Total Posts:276|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Evidence for God

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists tend to ask theists for evidence that God exists. Most theists are honest enough to admit that they don't have any, but can't seem to comprehend why that's important.

The less honest theists either claim they have evidence which they then can't present, or present subjective evidence (open to interpretation), rather than objective evidence as requested.

If I spin a quarter on the bottom of a glass and it rains in the next hour, one can claim "subjective evidence" that they can control the weather. But in reality, there is no demonstrable link between spinning the quarter, and the observed weather. So at best that's "subjective evidence", which is where superstitions arise.

So I'm asking (yet again), for objective evidence for the existence of God. Some theists are still claiming to have evidence for God, so let's see your objective evidence.

We conclude that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other proposed entities don't exist for one reason - there is no objective evidence that they do. So without objective evidence for God, the conclusion that he exists is irrational, contrary to logic, and a double-standard, unless you also believe that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies and mermaids exist.

So defend your conclusion that God exists, or admit that he should properly be classified with Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other purely mythical entities.

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:24:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:21:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Beastt, you ever see objective evidence of Japan?

Yes, haven't you?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:29:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:24:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:21:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Beastt, you ever see objective evidence of Japan?

Yes, haven't you?

Okay, if you hadn't seen "objective evidence" (whatever that means, exactly) of Japan, would you still believe that it existed?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:29:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:24:42 PM, stubs wrote:
What evidence is not open to interpretation ?

That for which there is a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

See? This is typical. You guys act like the term "objective evidence" is something I just made up, rather than being honest and admitting you don't have any for God. Guess what? Science operates on objective evidence and finds subjective evidence to be so lacking in credibility, that it's useless.

So... do you have objective evidence for God or don't you?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:34:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:29:15 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:24:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:21:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Beastt, you ever see objective evidence of Japan?

Yes, haven't you?

Okay, if you hadn't seen "objective evidence" (whatever that means, exactly) of Japan, would you still believe that it existed?

I would have no reason to believe that it didn't exist, as it doesn't require accepting extraordinary claims. That's not the case at all with God. And the more extraordinary the claims, the more vital evidence becomes.

Can you think of anything associated with more extraordinary claims than God?
So... do you have objective evidence for God, or don't you?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:38:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:24:42 PM, stubs wrote:
What evidence is not open to interpretation ?

How about heat from the sun? Can you not demonstrate (fairly easily), that the radiant heat is associated with the sun and our relationship to it? How can you even argue for God if you don't know the difference between subjective and objective?

Or perhaps that's the key to belief in God - a level of ignorance which allows you to believe.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:42:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:29:15 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:24:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:21:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Beastt, you ever see objective evidence of Japan?

Yes, haven't you?

Okay, if you hadn't seen "objective evidence" (whatever that means, exactly) of Japan, would you still believe that it existed?

I would have no reason to believe that it didn't exist, as it doesn't require accepting extraordinary claims. That's not the case at all with God. And the more extraordinary the claims, the more vital evidence becomes.

Can you think of anything associated with more extraordinary claims than God?
So... do you have objective evidence for God, or don't you?

What claims about God do you believe are extraordinary?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:50:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:42:51 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:29:15 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:24:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:21:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Beastt, you ever see objective evidence of Japan?

Yes, haven't you?

Okay, if you hadn't seen "objective evidence" (whatever that means, exactly) of Japan, would you still believe that it existed?

I would have no reason to believe that it didn't exist, as it doesn't require accepting extraordinary claims. That's not the case at all with God. And the more extraordinary the claims, the more vital evidence becomes.

Can you think of anything associated with more extraordinary claims than God?
So... do you have objective evidence for God, or don't you?

What claims about God do you believe are extraordinary?

Pretty much all of them.
Do you have any confirmed examples of disembodied consciousness? That's contrary to literally EVERYTHING we know about biology and consciousness.

Creating matter/energy (which can't be created), simply by speaking it into existence?

Existing every where and every when, at all times? That's completely contrary to everything we understand about both temporal and spacial reality.

God being his own son? That violates the very basis of paternal/child relationships.

Being all-knowing?

There really aren't any significant claims about God that aren't completely extraordinary. And yet... not one shred of objective evidence for him, as the responding Christians here are demonstrating.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,611
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:55:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.

I am simply here to ask a question. But first, I'd like to say this:

God is not merely a physical being that can be evaluated and tested upon. The scientific method fails when trying to prove the existence of God because he's clearly not a physical being - the best they can do is suggest his existence. Rational arguments are thus needed.

There are rational arguments for the existence of God, but I have yet to see how there are any rational arguments for fairies or ghosts.

What rational arguments are there for these other mythical beings? Do you believe that the rational arguments for God can just as easily be applied to these mythical beings? If so, could you give an example? Thank you.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:07:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:55:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.

I am simply here to ask a question. But first, I'd like to say this:

God is not merely a physical being that can be evaluated and tested upon. The scientific method fails when trying to prove the existence of God because he's clearly not a physical being - the best they can do is suggest his existence. Rational arguments are thus needed.

There are rational arguments for the existence of God, but I have yet to see how there are any rational arguments for fairies or ghosts.

What rational arguments are there for these other mythical beings? Do you believe that the rational arguments for God can just as easily be applied to these mythical beings? If so, could you give an example? Thank you.

