Objective evidence of God

[Sayre]

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. ;-)

OK ... uncertainty I can deal with.

I don't think we know for sure either way.

 

[ChetSinger]

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

No, I didn't admit that. Because while the creation itself wasn't observed by us, the results of it can be. And I think the sheer complexity of even the simplest life defies it's naturalistic creation and is evidence for deliberate creation.

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

That's OK, I don't expect us to agree.

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.

Hypothesizing is fine, but that's only the beginning of scientific investigation. Scientific conclusions are based on experimentation, observation, and repeatability. Try browsing Eugene Koonin's paper. Googling his name and "multiverse" will find it. It sounds like he's been frustrated by the RNA world and is resorting to the "infinite multiverse" and the "cosmological model of eternal inflation". I have to admit I admire him for his honesty and tenaciousness.

Should someone actually turn a strand of RNA into a cell I'm certain we'll all hear of it. Until then, the idea is just a hypothesis. And making hypotheses is the easy part.

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

What the minimal genome projects are demonstrating is that there must be hundreds of distinct proteins being created to keep the simplest cell alive, even in an ideal medium.

Why in the world do cells require so many proteins? Here's one reason:

Did you know that DNA is easily damaged and must be regularly repaired for a cell to survive? Here's one of the repair mechanisms that I think is cool. It involves two separate proteins. They clamp down onto the DNA strand in separate places and one of them fires an electron at the other. If the second one receives it, the DNA is fine and the proteins disconnect (unbroken DNA conducts electricity). If the second one doesn't receive it, it "walks" down the DNA until it finds the broken piece and repairs it. Cool, huh?

Without such mechanisms, a cell's DNA will not maintain it's integrity and the cell will not remain viable. So for cellular life, many such things must be in place. I don't think their natural assembly is even remotely possible, therefore they were assembled purposefully.

 

[bhsmte]

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

We don't know how it was created.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't and how one can say something has evidence and how someone else says its not. What amazes me is that I've know anti-theists for many many years in debates and can honestly say that the sentiment has always been about the same but the respect for science and science methodology was always always keep at the highest standard of objectivity. Science was not about ideology or putting one more nail in God's coffin but about discovery and a search for truth.

In trying to kill off God I am seeing the last gasps in a dying realm that has lead us to the greatest heights in mankind's endeavor for making better lives through the quest of knowledge and understanding. I now see science not as a great institution of objectivity and research to provide a path to where ever it leads but an ideological bully pulpit that has as its main goal to silence religion and once and for all put God in His long sought after grave. Truth and objectivity, physical and experimental have taken the back seat to the philosophy of anti-theism and its mighty push to relieve man's need for a god. It truly is a dark day. It truly is a dark day for those who aspire to truth and discovery. It is a dark day but not for religion or for those of us that believe in God but for those who would rather kill science than let God live.

 

[bhsmte]

I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't and how one can say something has evidence and how someone else says its not. What amazes me is that I've know anti-theists for many many years in debates and can honestly say that the sentiment has always been about the same but the respect for science and science methodology was always always keep at the highest standard of objectivity. Science was not about ideology or putting one more nail in God's coffin but about discovery and a search for truth.

In trying to kill off God I am seeing the last gasps in a dying realm that has lead us to the greatest heights in mankind's endeavor for making better lives through the quest of knowledge and understanding. I now see science not as a great institution of objectivity and research to provide a path to where ever it leads but an ideological bully pulpit that has as its main goal to silence religion and once and for all put God in His long sought after grave. Truth and objectivity, physical and experimental have taken the back seat to the philosophy of anti-theism and its mighty push to relieve man's need for a god. It truly is a dark day. It truly is a dark day for those who aspire to truth and discovery. It is a dark day but not for religion or for those of us that believe in God but for those who would rather kill science than let God live.

The truth can be painful Once.

If you want to claim those who rely on objective evidence before drawing a conclusion are trying to "kill off God", that tells me more about how irrational you are being in regards to respecting the fact that some disagree with you absent this evidence.

And Once, many smart people before you, have tried to claim they had objective evidence of God and they have all failed, so don't feel bad. As I have always said, there is nothing wrong with believing on faith and I am always baffled why so many christians aren't willing to make this simple admission - they believe on faith.

 

[FredHoyle]

Type 'crazy Christians' into YouTube and see what comes up, it will make you proud to be a Christian.

 

[Old Ned]

I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't and how one can say something has evidence and how someone else says its not. What amazes me is that I've know anti-theists for many many years in debates and can honestly say that the sentiment has always been about the same but the respect for science and science methodology was always always keep at the highest standard of objectivity. Science was not about ideology or putting one more nail in God's coffin but about discovery and a search for truth.

