Objective evidence of God

[CabVet]

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

That is not what an argument from ignorance is. An argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. Saying that God exists because we cannot prove that he does not exist would be an argument from ignorance.

If what you knew was objective and testable, you would be able to demonstrate it to anybody (and convince anybody). Since what you know is subjective (only important to you) and not testable, you cannot demonstrate it to anybody.

 

[HitchSlap]

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

You could show us any time, you know, what it is you know. Know what I mean?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Lets break that down. I have emphasized the important points in your demand.

The claim was not that the universe exists. That is a strawman.

The claim is that the Christian Creation narrative claims that if God exists and created the universe it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning that supports the claims and supports God's existence. There is objective, testable evidence supporting the universe had a beginning. The objective, testable evidence supports the existence of God.

Now you tell me how that is not exactly what you asked for. It is objective, testable evidence that points to the Christian God.

 

[MarkT]

Just like the existence of rainbows points to Leprechauns.

Don't be absurd.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets break that down. I have emphasized the important points in your demand.

The claim was not that the universe exists. That is a strawman.

The claim is that the Christian Creation narrative claims that if God exists and created the universe it had a beginning.

The claim is that if Leprechauns make rainbows that the red and purple bands will be on opposite sides of the rainbow. That turns out to be true, therefore rainbows are objective evidence of Leprechauns.

Also, if we find claims in Genesis that conflict with how life, planets, and suns emerged would this falsify the existence of God in your eyes? If not, it would seem that you are also cherry picking scriptures.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't be absurd.

You just don't want to be responsible to Leprechauns, so you ignore the objective evidence for their existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Why would it be impossible? If the universe exists and had a beginning it must have a cause. It did not create itself, that is impossible. So something outside of the universe by necessity had to be the cause. That means something supernatural caused the universe to exist in the first place because it was not of this natural universe which can not create itself.

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.

Right, it can not have a natural by definition cause.

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

However there is evidence to support that cause is the Christian God according to the creation narrative claiming that the universe did have a beginning. It is objective, testable evidence that the universe has a beginning.

What empirical evidence is possible??? None!

That is a subjective opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The claim is that if Leprechauns make rainbows that the red and purple bands will be on opposite sides of the rainbow. That turns out to be true, therefore rainbows are objective evidence of Leprechauns.

What would you label yourself Loudmouth? An atheist, agnostic... What?

Also, if we find claims in Genesis that conflict with how life, planets, and suns emerged would this falsify the existence of God in your eyes? If not, it would seem that you are also cherry picking scriptures.

I have subjective beliefs about certain aspects of everything, that doesn't mean that it falsifies the entire premise.

 

[Davian]

No, I have to show how it is logically improbable. I didn't give a mathematical estimation on its mathematical improbability. I gave a logical reason for it being improbable.

You still have to show your data, and how you got there. Can you do that?

 

[bhsmte]

Lets break that down. I have emphasized the important points in your demand.

The claim was not that the universe exists. That is a strawman.

The claim is that the Christian Creation narrative claims that if God exists and created the universe it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning that supports the claims and supports God's existence. There is objective, testable evidence supporting the universe had a beginning. The objective, testable evidence supports the existence of God.

Now you tell me how that is not exactly what you asked for. It is objective, testable evidence that points to the Christian God.

And so we go. One step forward, followed by 12 steps back.

 

[Loudmouth]

What would you label yourself Loudmouth? An atheist, agnostic... What?

Obviously, I am a Leprechaunist since all of the objective evidence supports Leprechauns.

I have subjective beliefs about certain aspects of everything, that doesn't mean that it falsifies the entire premise.

We are asking for objective evidence, not subjective beliefs.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lets break that down. I have emphasized the important points in your demand.

The claim was not that the universe exists. That is a strawman.

The claim is that the Christian Creation narrative claims that if God exists and created the universe it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning that supports the claims and supports God's existence. There is objective, testable evidence supporting the universe had a beginning. The objective, testable evidence supports the existence of God.

Now you tell me how that is not exactly what you asked for. It is objective, testable evidence that points to the Christian God.

Bob's claim is, that if a universe exists, Bod did it. Now what? How can I tell who's telling the truth? You or Bob?

Put differently, there's no independently verifiable objective evidence to convict the Christian god of "creation."

 

[HitchSlap]

Obviously, I am a Leprechaunist since all of the objective evidence supports Leprechauns.



We are asking for objective evidence, not subjective beliefs.

WWLD?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Obviously, I am a Leprechaunist since all of the objective evidence supports Leprechauns.

Please answer the question.

We are asking for objective evidence, not subjective beliefs.

I didn't present any.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bob's claim is, that if a universe exists, Bod did it. Now what? How can I tell who's telling the truth? You or Bob?

Put differently, there's no independently verifiable objective evidence to convict the Christian god of "creation."

Strawman.

 

[MarkT]

That is not what an argument from ignorance is. An argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. Saying that God exists because we cannot prove that he does not exist would be an argument from ignorance.

If what you knew was objective and testable, you would be able to demonstrate it to anybody (and convince anybody). Since what you know is subjective (only important to you) and not testable, you cannot demonstrate it to anybody.

Conversely if you don't know something is true it must be false. In other words your lack of knowledge does not invalidate my argument.

 

[HitchSlap]

I didn't present any.

That's the point we're trying to get you to understand!

 

[46AND2]

Lets break that down. I have emphasized the important points in your demand.

The claim was not that the universe exists. That is a strawman.

The claim is that the Christian Creation narrative claims that if God exists and created the universe it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning that supports the claims and supports God's existence. There is objective, testable evidence supporting the universe had a beginning. The objective, testable evidence supports the existence of God.

Now you tell me how that is not exactly what you asked for. It is objective, testable evidence that points to the Christian God.

You really think this is what the OP was looking for? It's UTTERLY meaningless, because the universe's existence, in your rationale, supports any and all claims of creation, even clearly fictitious ones like Bob created the universe.

Your evidence is completely inert.

 

[HitchSlap]

Strawman.

Not even remotely. I'm trying to get you to see the absurdity in making unsupportable claims. They get us nowhere closer to understanding reality.

 

[Dizredux]

There is no other possibility.

If that is your religous belief OK. If you assert it as fact, it blows your second statement.

Your argument is an argument from ignorance. You don't know what I know.

Argument from ignorance....Oh my, irony abounds

Dizredux