In all actuality, there are no rational arguments for anything devoid of objective evidence. In nearly every case aside from God, the very lack of objective evidence is the prime foundation for the conclusion of non-existence.

If God exists and interacts with the physical, then there is physical evidence for his existence. And yet, no one has any. And claiming he's "not merely a physical being", is rather a contradiction to everything we know about "beings". Beings are physical. We have not a single confirmed instance of any non-physical anything. So it's nothing more than a claim... a story. And yet, other claims connected to that story, insist that objective evidence must exist, yet it doesn't.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,611
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:07:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:55:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.

I am simply here to ask a question. But first, I'd like to say this:

God is not merely a physical being that can be evaluated and tested upon. The scientific method fails when trying to prove the existence of God because he's clearly not a physical being - the best they can do is suggest his existence. Rational arguments are thus needed.

There are rational arguments for the existence of God, but I have yet to see how there are any rational arguments for fairies or ghosts.

What rational arguments are there for these other mythical beings? Do you believe that the rational arguments for God can just as easily be applied to these mythical beings? If so, could you give an example? Thank you.

In all actuality, there are no rational arguments for anything devoid of objective evidence. In nearly every case aside from God, the very lack of objective evidence is the prime foundation for the conclusion of non-existence.

If God exists and interacts with the physical, then there is physical evidence for his existence. And yet, no one has any. And claiming he's "not merely a physical being", is rather a contradiction to everything we know about "beings". Beings are physical. We have not a single confirmed instance of any non-physical anything. So it's nothing more than a claim... a story. And yet, other claims connected to that story, insist that objective evidence must exist, yet it doesn't.

An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being cannot be physical. A physical being is defined and limited. God should be infinite and boundless.

Furthermore, an entity or a being doesn't describe something physical. That's not necessarily true.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:10:20 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:07:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:55:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.

I am simply here to ask a question. But first, I'd like to say this:

God is not merely a physical being that can be evaluated and tested upon. The scientific method fails when trying to prove the existence of God because he's clearly not a physical being - the best they can do is suggest his existence. Rational arguments are thus needed.

There are rational arguments for the existence of God, but I have yet to see how there are any rational arguments for fairies or ghosts.

What rational arguments are there for these other mythical beings? Do you believe that the rational arguments for God can just as easily be applied to these mythical beings? If so, could you give an example? Thank you.

In all actuality, there are no rational arguments for anything devoid of objective evidence. In nearly every case aside from God, the very lack of objective evidence is the prime foundation for the conclusion of non-existence.

If God exists and interacts with the physical, then there is physical evidence for his existence. And yet, no one has any. And claiming he's "not merely a physical being", is rather a contradiction to everything we know about "beings". Beings are physical. We have not a single confirmed instance of any non-physical anything. So it's nothing more than a claim... a story. And yet, other claims connected to that story, insist that objective evidence must exist, yet it doesn't.

An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being cannot be physical. A physical being is defined and limited. God should be infinite and boundless.
How does that separate him from being mere mythology?

Furthermore, an entity or a being doesn't describe something physical. That's not necessarily true.
Yes it is. Beings are the study of biology - a science based only upon the objectively evidenced, and a physical body.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:14:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:29:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:24:42 PM, stubs wrote:
What evidence is not open to interpretation ?

That for which there is a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

See? This is typical. You guys act like the term "objective evidence" is something I just made up,

Well kinda is since you are using it in such a idyosincratic manner.

rather than being honest and admitting you don't have any for God. Guess what? Science operates on objective evidence and finds subjective evidence to be so lacking in credibility, that it's useless.


Apparently you have never heard of underdetermination....

So... do you have objective evidence for God or don't you?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,611
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:13:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
How does that separate him from being mere mythology?

There is no such being in mythology. All the gods in mythology such as Jupiter or Venus were limited and conceivable to humans. This is contradictory to what God should be like, given that you need to be limitless to be the supreme creator. The same applies to dragons, ghosts, werewolves, and other kinds of monsters. Since these are physical beings, we can determine if they exist or not through physical means. No such beings have been found and there is no convincing empirical evidence for them. We thus conclude they do not exist. God, on the other hand, is an entity of an entirely different nature.

Furthermore, there were no substantial arguments for them such as there are for a general entity known as God.

Yes it is. Beings are the study of biology - a science based only upon the objectively evidenced, and a physical body.

Being is used in a general sense for existence. If you really want me to, I can refer to God as an entity.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:26:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists tend to ask theists for evidence that God exists. Most theists are honest enough to admit that they don't have any, but can't seem to comprehend why that's important.

The less honest theists either claim they have evidence which they then can't present, or present subjective evidence (open to interpretation), rather than objective evidence as requested.

If I spin a quarter on the bottom of a glass and it rains in the next hour, one can claim "subjective evidence" that they can control the weather. But in reality, there is no demonstrable link between spinning the quarter, and the observed weather. So at best that's "subjective evidence", which is where superstitions arise.

So I'm asking (yet again), for objective evidence for the existence of God. Some theists are still claiming to have evidence for God, so let's see your objective evidence.

We conclude that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other proposed entities don't exist for one reason - there is no objective evidence that they do. So without objective evidence for God, the conclusion that he exists is irrational, contrary to logic, and a double-standard, unless you also believe that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies and mermaids exist.

So defend your conclusion that God exists, or admit that he should properly be classified with Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other purely mythical entities.