In trying to kill off God I am seeing the last gasps in a dying realm that has lead us to the greatest heights in mankind's endeavor for making better lives through the quest of knowledge and understanding. I now see science not as a great institution of objectivity and research to provide a path to where ever it leads but an ideological bully pulpit that has as its main goal to silence religion and once and for all put God in His long sought after grave. Truth and objectivity, physical and experimental have taken the back seat to the philosophy of anti-theism and its mighty push to relieve man's need for a god. It truly is a dark day. It truly is a dark day for those who aspire to truth and discovery. It is a dark day but not for religion or for those of us that believe in God but for those who would rather kill science than let God live.

No one here is trying to disprove God, science does not try that either.
Science shows us the evidence that this or that happens.

In this thread, the Original Question was "Is there any testable, objective evidence for god?"

No one including yourself has offered up any so far.

You asked me to give a valid point to your argument being wrong, I gave you one. You don't like it and then tell us about how you think Science is trying to disprove god and how you don't like it any more.

That's still not answering the question, you either can or can't offer up evidence for god that is both testable and objective.

 

[CabVet]

I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't

You will find it very confirming to read a dictionary then. There are several other definitions there, not just that of objective evidence.

As Old Ned said above, this thread is not about disproving God. Scientifically, this is possible (and so is disproving Zeus and Santa Claus). All I am asking is if there is objective evidence supporting the existence of God. And so far, none was presented, not even by those who claimed that there was a lot of it.

 

[CabVet]

As I have always said, there is nothing wrong with believing on faith and I am always baffled why so many christians aren't willing to make this simple admission - they believe on faith.

Exactly, and the only person I have seen make this admission was AV.

 

[MarkT]

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

Who else? if we can create things like cars and airplanes, it stands to reason that God can create a universe.

 

[HitchSlap]

Type 'crazy Christians' into YouTube and see what comes up, it will make you proud to be a Christian.

*cringe

Crazy Christian Nonsense - YouTube

 

[MarkT]

SOMEONE? What a stupid thing to say.

It's what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him.

 

[bhsmte]

Who else? if we can create things like cars and airplanes, it stands to reason that God can create a universe.

A God may be able to, yes. Now, just show us objective evidence this is how the universe was created.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because while the creation itself wasn't observed by us, the results of it can be. And I think the sheer complexity of even the simplest life defies it's naturalistic creation and is evidence for deliberate creation.

You think? We are asking for objective evidence, not unfounded opinion.

Hypothesizing is fine, but that's only the beginning of scientific investigation.

The hypothesis IS the scientific investigation. The hypothesis is the most important part of the scientific method.

Scientific conclusions are based on experimentation, observation, and repeatability. Try browsing Eugene Koonin's paper. Googling his name and "multiverse" will find it. It sounds like he's been frustrated by the RNA world and is resorting to the "infinite multiverse" and the "cosmological model of eternal inflation". I have to admit I admire him for his honesty and tenaciousness.

Should someone actually turn a strand of RNA into a cell I'm certain we'll all hear of it. Until then, the idea is just a hypothesis. And making hypotheses is the easy part.

Until you find out if RNA can be used to create simple life then you can not claim anything about probabilities.

What the minimal genome projects are demonstrating is that there must be hundreds of distinct proteins being created to keep the simplest cell alive, even in an ideal medium.

It is not the simplest cell. Not even close. They are taking genes away from organisms that have been evolving for 4 billion years. They are far from simple.

Why in the world do cells require so many proteins? Here's one reason:

Because they have evolved interdependent systems over the last 4 billion years. Why do cities in first world countries require so much electricity? 300 years ago, cities had no electricity whatsoever. However, if you shut the power off to a modern city for a few days you get chaos. Why is that? It is due to the fact that operations of the city have become interdependent on the presence of electricity. It is the same in life.

Did you know that DNA is easily damaged and must be regularly repaired for a cell to survive?

You haven't shown that DNA is required for abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

In the end, you have an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy. Even if we don't know how universes come about, that in no way evidences God. This is often called the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The truth can be painful Once.

The truth bhsmte? Who's truth...yours or mine? Truth can be painful but what is more painful is when there is no objective truth but just what is true for you or what is true for me.

If you want to claim those who rely on objective evidence before drawing a conclusion are trying to "kill off God", that tells me more about how irrational you are being in regards to respecting the fact that some disagree with you absent this evidence.

