Objective evidence of God

[Oncedeceived]

[/i]
That excerpt was not intended to address the origin of the cosmos. That would be a "quote mine".

He said that the materials of the stars were not made at the beginning of time which is a false statement, and does indeed suggest that he is talking about the origin of the cosmos. IF you would like to show context of the quote is incorrect then by all means provide the rest of the material this quote was taken from. This is a stand alone quote that I got when I looked for articles from Krauss. IF I am wrong about what he is saying by missing something in the full discussion from which this quote was taken, then certainly I will admit my mistake.

Sure. Why not?

So why should we care what he has to say?

 

[Old Ned]

LOL No one will answer the question, that's hysterical

So I guess we have to assume the answer is "No, there is no Testable, Objective evidence for God"

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually it does require God.

Based on what objective evidence?

He gave us the intelligence and the ability to make chocolate pudding.

That is a claim, not objective evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

He said that the materials of the stars were not made at the beginning of time which is a false statement,

That is a true statement. There wasn't any hydrogen or helium until after our universe came into existence.

 

[ChetSinger]

They used to say the same thing about new species. Evolution didn't falsify the existence of God, so I doubt abiogenesis would either.

Perhaps you're right: the observation of abiogenesis won't necessarily mean life here began that way. But it would be evidence in favor of it.

Imo, I believe the point is moot because we'll never see it.

 

[MarkT]

How so?

Look. I'm talking to you. You're reading my post. Is that a fact or a hypothesis? Did I write the post?

 

[ChetSinger]

You need to present evidence to support your first premise.

I think our biosphere surrounds us with evidence: many living things exist, but none have ever been observed to begin.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think our biosphere surrounds us with evidence: many living things exist, but none have ever been observed to begin.

... therefore god?

 

[MarkT]

Based on what objective evidence?



That is a claim, not objective evidence.

Yes. It is objective evidence. Somebody made it and it was made by someone who knew how to make it. Now the question is who made it not how did it make itself. The hypothesis that it made itself is kind of ridiculous.

 

[ChetSinger]

Of course. And because this hasn't been accomplished yet, does not mean it was God that did it, by default.

Science has discovered quite a lot about the universe and earth over the last 100 years and I would anticipate science figuring out a few other things in due time.

Of course. But an interesting fact is that the more we discover about life, the harder I think abiogenesis is to believe. The goalposts keep getting moved further away, century by century. For example:

1. Naturalists in Europe once believed in spontaneous generation, contrary to church teaching that all living things came from parents. Then spontaneous generation was debunked by Louis Pasteur.
2. Charles Darwin's generation thought that cells were little blobs that could be assembled without difficulty. Then we began learning about cellular chemistry.
3. In the 1950s, the Miller-Urey experiment was thought to demonstrate that abiogenesis wouldn't be so difficult to duplicate. Then we discovered DNA.
4. Until recently, our genome was thought to be almost completely made of leftover evolutionary junk. Now, we've already discovered millions of gene-control switches among the "junk". And every year reveals more detail about our DNA, such as multiple layers of information interleaved in the same space.

I think fields such as molecular biology are one of today's ways of perceiving our creator, as Paul 2,000 years ago said could be done.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes. It is objective evidence. Somebody made it and it was made by someone who knew how to make it. Now the question is who made it not how did it make itself. The hypothesis that it made itself is kind of ridiculous.

Er, didn't god make itself?

 

[ChetSinger]

... therefore god?

Given our increasing knowledge of what's going on inside living things, then yes, I think the evidence points to a supernatural origin.

 

[Old Ned]

Given our increasing knowledge of what's going on inside living things, then yes, I think the evidence points to a supernatural origin.

How?.... Why?

 

[MarkT]

Er, didn't god make itself?

No. God is the source.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. God is the source.

Based on what objective evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think our biosphere surrounds us with evidence: many living things exist, but none have ever been observed to begin.

That's strange. Many christians have told me that life begins at conception. Last I checked, conception does not involve God.

 

[Old Ned]

Based on what objective evidence?

Dude, it's 28 pages and no one has answered that yet. They just keep saying random things.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look. I'm talking to you. You're reading my post. Is that a fact or a hypothesis? Did I write the post?

What is the objective evidence supporting the existence of God?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. It is objective evidence. Somebody made it and it was made by someone who knew how to make it.

That is an assertion. That is not objective evidence.

What objective evidence do you have which demonstrates that God made anything?

Now the question is who made it not how did it make itself. The hypothesis that it made itself is kind of ridiculous.

Do waves make themselves? Does lightning make itself? Do clouds make themselves?

The answer to all of those is no. Does God make any of those things? No. Natural processes produce those things.

Just because something does not make itself in no way indicates that it had to be made by a supernatural deity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dude, it's 28 pages and no one has answered that yet. They just keep saying random things.

Protons.