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.
You are positing a naive form of empiricism-stroke-evidentialism that few would rationally endorse. You are assuming that the only means to prove something is through these naive forms of epistemology. Not only do you have to assume this evidentialism, you also have to assume correspondence theory.
You need to give support for such models before you demand evidence that corresponds to them.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:14:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:29:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:24:42 PM, stubs wrote:
What evidence is not open to interpretation ?

That for which there is a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

See? This is typical. You guys act like the term "objective evidence" is something I just made up,

Well kinda is since you are using it in such a idyosincratic manner.
Not in the least. Science operates on objective evidence, and there's nothing idiosyncratic about it. It just doesn't do any good to assert indemonstrable links, and claim you have evidence. Again, just because you become chilled one evening, and get a cold the next day, doesn't mean the chill caused the cold. There's no demonstrable link between the two events. So claiming such an instance as evidence is purely "subjective", not "objective". Any objective analysis demonstrates that short of hypothermia, one does not contract a cold from becoming chilled.

rather than being honest and admitting you don't have any for God. Guess what? Science operates on objective evidence and finds subjective evidence to be so lacking in credibility, that it's useless.


Apparently you have never heard of underdetermination....

That really doesn't apply when you're asserting that we should conclude that God does exist, yet can't provide objective evidence to support that conclusion.

So... do you have objective evidence for God or don't you?
So again... you present arguments to the question, but refuse to answer it, because you don't wish to admit that there is no objective evidence for God. Theism has so brainwashed you to believe in disembodied consciousness, intelligence and entities, that it's apparently a new concept to note that there isn't ANY objective evidence at all, for any of those things.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:33:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:26:38 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists tend to ask theists for evidence that God exists. Most theists are honest enough to admit that they don't have any, but can't seem to comprehend why that's important.

The less honest theists either claim they have evidence which they then can't present, or present subjective evidence (open to interpretation), rather than objective evidence as requested.

If I spin a quarter on the bottom of a glass and it rains in the next hour, one can claim "subjective evidence" that they can control the weather. But in reality, there is no demonstrable link between spinning the quarter, and the observed weather. So at best that's "subjective evidence", which is where superstitions arise.

So I'm asking (yet again), for objective evidence for the existence of God. Some theists are still claiming to have evidence for God, so let's see your objective evidence.

We conclude that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other proposed entities don't exist for one reason - there is no objective evidence that they do. So without objective evidence for God, the conclusion that he exists is irrational, contrary to logic, and a double-standard, unless you also believe that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies and mermaids exist.

So defend your conclusion that God exists, or admit that he should properly be classified with Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other purely mythical entities.

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.
You are positing a naive form of empiricism-stroke-evidentialism that few would rationally endorse.
It's not only endorsed but required for every scientific endeavor ever undertaken. Obviously, your claim is false.

You are assuming that the only means to prove something is through these naive forms of epistemology.
No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you a question. You - and everyone else so far - are refusing to answer. (Because you don't like the answer.)

Not only do you have to assume this evidentialism, you also have to assume correspondence theory.
No, it's not an assumption. There have been a great many beliefs formed on the basis of alternative epistemologies and they're found to be responsible for mythology and superstition. Only objective evidence serves the purposes of determining reality and until you can show that to be untrue, you're stuck with the fact that it is.

You need to give support for such models before you demand evidence that corresponds to them.
Every discovery ever presented from the scientific method serves as support for those models. Is there anything else you want to run up the flagpole to see how quickly it comes sliding back down?

Or you could simply admit that you don't have a single shred of objective evidence for the existence of God.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So... still not one shred of objective evidence for God.

(For all of those who claim they have evidence for god (Anna), take note!)

We have objective evidence for wind, neutrinos, UV light rays, radio signals, space-time, hydrogen gas, the Higgs boson, the sun, moon, and the atmosphere (to provide a very few examples).

But so far, we find God to be in the same class as fairies, Leprechauns, mermaids, unicorns, genies and gremlins. Except that most theists disbelieve in all of those things, yet somehow believe in God while there isn't a shred of objective evidence for any of them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:59:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:43:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
So... still not one shred of objective evidence for God.

(For all of those who claim they have evidence for god (Anna), take note!)

Oh, I've presented at least one sphere of objective evidence: fulfilled prophesy. You simply denied it. These prophesies actually commence way back in the book of Daniel, then are re-iterated with more specificity, including a time-frame, in Matt 24 and Mark 13.

You basically countered by citing "scholars" who, in their wisdom, decided that Jesus could not have miraculously predicted the fall of the city - so they moved the dates of the books up to around AD 65-66 at the very earliest, and then claim that Jesus never made any such prophesies in AD 30-33. That's how they reason! What's more, they don't bother to deny it. "Prophesy" is the A-Number One reason that EVERY skeptic, bar none and including the Christian skeptics, absolutely MUST devise some sort of story.

Here's how it goes: Matthew the apostle probably didn't even exist, and some anonymous person penned the book of Matthew, well after the fall of the city in order to make it appear that Jesus had correctly predicted the event. That's their story, and like it or not, they place their "faith" in that story. Better stated, they placed their trust and confidence in their mentors who propagate that story. I've never talked to a one yet that has actually studied the matter.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:01:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:33:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:26:38 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists tend to ask theists for evidence that God exists. Most theists are honest enough to admit that they don't have any, but can't seem to comprehend why that's important.