Really, those who want to rely on objective evidence before drawing a conclusion? It is one thing for you and I or any of the theists or non-theists to reach conclusions based on objective evidence however it is another thing for those in the highest positions in science to leave objectivity behind and crusade against God, and not even just any ol'god but the Christian God specifically. Where in science is there room for religious or non-religious motives? I have joined in the past with those unbeliever's that spoke out against those in the religious community that would alter or spin facts to suit their agendas. Science was to be held to a higher standard than one man's one religion's ideology. Krauss's goal should be to find an answer and leave the philosophy of religion to those in those fields. I ask how is Krauss any better than any person that makes metaphysical declarations citing the evidence to back it? Now if Krauss wants to share his personal worldview and take his evidence as support for that worldview then by all means outside of the scientific realm that is acceptable. It seems, and I am just now researching it so I could be wrong, but it seems that rather than his book and theory being scientific in nature it has a goal which is not scientific. That is to me wrong.

And Once, many smart people before you, have tried to claim they had objective evidence of God and they have all failed, so don't feel bad.

First of all, failed in what way? I think it is in the eye of the beholder perhaps. Regardless, I don't "feel bad" that my evidence is not accepted by all. What disturbs me are the arguments against it. The only one in this entire thread that gave any sort of good argumentation was 46AND2 and I wanted to jump through the screen and give him a big hug. Did he agree with me, no, but he gave his honest assessment of the argument and didn't just put it out there that there was no objective evidence. He needs an award for knowing the difference between objective evidence and that in which is used in support. KUDOS to him.

As I have always said, there is nothing wrong with believing on faith and I am always baffled why so many christians aren't willing to make this simple admission - they believe on faith.

Well there my not be anything wrong with it, but if someone doesn't have something to base that faith upon, I have to question their reasons for having it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't and how one can say something has evidence and how someone else says its not. What amazes me is that I've know anti-theists for many many years in debates and can honestly say that the sentiment has always been about the same but the respect for science and science methodology was always always keep at the highest standard of objectivity. Science was not about ideology or putting one more nail in God's coffin but about discovery and a search for truth.

In trying to kill off God I am seeing the last gasps in a dying realm that has lead us to the greatest heights in mankind's endeavor for making better lives through the quest of knowledge and understanding. I now see science not as a great institution of objectivity and research to provide a path to where ever it leads but an ideological bully pulpit that has as its main goal to silence religion and once and for all put God in His long sought after grave. Truth and objectivity, physical and experimental have taken the back seat to the philosophy of anti-theism and its mighty push to relieve man's need for a god. It truly is a dark day. It truly is a dark day for those who aspire to truth and discovery. It is a dark day but not for religion or for those of us that believe in God but for those who would rather kill science than let God live.

You still have not offered objective evidence of God. Play the persecution card all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have not produced the evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him.

Who are you to judge?

 

[MarkT]

A God may be able to, yes. Now, just show us objective evidence this is how the universe was created.

The universe is the evidence; an earth inhabited by intelligent living creatures.

As to how God created it, we are told he declared it and it was so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You wanted a critique of your post 194.

1. Number 1 has not been proven, as you suggest.

In fact I would say that it has been proven that it had a beginning would you not agree?

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.

Does he? He uses the quantum physics that were created when the universe came into being. From what I gather from his theory is that the vacuum states are the nothing that was something that was really nothing that created something. What I think he forgets is that this nothing really is something without being nothing. It really is from the something (the universe) that came from really nothing (void of anything even nothing).

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.

Even if you were to accept Krauss's nothing really being something, going back and farther and farther back then you have the same philosophical metaphysical you claim believers do. You also have the argument of turtles all the way down.

You claim that it could have been a natural event outside of the universe, if it were and is not known as of yet you remain in the same boat as the theist. In that you think there is support for your convictions, you have faith that it is true also in this case and so you believe what you believe.

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?

There is evidence that supports an intelligent creator. The universe has laws that can be intelligently observed and measured by mathematical equation. We have constants that are precise to the smallest percentage which have allowed life to evolve. We have distances that are precise to the smallest percentage to allow for the evolution of all life on earth. I could go on and on with the necessity of precision in many many areas of our universe. In the universe one thing is certain and that is that intelligence comes from intelligence. Our lives and the lives of other species of life support intelligent design rather than intelligence arising from a mindless, non-intelligent unguided process.

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?

So what started the regression? If we remain in the natural realm we don't see anything that doesn't have a first cause. In the natural realm nothing is self existing without cause.

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.

Explain natural conditions prior to natural conditions coming into existence?

You are merely asserting that someone or something had to create these rules. How have you eliminated the possibility of them arising naturally?

See above.