Objective evidence of God

[Loudmouth]

First of all rainbows are objective evidence that can be used to support theories or conclusions. So yes, it is objective evidence. Do I believe that it support the existence of Leprechauns? Where does the claim originate that Leprechauns make rainbows?

It's in the first premise.

Leprechauns create rainbows.

 

[Oncedeceived]

See? You need further corroboration for the Leprechauns. Just as the rainbow is not evidence, in itself, for the existence of Leprechauns, neither is the existence of the universe sufficient to prove God.

Then just say that. Do claim that it isn't evidence because it is. You might feel it is sufficient for you to believe that God exists but it is evidence. If I only had that evidence it might not be for me either. But it is a step, it is evidence that supports the conclusion. Do you see what I am saying?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then just say that. Do claim that it isn't evidence because it is.

Then rainbows are evidence of Leprechauns.

 

[46AND2]

It could be. It is a valid argument is it not? Do I feel it is sufficient evidence, no. Why? Is there any evidence other than this to justify it as being true? Does anybody in the world today believe that he really existed or have physical evidence to support that he did? So while thunder and lightening might support the existence of Thor there is no other convincing evidence for me to conclude that Thor exists. I would also ask for what authority the source of claim had. Where did the claim originate? That is a piece that would be considered.

The point of a logical argument is to bring the philosopher to a solitary conclusion, without the need to weigh independent data. Indeed, the independent data should be encompassed by the argument.

As such, no, it is not a valid argument.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then science is in big trouble. We say in the scientific realm:

If A is true then we predict C. This holds true with my claim as well.

If A (God) is true then we predict C (universe has a beginning)
C is true
A is true

So, based on your assertion, you can replace "God" with "Bob," and it's still true?

 

[CabVet]

It could be. It is a valid argument is it not?

No, it is not a valid argument and cannot be presented as objective evidence. The proper word for that is circumstantial evidence (evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact). What I am asking for is objective (direct) evidence, I even said testable and physical in the OP.

Do I feel it is sufficient evidence, no. Why?

Because it is not objective.

Is there any evidence other than this to justify it as being true?

If you need to make that question, it simply means the evidence is not objective.

Does anybody in the world today believe that he really existed or have physical evidence to support that he did?

Even if every human in the planet believed that Thor existed, that would not be objective evidence for the existence of Thor.

So while thunder and lightening might support the existence of Thor there is no other convincing evidence for me to conclude that Thor exists. I would also ask for what authority the source of claim had. Where did the claim originate? That is a piece that would be considered.

And you are only asking this because the simple existence of something that is claimed to be created by Thor does not constitute objective evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"IF you dismiss everything presented as evidence as nothing that supports God out of hand then what are theist's suppose to think?"

Once, this statement really tells a lot about how single focused you are on trying so desperately, to support your belief to yourself.

Are people supposed to ignore the fact that evidence needs to be objective, just because theists choose to believe in something that does not have any objective evidence to support?

Science and objective evidence doesn't care what people think, nor should it, because it would cease to be objective.

bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective. Your issue is not the evidence it is the claim.

 

[bhsmte]

Then just say that. Do claim that it isn't evidence because it is. You might feel it is sufficient for you to believe that God exists but it is evidence. If I only had that evidence it might not be for me either. But it is a step, it is evidence that supports the conclusion. Do you see what I am saying?

Once,

All that have made their position clear (numerous times) on the issue of objective evidence and God have done so. Now, it appears to be at that point where your efforts to keep on with this, are to convince yourself, because what others are saying, doesn't appear to be sinking in.

 

[Loudmouth]

bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective.

All you have shown is that the universe is objective. You have not shown that it is evidence of your claims.

Something can be objective while not being evidence. That is what you continually ignore.

 

[HitchSlap]

OD, did you read #499?

 

[HitchSlap]

bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective. Your issue is not the evidence it is the claim.

Your evidence is solid. It's your answer that's invalid.

 

[CabVet]

bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective. Your issue is not the evidence it is the claim.

Why present evidence at all if it does not support your claim?

 

[bhsmte]

bhsmte, I don't care if you don't think the evidence provided supports my claims or my conclusions that is fine. The evidence is objective. Your issue is not the evidence it is the claim.

You know what my issue is; the objective evidence does not objectively point to God, just as it does not point to Zeuss or Thor or the Jolly Green Giant.

If it does for you, than knock your socks off and you should be fine with letting it go at that.

 

[HitchSlap]

If OD reads my post #499, it should help clear a few things up for her.

 

[Queller]

Then science is in big trouble. We say in the scientific realm:

If A is true then we predict C. This holds true with my claim as well.

If A (God) is true then we predict C (universe has a beginning)
C is true
A is true

Please show me a scientific theory that presupposes its conclusion the way you have just done.

BTW, nothing about the universe having a beginning is evidence for a god having caused it. Especially not the Christian God because it could be the Hindu God Brahma, the Greek God Zeus, or the Norse God, Odin.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it is not a valid argument and cannot be presented as objective evidence. The proper word for that is circumstantial evidence (evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact). What I am asking for is objective (direct) evidence, I even said testable and physical in the OP.

The evidence is objective regardless. If you want to have me say that we have objective evidence that circumstantially supports God I can accept that.

Because it is not objective.

Yes it is.

If you need to make that question, it simply means the evidence is not objective.

No, it means that the evidence is not sufficient in itself to convince me of the claim being made.

Even if every human in the planet believed that Thor existed, that would not be objective evidence for the existence of Thor.

I agree.

And you are only asking this because the simple existence of something that is claimed to be created by Thor does not constitute objective evidence.

No, I am asking what I am asking due to the fact that the evidence being cited is not sufficient to convince me of the conclusion.

 

[bhsmte]

Why present evidence at all if it does not support your claim?

It appears Once will feel better if she has acknowledgement that the universe is objective evidence by itself. Just as a dead body with three gunshot wounds is objective evidence in a murder case. Never mind whether the objective evidence supports whether a specific person committed the crime, it is still objective evidence, right?

 

[CabVet]

If OD reads my post #499, it should help clear a few things up for her.

I agree. Here, to make things easier: post #499.

 

[Queller]

First of all rainbows are objective evidence that can be used to support theories or conclusions. So yes, it is objective evidence. Do I believe that it support the existence of Leprechauns? Where does the claim originate that Leprechauns make rainbows?

How is a rainbow objective evidence for Leprechauns? Spell it out for me specifically because I don't get it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please show me a scientific theory that presupposes its conclusion the way you have just done.

BTW, nothing about the universe having a beginning is evidence for a god having caused it. Especially not the Christian God because it could be the Hindu God Brahma, the Greek God Zeus, or the Norse God, Odin.

IF evolution is true we predict that we will find genetic similarities between life forms.