The less honest theists either claim they have evidence which they then can't present, or present subjective evidence (open to interpretation), rather than objective evidence as requested.

If I spin a quarter on the bottom of a glass and it rains in the next hour, one can claim "subjective evidence" that they can control the weather. But in reality, there is no demonstrable link between spinning the quarter, and the observed weather. So at best that's "subjective evidence", which is where superstitions arise.

So I'm asking (yet again), for objective evidence for the existence of God. Some theists are still claiming to have evidence for God, so let's see your objective evidence.

We conclude that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other proposed entities don't exist for one reason - there is no objective evidence that they do. So without objective evidence for God, the conclusion that he exists is irrational, contrary to logic, and a double-standard, unless you also believe that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies and mermaids exist.

So defend your conclusion that God exists, or admit that he should properly be classified with Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other purely mythical entities.

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.
You are positing a naive form of empiricism-stroke-evidentialism that few would rationally endorse.
It's not only endorsed but required for every scientific endeavor ever undertaken. Obviously, your claim is false.
And there you have your central error. You are saying that we should give scientific evidence for metaphysical premises. It's like trying to give scientific evidence for moral realism or libertarian free will. It doesn't match.

You are assuming that the only means to prove something is through these naive forms of epistemology.
No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you a question. You - and everyone else so far - are refusing to answer. (Because you don't like the answer.)
Yes, you are assuming an epistemological stance, namely, that the only way to rationally believe something exists is if there is empirical evidence. But that's a faulty stance to take.
I'm not refusing to answer, I'm objecting to your criterion for evidence. I could list several arguments that (if sucessful) upon any other epistemological stance would mean God exists.

Not only do you have to assume this evidentialism, you also have to assume correspondence theory.
No, it's not an assumption. There have been a great many beliefs formed on the basis of alternative epistemologies and they're found to be responsible for mythology and superstition. Only objective evidence serves the purposes of determining reality and until you can show that to be untrue, you're stuck with the fact that it is.
Philosophers have constantly found fault in empiricism. You can't prove metaphysical premises which we know exist.

You need to give support for such models before you demand evidence that corresponds to them.
Every discovery ever presented from the scientific method serves as support for those models. Is there anything else you want to run up the flagpole to see how quickly it comes sliding back down?
So your justification for the scientific method is that those things investigated by the scientific method correspond to the scientific method's assumptions...

Or you could simply admit that you don't have a single shred of objective evidence for the existence of God.
As I said, I could list several arguments. You know them, they've been discussed extensively.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:11:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:59:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:43:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
So... still not one shred of objective evidence for God.

(For all of those who claim they have evidence for god (Anna), take note!)

Oh, I've presented at least one sphere of objective evidence: fulfilled prophesy. You simply denied it. These prophesies actually commence way back in the book of Daniel, then are re-iterated with more specificity, including a time-frame, in Matt 24 and Mark 13.
Prophecies presented in one collection of writings, and fulfilled almost entirely within a second set of writings (devoid of credible confirmation), is not objective evidence, Anna. Your unevidenced claim is that the prophecies were actually fulfilled. But the only evidence you have is people who were very aware of the prophecies, making the written claim that they were fulfilled, while objective and neutral sources made no note of any such fulfillment.

You basically countered by citing "scholars" who, in their wisdom, decided that Jesus could not have miraculously predicted the fall of the city - so they moved the dates of the books up to around AD 65-66 at the very earliest, and then claim that Jesus never made any such prophesies in AD 30-33. That's how they reason! What's more, they don't bother to deny it. "Prophesy" is the A-Number One reason that EVERY skeptic, bar none and including the Christian skeptics, absolutely MUST devise some sort of story.
Circular arguments also do not qualify as objective evidence, Anna. Your source for the prophecies is the Bible. Your source for claiming the prophecies were fulfilled, is the Bible. And it is commonly accepted that the written claims that the prophecies were fulfilled, were produced after the supposed prophecies, and after the supposed fulfillment. It's like me predicting the December 2004 tsunami, in January of 2005.

Here's how it goes: Matthew the apostle probably didn't even exist, and some anonymous person penned the book of Matthew, well after the fall of the city in order to make it appear that Jesus had correctly predicted the event. That's their story, and like it or not, they place their "faith" in that story. Better stated, they placed their trust and confidence in their mentors who propagate that story. I've never talked to a one yet that has actually studied the matter.
It's not a matter of faith, Anna. It's (once again), a matter of evidence. Matthew contains parallel verses for some 600 of the 678 verses in Mark. You don't think that shows that the work was copied, rather than being based on eye-witness accounts? And even Mark offers evidence that it wasn't written on the basis of eye-witness accounts, but upon oral traditions and still other written works. Luke outright states that it's not an eyewitness account, and produces parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in Mark.
And in your vernacular "studied the matter" means coming to the same counter-evidenced conclusion which you hold.

So... how about that objective evidence you keep claiming to have? Anyone can write a prophecy. Anyone who knows about that prophecy can claim that it was fulfilled. But writing a prophecy after the fact, doesn't really make it a prophecy.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:13:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists tend to ask theists for evidence that God exists. Most theists are honest enough to admit that they don't have any, but can't seem to comprehend why that's important.

The less honest theists either claim they have evidence which they then can't present, or present subjective evidence (open to interpretation), rather than objective evidence as requested.

