Objective evidence of God

[Subduction Zone]

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the Bible. I wasn't there in the beginning. The LORD was.

By the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water. It's something to think about.

But the Bible has been shown to be terribly flawed too.

With all of its flaws it is blasphemy to call it "the Word of God". It is also a breaking of the first two commandments.

You need to do a lot better than referring to the Bible for support.

 

[gungasnake]

Objctive, testable, physical evidence of God, is there any?

Sure: the simple fact that evolution doesn't work and there isn't any third option.

 

[MarkT]

But the Bible has been shown to be terribly flawed too.

With all of its flaws it is blasphemy to call it "the Word of God". It is also a breaking of the first two commandments.

You need to do a lot better than referring to the Bible for support.

The flaws are probably misconceptions. We could discuss it I suppose, but I don't want to hijack the thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flaws are probably misconceptions. We could discuss it I suppose, but I don't want to hijack the thread.

Nope. The flaws are clearly flaws.

But if you avoid using the Bible, at least as the supposed "Word Of God" that would be alright with me.

 

[CabVet]

Sure: the simple fact that evolution doesn't work and there isn't any third option.

Evolution does work, in front of our very eyes. But even if evolution was rejected today, that would not automatically make God the "correct" answer as there are many other alternatives. In other words, what you are presenting is a false dichotomy, and an incorrect one.

 

[gungasnake]

English Bibles contain a few mistranslations and there are instances in which something described in the Bible is so alien to modern experience that only a handful of scholars really know what is being described, but there are no deliberate falsehoods in the Bible and the Bible does not require belief in any sort of a trans-finite chain of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events as does evolution.

 

[gungasnake]

False dichotomy, not to mention that evolution does work.

No it doesn't. Once again there are entire categories of disproofs so gross that any real science theory would have been abandoned decades ago. Only ideologies and religious doctrines are defended despite all evidence as is evolution.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

• The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).
• The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...).
• The discovery of bioelectrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
• The question of irreducible complexity.
• The Haldane Dilemma.
• The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs, including soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types, and actual radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains yielding dates of 20K - 40K prior to the present.
• The DNA analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
• The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types.
• The question of genetic entropy.
• The obvious evidence of design in nature.
• The arguments arising from pure probability considerations which Fred Hoyle noted.
• The question of computing elements at a cellular level ( Watch the Video | Programming Of Life ).

Like I say, that's a minimal list.

 

[CabVet]

English Bibles contain a few mistranslations and there are instances in which something described in the Bible is so alien to modern experience that only a handful of scholars really know what is being described, but there are no deliberate falsehoods in the Bible and the Bible does not require belief in any sort of a trans-finite chain of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events as does evolution.

No, it only requires belief on a supreme deity that can do anything, but that nobody ever saw or heard and for which there is no objective evidence. It also requires the belief that this deity created the world and all in it in a week. I would say that the probability of that happening is about a trillion times smaller than whatever you can come up for evolution.

 

[CabVet]

No it doesn't. Once again there are entire categories of disproofs so gross that any real science theory would have been abandoned decades ago. Only ideologies and religious doctrines are defended despite all evidence as is evolution.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

• The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).
• The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...).
• The discovery of bioelectrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
• The question of irreducible complexity.
• The Haldane Dilemma.
• The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs, including soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types, and actual radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains yielding dates of 20K - 40K prior to the present.
• The DNA analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
• The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types.
• The question of genetic entropy.
• The obvious evidence of design in nature.
• The arguments arising from pure probability considerations which Fred Hoyle noted.
• The question of computing elements at a cellular level ( Watch the Video | Programming Of Life ).

Like I say, that's a minimal list.

The most dishonest list I have seen copied and pasted in this site in a long time. In addition, your "list" has been debunked 10 times over in this very site:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787018/

Please, don't derail the thread. If you have any objective evidence for the existence of God please present it. If you want to reject evolution, please refer to the other thread you made about it above.

 

[FredHoyle]

Sure: the simple fact that evolution doesn't work and there isn't any third option.

No third option? how many religions are there? and we haven't even started on how many types of aliens there are yet.

BTW. tell your pastor to stop telling you lies, evolution is a fact, [but he more than likely already knows that]

 

[Loudmouth]

Because your premise is false. Leprechauns do not make rainbows.

Then your premise is false. God does not make universes.

Cuts both ways.

 

[bhsmte]

English Bibles contain a few mistranslations and there are instances in which something described in the Bible is so alien to modern experience that only a handful of scholars really know what is being described, but there are no deliberate falsehoods in the Bible and the Bible does not require belief in any sort of a trans-finite chain of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events as does evolution.

How about the original Greek language writings of the gospels? Any issues with those?

Are you one who believes the bible is the divine word of God?

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the Bible. I wasn't there in the beginning. The LORD was.

Why should we take the word of the men who wrote the Bible? Writing something down does not make it true. We are asking for objective evidence.

 

[CabVet]

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the Bible. I wasn't there in the beginning. The LORD was.

Funny how the more I read it, the more I think it is flawed.

By the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water. It's something to think about.

Poetry, that is all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure: the simple fact that evolution doesn't work and there isn't any third option.

False dichotomy. Disproving evolution in no way supplies evidence for a deity. At one time it was thought that phlogiston caused flames. That turned out to be wrong. Did that mean God caused fire? Nope. It was caused by oxygen in the atmosphere, a completely natural process.

 

[Loudmouth]

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

Disproving evolution in no way evidences a deity.

 

[Loudmouth]

English Bibles contain a few mistranslations and there are instances in which something described in the Bible is so alien to modern experience that only a handful of scholars really know what is being described, but there are no deliberate falsehoods in the Bible and the Bible does not require belief in any sort of a trans-finite chain of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events as does evolution.

We aren't asking for stories in books written by men.

We are asking for objective evidence. Do you understand the difference?

 

[bhsmte]

Disproving evolution in no way evidences a deity.

Absolutely. Just as proving a God created the universe, does nothing to show it was the christian God.

 

[CabVet]

So, can we declared this case closed and say that there is no objective, testable evidence to support the existence of God?

 

[MarkT]

Why should we take the word of the men who wrote the Bible? Writing something down does not make it true. We are asking for objective evidence.

God sent His Son to the Jews who were supposed to be his people and what did they do? They crucified him. Jesus showed them miracles. They all left him except for the twelve. So don't make me laugh.

Objective evidence. You have the gall to ask for evidence.

What have you ever done for God that he should consider you? Why doesn't God throw you into hell right now?