Objective evidence of God

[Loudmouth]

We have been through this before. You can claim that the evidence doesn't support the existence of God, but you can't claim the evidence is not objective. Please, its not that difficult to understand.

If it doesn't support God, then it isn't objective evidence of God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If it doesn't support God, then it isn't objective evidence of God.

What do you mean objective evidence of God?

 

[Old Ned]

Can you provide a valid point against my argument? #194. I would be interested in knowing what logical fault you can find in it.

Yes. Quantum Mechanics. What you propose was missing the idea of "something from nothing". Which actually has some evidence to back it up. Testable evidence.
Your point is being tested and they are not finding evidence for God, quite the opposite.

Your point also proves nothing at all, it's an assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have been through this before. You can claim that the evidence doesn't support the existence of God, but you can't claim the evidence is not objective. Please, its not that difficult to understand.

If I can claim that then by definition it is not objective evidence.

Perhaps we need to tighten the request for scientific evidence. Of course it is very easy to show that there is not one whit of evidence for any gods or for creationism either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do we? If everything that ever existed was created when the universe began, . . .

I wasn't there. You weren't there. The Earth wasn't there. The Milky Way wasn't there. None of the structures we see today were there at the beginning of the Universe.

Also, you are ignoring the possibility that the Universe sits within a larger structure that is just as natural as the Earth.

Regardless of that logic, you are ignoring the fact that everything that we know the physical cause of is based on the laws of physics that again were created at the same time of the universe.

You are ignoring the possibility that the physical laws came about through a mindless process that is equivalent to the production of lightning.

 

[Loudmouth]

However God claims the heavens declare His existence.

That is what the Bible claims, not God. Also, you have not presented objective evidence demonstrating that the claims in the Bible are accurate.

However, I agree that anyone can deny evidence if it doesn't point to what they personally believe.

You are giving us empty assertions, not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh really? Make your case.

We could start with the 600 plus contradictions in the Christian Bible.

Let's see you find any flaws in Pastafarianism.

 

[bhsmte]

If the existence of the physical universe isn't objective, I don't know what is.

I didn't state the existence of the physical universe is not objective. I stated there is nothing objective that points the existence of the physical universe to a God.

 

[ChetSinger]

A tacit admission that creation by God is not being treated scientifically or objectively.

Of course not. Creation can't be treated scientifically because supernatural events can't be subjected to the scientific method. But a natural event such as abiogenesis should be able to be.

Also, I have yet to see any probability calculations for abiogenesis, and frankly I don't see how they could be calculated since we don't have any clue as to all of the potential pathways for abiogenesis.

You have yet to show that it isn't feasible naturally, and you have supplied zero evidence that God did anything.

If you're up on the subject you're aware of how desperate the situation regarding abiogenesis has become. So desperate, in fact, that a forward thinker such as Eugene Koonin is now on record as appealing to the multiverse to get it done. He's undoubtedly a very sharp guy, far sharper than myself, yet even he doesn't seem able to make the probabilities work.

Guys, the ball's in your court. Cook up some life and win your Nobel. But I think we all know, deep in our hearts, that it isn't going to happen.

As an aside, which came first: the proteins that repair DNA damage or the DNA which just so happens to contain the assembly instructions for those very same proteins? According to the findings of the Minimal Genome Project, if you can solve that dilemma in a test tube 371 times, simultaneously, you might have the beginnings of a cell. But if you can solve it only 370 times, then sorry, no cell.

 

[bhsmte]

No. God is the source.

Who made God?

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not. Creation can't be treated scientifically because supernatural events can't be subjected to the scientific method.

Then you are admitting that there is no objective evidence of God. If there is objective evidence then we can apply the scientific method.

If you're up on the subject you're aware of how desperate the situation regarding abiogenesis has become. So desperate, in fact, that a forward thinker such as Eugene Koonin is now on record as appealing to the multiverse to get it done. He's undoubtedly a very sharp guy, yet even he doesn't seem able to make the probabilities work.

I am still not seeing any objective evidence to back your claims. All I am seeing is empty assertions.

As an aside, which came first, the proteins that repair DNA damage or the DNA which just so happens to contain the assembly instructions for those very same proteins?

Why would the first life require proteins or DNA? RNA can act as both a genetic molecule and as an enzyme which fills the roles of both DNA and proteins.

According to the findings of the Minimal Genome Project, if you can solve that dilemma in a test tube 371 times, simultaneously, you might have the beginnings of a cell. But if you can solve it only 370 times, then sorry, no cell.