If I spin a quarter on the bottom of a glass and it rains in the next hour, one can claim "subjective evidence" that they can control the weather. But in reality, there is no demonstrable link between spinning the quarter, and the observed weather. So at best that's "subjective evidence", which is where superstitions arise.

So I'm asking (yet again), for objective evidence for the existence of God. Some theists are still claiming to have evidence for God, so let's see your objective evidence.

We conclude that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other proposed entities don't exist for one reason - there is no objective evidence that they do. So without objective evidence for God, the conclusion that he exists is irrational, contrary to logic, and a double-standard, unless you also believe that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies and mermaids exist.

So defend your conclusion that God exists, or admit that he should properly be classified with Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other purely mythical entities.

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.

Not all claims of God are physical claims... Ergo empiricism (which your demand for objective evidence requires) cannot by definition address all God claims.

While there are borderline empirical god arguments, such as those which argues against human consciousness etc, it doesn't encompass them all.

Kant stated there are 3 ways of demonstrating God.

1. Cosmological
2. Ontology
3. Epistemology

If I am not mistaken, empirical claims can only really address the first and maybe some of the second.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:17:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 6:01:30 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:33:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:26:38 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists tend to ask theists for evidence that God exists. Most theists are honest enough to admit that they don't have any, but can't seem to comprehend why that's important.

The less honest theists either claim they have evidence which they then can't present, or present subjective evidence (open to interpretation), rather than objective evidence as requested.

If I spin a quarter on the bottom of a glass and it rains in the next hour, one can claim "subjective evidence" that they can control the weather. But in reality, there is no demonstrable link between spinning the quarter, and the observed weather. So at best that's "subjective evidence", which is where superstitions arise.

So I'm asking (yet again), for objective evidence for the existence of God. Some theists are still claiming to have evidence for God, so let's see your objective evidence.

We conclude that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other proposed entities don't exist for one reason - there is no objective evidence that they do. So without objective evidence for God, the conclusion that he exists is irrational, contrary to logic, and a double-standard, unless you also believe that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies and mermaids exist.

So defend your conclusion that God exists, or admit that he should properly be classified with Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other purely mythical entities.

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.
You are positing a naive form of empiricism-stroke-evidentialism that few would rationally endorse.
It's not only endorsed but required for every scientific endeavor ever undertaken. Obviously, your claim is false.
And there you have your central error. You are saying that we should give scientific evidence for metaphysical premises. It's like trying to give scientific evidence for moral realism or libertarian free will. It doesn't match.
How long are theists going to try to skate on their own claims? If God affects the physical, it would leave physical evidence. Try flipping a dust speck over without leaving evidence that the dust speck was moved. The nature of the physical is that it carries evidence of interactions. God can't interact with the physical, without leaving physical evidence... yet you have none.

You are assuming that the only means to prove something is through these naive forms of epistemology.
No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you a question. You - and everyone else so far - are refusing to answer. (Because you don't like the answer.)
Yes, you are assuming an epistemological stance, namely, that the only way to rationally believe something exists is if there is empirical evidence. But that's a faulty stance to take.
I'm not saying it's the only way to believe. I'm saying it's the only way to confirm that something is true. And until you can show confirmation of truth without evidence, you're just going to have to swallow that fact.

I'm not refusing to answer, I'm objecting to your criterion for evidence. I could list several arguments that (if sucessful) upon any other epistemological stance would mean God exists.
And each and every one not only can be refuted, but is refuted as a standard course of apologetics, and has been continually for decades.


Not only do you have to assume this evidentialism, you also have to assume correspondence theory.
No, it's not an assumption. There have been a great many beliefs formed on the basis of alternative epistemologies and they're found to be responsible for mythology and superstition. Only objective evidence serves the purposes of determining reality and until you can show that to be untrue, you're stuck with the fact that it is.
Philosophers have constantly found fault in empiricism. You can't prove metaphysical premises which we know exist.
Such as?


You need to give support for such models before you demand evidence that corresponds to them.
Every discovery ever presented from the scientific method serves as support for those models. Is there anything else you want to run up the flagpole to see how quickly it comes sliding back down?
So your justification for the scientific method is that those things investigated by the scientific method correspond to the scientific method's assumptions...

Or you could simply admit that you don't have a single shred of objective evidence for the existence of God.
As I said, I could list several arguments. You know them, they've been discussed extensively.
Try listing one. I bet I could make the same argument for fairies, Leprechauns, Genies or gremlins.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:33:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 6:11:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:59:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:43:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
So... still not one shred of objective evidence for God.

(For all of those who claim they have evidence for god (Anna), take note!)

Oh, I've presented at least one sphere of objective evidence: fulfilled prophesy. You simply denied it. These prophesies actually commence way back in the book of Daniel, then are re-iterated with more specificity, including a time-frame, in Matt 24 and Mark 13.
Prophecies presented in one collection of writings, and fulfilled almost entirely within a second set of writings (devoid of credible confirmation), is not objective evidence, Anna. Your unevidenced claim is that the prophecies were actually fulfilled. But the only evidence you have is people who were very aware of the prophecies, making the written claim that they were fulfilled, while objective and neutral sources made no note of any such fulfillment.

The destruction of Jerusalem had not occurred by the time the majority - and possibly all - of the NT books were completed. It's not even mentioned as an accomplished event anywhere in the NT.

