have to witness the god itself....all of us, not just a select group who claim to be able to perceive things that the majority can't....all other evidence is simply CHOSEN by people to support whatever claim they are making, it is not objective evidence of the claim itself....

Ahhhhh, are you thinking that objective evidence means proof? It doesn't you know.

 

[Jro]

biggles biggles. You are one sharp cookie, I don't understand what you are not getting here. The conclusion is indeed subjective. The evidence is objective.



Ahhhhh, are you thinking that objective evidence means proof? It doesn't you know.

That's like saying a car is objective evidence of a murder. Because the car exists, therefore murder.

Look....there simply is no objective evidence for a god....for that to be the case, we would have to witness the god itself....all of us, not just a select group who claim to be able to perceive things that the majority can't....all other evidence is simply CHOSEN by people to support whatever claim they are making, it is not objective evidence of the claim itself....

I can think of somethings that I would take as objective evidence of god, even if I hadn't met him. For example, if Indiana Jones was a documentary and the ark of the covenant was a supernatural nazi blaster, I might consider that to be evidence that there was something to the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's like saying a car is objective evidence of a murder. Because the car exists, therefore murder.

No, it is in no way the same thing.

I can think of somethings that I would take as objective evidence of god, even if I hadn't met him. For example, if Indiana Jones was a documentary and the ark of the covenant was a supernatural nazi blaster, I might consider that to be evidence that there was something to the Abrahamic religions.

You dismiss actual evidence to hypothesize this?

 

[Jro]

It was a really good movie. Actually, the Indiana Jones series is pretty good objective evidence that there is a god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is in no way the same thing.




You dismiss actual evidence to hypothesize this?

Like most creationists you do not seem to know what qualifies as evidence.

Let me put it this way, exactly how is a tree objective evidence for a god?

That question is much easier to answer than what you seem to be assuming, that a tree is evidence for your God. People are taking it easy on you when they ask the more general question rather than specifically about your "God".

 

[FredHoyle]

No, it is in no way the same thing.

What you fail to understand is that if you can make a claim stand for your God then everyone else can make a claim stand for their God because there is no evidence for any Gods.

Why can't you see that if the circumstances of your birth had been different your religion might have been different just as the language that you speak might be different, you might even have had your husband picked out for you by your parents, you might even have tattoos on your face or big rings around your neck a foot high and pounding corn in a pot with a big stick outside of a mud hut with a new baby strapped to your back every year.

What ever we are and the circumstances in which we live is just the way the mop flops and has nothing whatsoever to do with us.
We are born we live and we die and there is no reason for any of us to even be here, individually we don't mean a thing.

 

[bhsmte]

Um....right. I already knew all that.

Then a tree is objective, physical evidence.

The bible would be the subjective evidence.

Sure a tree is objective. What about the tree points it to God and no other cause.

 

[Old Ned]

How is the tree testable?
How would it be tested? ... and for what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How is the tree testable?
How would it be tested? ... and for what?

What?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure a tree is objective. What about the tree points it to God and no other cause.

An objective object can be evidence for varying claims.

 

[Old Ned]

What?

The OP asked for "Testable objective" evidence.

I didn't read where anyone said or asked how the tree would be tested, so I posed the question.

 

[Sayre]

I think asking for testable evidence implies that the evidence admissable would be physical. While I agree that physical evidence is valid, I don't think it is the only kind of evidence that should be admissable in examining spiritual claims.

Just need to be careful that we don't presume naturalism in the search to defend naturalism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The OP asked for "Testable objective" evidence.

I didn't read where anyone said or asked how the tree would be tested, so I posed the question.

A tree could be testable for many different scenarios. Disease is one that comes to mind.

Edited to add: I don't myself know of how testing a tree could be used to support God so that would be up to ED.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think asking for testable evidence implies that the evidence admissable would be physical. While I agree that physical evidence is valid, I don't think it is the only kind of evidence that should be admissable in examining spiritual claims.

Just need to be careful that we don't presume naturalism in the search to defend naturalism.

That is what the scientific realm does.

 

[Old Ned]

I think asking for testable evidence implies that the evidence admissable would be physical. While I agree that physical evidence is valid, I don't think it is the only kind of evidence that should be admissable in examining spiritual claims.

Just need to be careful that we don't presume naturalism in the search to defend naturalism.

The OP asked for Testable, Objective evidence. Your opinion of his question is not an answer, but thank you.

It either is both testable and objective, or it is not.

The tree was offered up as such, so I ask how do we test it?

 

[Old Ned]

A tree could be testable for many different scenarios. Disease is one that comes to mind.

And do any of these tests confirm that God made the tree?