The minimal genome project only applies to modern life that has evolved over 4 billion years, not abiogenesis.

 

[bhsmte]

It's a fact not an assertion. What governs your reasoning? Fact or fantasy?



The physical universe includes the forces that hold it together, the laws that govern motion, gravity, etc.

Everything that exists came into existence by the word of God, by his knowledge, by his understanding, and one day it is going to dissolve into nothingness.

BTW that's a prediction not a hypothesis.

You can keep typing what you like, but you still have provided no objective evidence to show God created the universe.

 

[46AND2]

Let's take ED's premise which I believe from what he is saying is this:

The universe exists. That is an objective fact. It stands alone. No one other than those that think everything is an illusion will agree. So this is an objective fact that can be used for a multitude of differing theories and beliefs. So we have this universe that we all agree exists, now we must determine what best explains its existence. There are three explanations that we can think of that can contribute to the universe and its existence.

1. It always has existed.
2. It created itself.
3. It was created by something else outside of itself.

1. Science has determined that the universe had a beginning and that nothing existed before it.

Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmologist, says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

2. Nothing comes from nothing. How would the universe which didn't exist prior to existing create itself?

3. Number 3 is the only answer that fits with reality and scientific discovery.

If something outside of the universe created the universe, that something had to have certain attributes:

1. Creative power. IF the universe was indeed created it had to be created from something or someone.
2. Had to be eternal. IF not eternal, then there would be a limit to how far back this creative force could go before we are back to the same question.
3. Has to explain how the laws of physics of the universe are the way they are and how they arose themselves.


This evidence supports the existence of God by the claims that the Bible makes for God. That God is eternal and has always existed. HE is an intelligent being that has creative power to create the universe. He is an intelligent being who can make rules that the universe would contain. He has an intelligent mind which could provide a mathematical intelligible universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence that supports God's existence. This is one piece of evidence that supports His existence.

You wanted a critique of your post 194.

1. Number 1 has not been proven, as you suggest.
2. We don't know that nothing comes from nothing. In fact, we have evidence that this is NOT the case. Lawrence Krauss explains this well.
3. Since one and two have not been adequately eliminated, number three cannot be accepted by default. Furthermore, even if it could be, it does not mean the Christian God was the creator. It could have been some other god, it could have been a natural event outside of the universe.

Your other 3 assertions are not logical assertions:

1. The creation of the universe does not necessarily require a someone or something with a creative mind. How have you eliminated an as yet unknown natural beginning for the universe?

2. Did not have to be eternal. Yes, there might be a regression. How have you eliminated some kind of regression, wherein the universe was created through natural means, and those natural means were created through some other natural means and so on?

3. A sentient creator is not necessary to explain why the rules of physics work the way they do. They could very well be a natural result of natural conditions. You are merely asserting that someone or something had to create these rules. How have you eliminated the possibility of them arising naturally?

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, lightening is part of the universe and is a result thereof.

So why can't our universe be the result of a larger mindless and natural structure in the same way that lightning is a part of a larger universe?

Cause and effect are the laws of physics that rule the universe but the universe and the laws that rule it were not in existence prior to the beginning of the universe.

Lightning was not existent prior to the formation of thunderclouds. Lightning is still natural.

 

[MarkT]

You can keep typing what you like, but you still have provided no objective evidence to show God created the universe.

Well someone created the universe. It didn't create itself.

 

[biggles53]

Well someone created the universe. It didn't create itself.

How do you know it didn't...?

Or, how do you know it didn't always exist...?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well someone created the universe. It didn't create itself.

Lightning doesn't create itself, so does it require a someone to make it? Why does the inability to create itself require a someone?

 

[Sayre]

Krauss doesn't have a consensus on the idea that something can come from nothing, even with his atheist science peers. There are tons of refutations online... some good and some bad. But I don't think it is considered a solid theory just yet. Remember, a vacuum is not nothing.

 

[46AND2]

Krauss doesn't have a consensus on the idea that something can come from nothing, even with his atheist science peers. There are tons of refutations online... some good and some bad. But I don't think it is considered a solid theory just yet. Remember, a vacuum is not nothing.

Doesn't need to have a consensus. I'm not stating that something definitely can come from nothing; just that we don't know for certain that nothing can come from nothing...or even that "nothing" has ever actually existed...or didn't exist...or whatever. ;-)

 

[FredHoyle]

Well someone created the universe. It didn't create itself.

SOMEONE? What a stupid thing to say.