You basically countered by citing "scholars" who, in their wisdom, decided that Jesus could not have miraculously predicted the fall of the city - so they moved the dates of the books up to around AD 65-66 at the very earliest, and then claim that Jesus never made any such prophesies in AD 30-33. That's how they reason! What's more, they don't bother to deny it. "Prophesy" is the A-Number One reason that EVERY skeptic, bar none and including the Christian skeptics, absolutely MUST devise some sort of story.

Circular arguments also do not qualify as objective evidence, Anna.

Amen. And 'twas very circular to calculate the dates of the books in order to validate some theory.

Your source for the prophecies is the Bible. Your source for claiming the prophecies were fulfilled, is the Bible.

Moron. Complete imbecile. I'll bite. I claim that most of the NT prophesies were fulfilled in the Roman siege and resulting destruction of the temple. And you think my "source" for believing it occurred was the Bible? Alright, find it somewhere in the NT.

And it is commonly accepted that the written claims that the prophecies were fulfilled, were produced after the supposed prophecies, and after the supposed fulfillment. It's like me predicting the December 2004 tsunami, in January of 2005.

It's not "commonly accepted" by anyone other than atheists and Christian skeptics. I can't be governed by folks who look at the evidence, then throw up their hands and say, "Never mind. Jesus couldn't have predicted that event with such accuracy."

Here's how it goes: Matthew the apostle probably didn't even exist, and some anonymous person penned the book of Matthew, well after the fall of the city in order to make it appear that Jesus had correctly predicted the event. That's their story, and like it or not, they place their "faith" in that story. Better stated, they placed their trust and confidence in their mentors who propagate that story. I've never talked to a one yet that has actually studied the matter.

It's not a matter of faith, Anna. It's (once again), a matter of evidence. Matthew contains parallel verses for some 600 of the 678 verses in Mark. You don't think that shows that the work was copied, rather than being based on eye-witness accounts?

Of course not. For all I know, the book of Matthew was penned first. That was the normative belief among the early Christians - and for 1800 years.

And even Mark offers evidence that it wasn't written on the basis of eye-witness accounts, but upon oral traditions and still other written works.

Let's see what you deem "evidence" in this regard. (This should be good).

Luke outright states that it's not an eyewitness account, and produces parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in Mark.
And in your vernacular "studied the matter" means coming to the same counter-evidenced conclusion which you hold.

No, "studying the matter" amounts to reviewing whatever existing evidence, internal and external, and reaching a conclusion. You haven't done that.

So... how about that objective evidence you keep claiming to have? Anyone can write a prophecy. Anyone who knows about that prophecy can claim that it was fulfilled. But writing a prophecy after the fact, doesn't really make it a prophecy.

I never said the prophesies were penned after the fact. You did. And we know how much we can trust your judgment. You simply depend upon what Dr. Ehrman and others say - and they aren't exactly unbiased (or not-for-profit).
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:34:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 6:17:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 6:01:30 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:33:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:26:38 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/29/2014 3:48:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists tend to ask theists for evidence that God exists. Most theists are honest enough to admit that they don't have any, but can't seem to comprehend why that's important.

The less honest theists either claim they have evidence which they then can't present, or present subjective evidence (open to interpretation), rather than objective evidence as requested.

If I spin a quarter on the bottom of a glass and it rains in the next hour, one can claim "subjective evidence" that they can control the weather. But in reality, there is no demonstrable link between spinning the quarter, and the observed weather. So at best that's "subjective evidence", which is where superstitions arise.

So I'm asking (yet again), for objective evidence for the existence of God. Some theists are still claiming to have evidence for God, so let's see your objective evidence.

We conclude that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other proposed entities don't exist for one reason - there is no objective evidence that they do. So without objective evidence for God, the conclusion that he exists is irrational, contrary to logic, and a double-standard, unless you also believe that fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies and mermaids exist.

So defend your conclusion that God exists, or admit that he should properly be classified with Leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, genies, mermaids and other purely mythical entities.

Remember; OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not superstitious subjectively interpreted implied connections.
You are positing a naive form of empiricism-stroke-evidentialism that few would rationally endorse.
It's not only endorsed but required for every scientific endeavor ever undertaken. Obviously, your claim is false.
And there you have your central error. You are saying that we should give scientific evidence for metaphysical premises. It's like trying to give scientific evidence for moral realism or libertarian free will. It doesn't match.
How long are theists going to try to skate on their own claims? If God affects the physical, it would leave physical evidence. Try flipping a dust speck over without leaving evidence that the dust speck was moved. The nature of the physical is that it carries evidence of interactions. God can't interact with the physical, without leaving physical evidence... yet you have none.
Religious experience? I have no doubt we should expect physical evidence for God's existence. That's the whole aim of natural theology. But you can't jump to a metaphysical conclusion without making metaphysical premises.

You are assuming that the only means to prove something is through these naive forms of epistemology.
No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you a question. You - and everyone else so far - are refusing to answer. (Because you don't like the answer.)
Yes, you are assuming an epistemological stance, namely, that the only way to rationally believe something exists is if there is empirical evidence. But that's a faulty stance to take.
I'm not saying it's the only way to believe. I'm saying it's the only way to confirm that something is true. And until you can show confirmation of truth without evidence, you're just going to have to swallow that fact
Sure, just take any sort of anti-realist theory on anything.


