Objective evidence of God

[Oncedeceived]

So when all of you said I was intellectually dishonest in your posts you were trying to make me feel quilt?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The same bias that all you liars exhibit when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of Santa, unicorns, the Easter Bunny.....and Elvis...!!

So now you are calling me a liar?

 

[biggles53]

So when all of you said I was intellectually dishonest in your posts you were trying to make me feel quilt?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that they were saying you were intellectually dishonest because............................they thought you were being intellectually dishonest......

 

[biggles53]

So now you are calling me a liar?

Ummm.......Once..........get a hold of yourself.........

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that they were saying you were intellectually dishonest because............................they thought you were being intellectually dishonest......

So....I am trying to make you all feel guilty rather than actually thinking that you are being intellectually dishonest....hummm nice.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ummm.......Once..........get a hold of yourself.........

I take offense when someone calls me out and out a liar...I guess I should expect that though.

 

[HitchSlap]

So when all of you said I was intellectually dishonest in your posts you were trying to make me feel quilt?

No, just pointing out the fact you were being intellectually dishonest.

 

[HitchSlap]

So now you are calling me a liar?

What else would you call someone who knowingly misrepresents their position?

Come now OD, quit feigning ignorance.

 

[Black Akuma]

So when all of you said I was intellectually dishonest in your posts you were trying to make me feel quilt?

Why would we want to make you feel a quilt? Though I do recommend that. Feeling a quilt. Quite soothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are observations that are consistent with a belief in God, but nothing objective that I can think of. Plenty of subjective evidence which is suitable for personal belief but can't be transferred to others. The lack of objectivity doesn't bother me, if I am brutally honest, because I have personal experience to lean on.

Just being honest.

That's fine, so long as you recognise that you can't find epistemic fault in those who do not share your beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

That's fine, so long as you recognise that you can't find epistemic fault in those who do not share your beliefs.

Exactly and Sayre would appear to be above that.

What I would compare this to, is astrology. Some folks swear by astrology and rely on it, although there is no objective evidence to support the claims. If someone does not believe in astrology claims, should the person who does be surprised by this?

It would appear that some christians are shocked and appalled that some people do not agree with them on their faith. I believe I understand why and they will just have to get over it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If that is what you have garnered through our conversation you didn't understand what I was claiming. We do know that the universe had a beginning. We have a multitude of different fields that provide us with evidence to support that conclusion. Objective scientific evidence that supports the universe had a beginning. The claim being made is that if God exists and claims that the universe had a beginning and we find that is true that supports His existence. If we had objective evidence that supported a conclusion that the universe has no beginning and has existed forever then that would falsify that claim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs

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.

How did God cause the universe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly and Sayre would appear to be above that.

What I would compare this to, is astrology. Some folks swear by astrology and rely on it, although there is no objective evidence to support the claims. If someone does not believe in astrology claims, should the person who does be surprised by this?

It would appear that some christians are shocked and appalled that some people do not agree with them on their faith. I believe I understand why and they will just have to get over it.

On that note, I highly recommend this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RX4Lug7wv4

 

[bhsmte]

On that note, I highly recommend this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RX4Lug7wv4

I have watched about a dozen of Craig's debates and virtually everyone is a carbon copy of what he said in previous debates.

Craig is a terrific debater, he just doesn't have the evidence on his side and he has to rely on smoke screens, misrepresenting what the other sides position is and other tricks to garner points. The debate in which he actually presented a mathematical formula to show the resurrection of Jesus was true, give one a clue as to the cahoonies this guy has.

My favorite though, was his debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame, in which Craig got his rear end handed to him by Harris and also a person in the audience, who posed a question that Craig refused to address.

 

[MarkT]

Yes, so why do you reject Leprechauns when there is obvious objective evidence in the form of rainbows? Houses point to a builder, and rainbows point to a rainbow maker.

Because your premise is false. Leprechauns do not make rainbows.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because your premise is false. Leprechauns do not make rainbows.

And your premise is false. Christian gods do make universes.

 

[Old Ned]

Because your premise is false. Leprechauns do not make rainbows.

Can you prove that?

How do you think Rainbows are made?

 

[FredHoyle]

Christian gods do make universes.

I thought everyone knew that and it must be true because a lot of people believe it so there...

 

[CabVet]

Because your premise is false. Leprechauns do not make rainbows.

And you expect us to believe, based on your word only, that a deity (your deity) is capable of creating the universe. Yeah, right.

Meanwhile, not a shred of objective evidence supporting the existence of God was presented so far.

 

[MarkT]

And you expect us to believe, based on your word only, that a deity (your deity) is capable of creating the universe. Yeah, right.

Meanwhile, not a shred of objective evidence supporting the existence of God was presented so far.

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the Bible. I wasn't there in the beginning. The LORD was.

By the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water. It's something to think about.