Objective evidence of God

[Loudmouth]

Evidence must be seen. It's there, but you can't see it because you have closed your eyes.

Closed my eyes to what?

The creation points to a Creator. The thing made to its Maker.

That is a claim. That is not objective evidence.

 

[MarkT]

Closed my eyes to what?



That is a claim. That is not objective evidence.

To the evidence. Might an intelligent living God create intelligent living creatures?

 

[Loudmouth]

To the evidence.

What evidence?

Might an intelligent living God create intelligent living creatures?

What evidence do you have that a living God did create intelligent living creatures?

 

[MarkT]

What evidence?



What evidence do you have that a living God did create intelligent living creatures?

The existence of intelligent living creatures.

 

[Loudmouth]

The existence of intelligent living creatures.

What evidence demonstrates that intelligent living creatures are the product of a supernatural deity?

 

[MarkT]

What evidence demonstrates that intelligent living creatures are the product of a supernatural deity?

If you did not know what a gun was and you came across a person with gunshot wounds, the evidence would not tell you anything. So even though the evidence exists you can not know he was shot by a gun. Objective evidence requires a priori knowledge or it doesn't tell you anything. Doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

 

[kevinmaynard]

If you did not know what a gun was and you came across a person with gunshot wounds, the evidence would not tell you anything. So even though the evidence exists you can not know he was shot by a gun. Objective evidence requires a priori knowledge or it doesn't tell you anything. Doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

Not true. One could easily deduce the existence of a gun from seeing someone shot with a gun even with out ever having seen a gun.

One could see holes. Upon examining the holes one would look for what made the holes. That would lead to finding the bullet. Examining the bullet would show that it had passed through something leaving marks from the gun. One could surmise something must have propelled the bullet. One could examine to see if propellant is still on the bullet that would show gun powder.

So essentially one could deduce a gun exists, and with enough time could probably even deduce the type of gun used, based other evidence.

 

[MarkT]

I'm looking forward to your explanation. star dust right?

 

[MarkT]

Not true. One could easily deduce the existence of a gun from seeing someone shot with a gun even with out ever having seen a gun.

One could see holes. Upon examining the holes one would look for what made the holes. That would lead to finding the bullet. Examining the bullet would show that it had passed through something leaving marks from the gun. One could surmise something must have propelled the bullet. One could examine to see if propellant is still on the bullet that would show gun powder.

So essentially one could deduce a gun exists, and with enough time could probably even deduce the type of gun used, based other evidence.

You don't know what a gun is. You have never seen someone shot with a gun.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you did not know what a gun was and you came across a person with gunshot wounds, the evidence would not tell you anything.

Yes, it would. The blood spatter pattern could give you the velocity of the bullet, as would the deformation of the bullet. The striations on the bullet would tell you that it came out of a hollow tube that had to be harder than the casing of the bullet in order to create the striations. The chemical residue on the bullet would tell you the chemical makeup of the propellant.

From this objective evidence, you could reconstruct how the bullet was accelerated into the body.

So how do we do the same thing with life? How do we take the characteristics of life and follow it to the conclusion that life was created by a deity?

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't know what a gun is. You have never seen someone shot with a gun.

You don't need to know what a gun is in order to determine the velocity of the bullet, what it came out of, nor the chemicals that made it go. You can determine all of that from the objective evidence.

 

[TillICollapse]

*deleted* ... wrong thread, sorry lol ....

 

[Viren]

no-thing

 

[MarkT]

Yes, it would. The blood spatter pattern could give you the velocity of the bullet, as would the deformation of the bullet. The striations on the bullet would tell you that it came out of a hollow tube that had to be harder than the casing of the bullet in order to create the striations. The chemical residue on the bullet would tell you the chemical makeup of the propellant.

From this objective evidence, you could reconstruct how the bullet was accelerated into the body.

So how do we do the same thing with life? How do we take the characteristics of life and follow it to the conclusion that life was created by a deity?

You are using a priori knowledge of a gun. Let's say the bullet passed through the victim. All you can see is the wound.

 

[CabVet]

You are using a priori knowledge of a gun. Let's say the bullet passed through the victim. All you can see is the wound.

You don't assume the cause is supernatural just because you don't know what the cause is.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are using a priori knowledge of a gun.

No, I'm not. All of the objective evidence I point to can be determined with zero knowledge of what a gun is.

Let's say the bullet passed through the victim. All you can see is the wound.

Yes, and the wound will show how much force it took to produce the wound, the density of the weapon that produced the wound, and the cross section of the weapon. The bullet left from the wound will tell you that it was in contact with a metal tube as shown by the striations on the sides of the bullet. The chemical traces on the bullet will tell you the chemical make up of the propellant. The damage that the bullet does, as well as the deformation of the bullet, will tell you the velocity it was travelling at. All of this can be determined without knowing what a gun is.

 

[MarkT]

No, I'm not. All of the objective evidence I point to can be determined with zero knowledge of what a gun is.



Yes, and the wound will show how much force it took to produce the wound, the density of the weapon that produced the wound, and the cross section of the weapon. The bullet left from the wound will tell you that it was in contact with a metal tube as shown by the striations on the sides of the bullet. The chemical traces on the bullet will tell you the chemical make up of the propellant. The damage that the bullet does, as well as the deformation of the bullet, will tell you the velocity it was travelling at. All of this can be determined without knowing what a gun is.

All you have is a wound and a piece of metal.

 

[CabVet]

All you have is a wound and a piece of metal.

That's one wound and one piece of metal more evidence than what you have for the existence of God.

 

[MarkT]

No, I'm not. All of the objective evidence I point to can be determined with zero knowledge of what a gun is.



Yes, and the wound will show how much force it took to produce the wound, the density of the weapon that produced the wound, and the cross section of the weapon. The bullet left from the wound will tell you that it was in contact with a metal tube as shown by the striations on the sides of the bullet. The chemical traces on the bullet will tell you the chemical make up of the propellant. The damage that the bullet does, as well as the deformation of the bullet, will tell you the velocity it was travelling at. All of this can be determined without knowing what a gun is.

It is evident from your argument that you have a knowledge of guns.

 

[MarkT]

That's one wound and one piece of metal more evidence than what you have for the existence of God.

How about the existence of an earth inhabited by intelligent creatures?