I'm not refusing to answer, I'm objecting to your criterion for evidence. I could list several arguments that (if sucessful) upon any other epistemological stance would mean God exists.
And each and every one not only can be refuted, but is refuted as a standard course of apologetics, and has been continually for decades.
You can make weak objections against any argument, it doesn't mean it's refuted.


Not only do you have to assume this evidentialism, you also have to assume correspondence theory.
No, it's not an assumption. There have been a great many beliefs formed on the basis of alternative epistemologies and they're found to be responsible for mythology and superstition. Only objective evidence serves the purposes of determining reality and until you can show that to be untrue, you're stuck with the fact that it is.
Philosophers have constantly found fault in empiricism. You can't prove metaphysical premises which we know exist.
Such as?
The reality of the past


You need to give support for such models before you demand evidence that corresponds to them.
Every discovery ever presented from the scientific method serves as support for those models. Is there anything else you want to run up the flagpole to see how quickly it comes sliding back down?
So your justification for the scientific method is that those things investigated by the scientific method correspond to the scientific method's assumptions...

Or you could simply admit that you don't have a single shred of objective evidence for the existence of God.
As I said, I could list several arguments. You know them, they've been discussed extensively.
Try listing one. I bet I could make the same argument for fairies, Leprechauns, Genies or gremlins.
I'm not going to discuss them here but you know them. Cosmological, moral, teleological, etc.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:46:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:43:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
So... still not one shred of objective evidence for God.

(For all of those who claim they have evidence for god (Anna), take note!)

We have objective evidence for wind, neutrinos, UV light rays, radio signals, space-time, hydrogen gas, the Higgs boson, the sun, moon, and the atmosphere (to provide a very few examples).

But so far, we find God to be in the same class as fairies, Leprechauns, mermaids, unicorns, genies and gremlins. Except that most theists disbelieve in all of those things, yet somehow believe in God while there isn't a shred of objective evidence for any of them.

The ancient philosophers of Greece spent quite a bit of time analysing reality to find the first principle -- the fundamental existence from which everything else is derived. Thales thought it was material -- water. Others thought it was air, fire, or earth. Democritus thought it was the opposing natures of the atom and the void. Finally, Plato taught that it was the Form of the Good, giving existence to everything else by virtue of its goodness, and Aristotle progressed this somewhat to the idea of the Unmoved Mover. It's pretty easy to see how the idea of a "God" is found just by studying reality, as philosophers without the Bible came to somewhat similar conclusions: and that's why it was so easy for Saint Augustine, speaking of the Biblical notion of God, wrote, "I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere [in other civilisations] to be found in the books of those who were before Plato." To act as if the philosophical notion of God is on the same level as a fairy, or a leprechaun, or a mermaid, is to massively misunderstand the very core of theism. God isn't just another part of reality, waiting to be discovered under a microscope, He is the very source of reality; hence the reason that Moses, while writing the Torah, came to the same conclusion as the ancient philosophers.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 7:01:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 6:33:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/29/2014 6:11:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:59:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:43:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
The destruction of Jerusalem had not occurred by the time the majority - and possibly all - of the NT books were completed. It's not even mentioned as an accomplished event anywhere in the NT.
Common Christian claims are that there are 2,500 (or more) fulfilled prophecies in the Bible (though I've yet to find a Christian who can name five without resorting to reference sites). Assuming the Bible actually contains that many, is it so implausible that it may have been correct once or twice without some kind of divine knowledge?

And even if the Bible did contain correct prophecies, does that mean God is real? If I guess which two countries will be the next to go to war, and claim I got the information from Bugs Bunny; if I'm correct is that objective evidence for Bugs Bunny? In other words, does it present a demonstrable link between the accuracy of the claim and the existence of Bugs Bunny? Or is the link simply asserted?

You basically countered by citing "scholars" who, in their wisdom, decided that Jesus could not have miraculously predicted the fall of the city - so they moved the dates of the books up to around AD 65-66 at the very earliest, and then claim that Jesus never made any such prophesies in AD 30-33. That's how they reason! What's more, they don't bother to deny it. "Prophesy" is the A-Number One reason that EVERY skeptic, bar none and including the Christian skeptics, absolutely MUST devise some sort of story.

Circular arguments also do not qualify as objective evidence, Anna.

Amen. And 'twas very circular to calculate the dates of the books in order to validate some theory.
Except, of course, that's not why the dates were found to be as they are. The interest was in finding the most likely period for each writing. Your objection is that they used logic to make the determination. And you want to violate logic to arrive at the answer you prefer.

Your source for the prophecies is the Bible. Your source for claiming the prophecies were fulfilled, is the Bible.

Moron. Complete imbecile. I'll bite. I claim that most of the NT prophesies were fulfilled in the Roman siege and resulting destruction of the temple. And you think my "source" for believing it occurred was the Bible? Alright, find it somewhere in the NT.
Firstly, if you're going to claim that MOST of them occurred during the Roman siege, you need to start being more specific about the numbers. How many prophecies are you claiming?

And it is commonly accepted that the written claims that the prophecies were fulfilled, were produced after the supposed prophecies, and after the supposed fulfillment. It's like me predicting the December 2004 tsunami, in January of 2005.

It's not "commonly accepted" by anyone other than atheists and Christian skeptics. I can't be governed by folks who look at the evidence, then throw up their hands and say, "Never mind. Jesus couldn't have predicted that event with such accuracy."
More accurately, it's commonly held by non-Christians, which accounts for about 70% of the world's human population. I think that qualifies as "commonly held". If you have a rational argument against that, I'm sure you'll mount it and ride it into the ground, as is your common practice.


Here's how it goes: Matthew the apostle probably didn't even exist, and some anonymous person penned the book of Matthew, well after the fall of the city in order to make it appear that Jesus had correctly predicted the event. That's their story, and like it or not, they place their "faith" in that story. Better stated, they placed their trust and confidence in their mentors who propagate that story. I've never talked to a one yet that has actually studied the matter.

It's not a matter of faith, Anna. It's (once again), a matter of evidence. Matthew contains parallel verses for some 600 of the 678 verses in Mark. You don't think that shows that the work was copied, rather than being based on eye-witness accounts?

Of course not. For all I know, the book of Matthew was penned first. That was the normative belief among the early Christians - and for 1800 years.
Yes, before effective scientific means of dating such materials had been developed. And of course you prefer that, not because it's more accurate, or even as accurate, but because it feeds the delusion which you prefer to reality.

And even Mark offers evidence that it wasn't written on the basis of eye-witness accounts, but upon oral traditions and still other written works.

Let's see what you deem "evidence" in this regard. (This should be good).
Well, it's suggested to be the writing of Mark - the secretary to Peter. And yet, it's written in Greek (originally), rather than Hebrew, and the author shows such a poor understanding of Jewish beliefs that he misquotes the 10 Commandments, and he attributes statements to Moses, which Jews were careful to always attribute to God. And yes, you can open a Bible today and find this "objective evidence" right there in the text.

Luke outright states that it's not an eyewitness account, and produces parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in Mark.
And in your vernacular "studied the matter" means coming to the same counter-evidenced conclusion which you hold.

No, "studying the matter" amounts to reviewing whatever existing evidence, internal and external, and reaching a conclusion. You haven't done that.
Yes, I have done that. Not only have I done that, but I haven't limited myself to just one view as you have. And unlike you, I don't find the need to lie, by claiming I've read some 5,000 books on the subject.

So... how about that objective evidence you keep claiming to have? Anyone can write a prophecy. Anyone who knows about that prophecy can claim that it was fulfilled. But writing a prophecy after the fact, doesn't really make it a prophecy.

I never said the prophesies were penned after the fact. You did.
Because that's what the dating shows, and that is the logical conclusion.

And we know how much we can trust your judgment.
You don't want to trust my judgement because it differs from yours. Sorry, that doesn't automatically make my judgement untrustworthy, but it may indicate that of yours.

You simply depend upon what Dr. Ehrman and others say - and they aren't exactly unbiased (or not-for-profit).
And every time you want to present an alternative, what do you do? You echo the statements of other researchers. Yet when I do that, you somehow thing it's wrong. How many atheists books have you read, Dearie? I've read both "Mere Christianity" (endless appeals to emotion), and "The Case for Christ, (which is pretty much the same emotional garbage).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 7:10:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 6:46:00 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:43:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
So... still not one shred of objective evidence for God.

(For all of those who claim they have evidence for god (Anna), take note!)

We have objective evidence for wind, neutrinos, UV light rays, radio signals, space-time, hydrogen gas, the Higgs boson, the sun, moon, and the atmosphere (to provide a very few examples).

But so far, we find God to be in the same class as fairies, Leprechauns, mermaids, unicorns, genies and gremlins. Except that most theists disbelieve in all of those things, yet somehow believe in God while there isn't a shred of objective evidence for any of them.

The ancient philosophers of Greece spent quite a bit of time analysing reality to find the first principle -- the fundamental existence from which everything else is derived. Thales thought it was material -- water. Others thought it was air, fire, or earth. Democritus thought it was the opposing natures of the atom and the void. Finally, Plato taught that it was the Form of the Good, giving existence to everything else by virtue of its goodness, and Aristotle progressed this somewhat to the idea of the Unmoved Mover. It's pretty easy to see how the idea of a "God" is found just by studying reality, as philosophers without the Bible came to somewhat similar conclusions: and that's why it was so easy for Saint Augustine, speaking of the Biblical notion of God, wrote, "I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere [in other civilisations] to be found in the books of those who were before Plato." To act as if the philosophical notion of God is on the same level as a fairy, or a leprechaun, or a mermaid, is to massively misunderstand the very core of theism. God isn't just another part of reality, waiting to be discovered under a microscope, He is the very source of reality; hence the reason that Moses, while writing the Torah, came to the same conclusion as the ancient philosophers.

The reality is that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And all of the assumptions presented by the ancient Greeks were founded on the idea that there needed to be an explanation as to how the Earth and universe (to the extent they understood it), were caused to exist. When the question is based on a false assumption, it should come as no surprise that the subsequent conclusions will be false.

So... the Earth and universe exist. Is that your objective evidence for God? Because if it is, you need to accept that science finds it relevant that matter/energy cannot be created, thereby, making a creator of matter/energy rather ridiculous.

All you're doing is making a false assumption, and then assigning God as the answer. I could just as readily claim pre-cosmic fairies, extra-universal Leprechauns, or sans-space/time genies created the universe, the Earth and life. But the evidence supports the claim that matter/energy was not created.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire