Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence: Agan, and again!

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The evidence (or lack, thereof), for God is one of the most fundamental points of argument between theists and atheists. I've started threads in the past, asking for objective evidence for God. What I received were arguments for God and debates over what is meant by "objective evidence" (verses "subjective evidence).

Arguments are not evidence. You will find arguments for both sides of every war, and both sides of every court trial. You'll find arguments for both sides of every partnership and relationship. Anyone can produce an argument for anything. Even flat-Earthers produce arguments against a spherical Earth, spinning, and flying through space on a curved trajectory. This does not equate to objective evidence for a flat, stationary planet.

"Subjective evidence" is that which is applied with a bias. If the bias is removed, or re-directed, the conclusion suggested by the evidence changes. This being the case, such "evidence" is not of value in determining truth.

Personal testimony is not objective evidence because it can be no more than the interpretation of the person providing the testimony, and will thusly, carry with it the bias of that person, even when they believe they are being as objective as possible. Anyone watching Criss Angel or David Copperfield can provide only their biased interpretation of what they observed - their personal perspective. They are not intending to deceive, but were themselves deceived (the very goal of an illusionist), and can only pass that deception to those to whom they testify. This tends to be the substance of "miracles" - a perception of an event, not properly understood.

"Old Book" is not evidence for God, anymore than the novel "Peter Pan" is evidence for jealous fairies sprinkling magic dust on children. Nothing about the Bible connects it in any way to God. It contains a few predictions which can be interpreted to be fulfilled prophecy, and at least as many predictions which have flatly failed, even within the structure of its own stories. Personal testimony - unaccompanied by supporting subjective evidence - is not of itself, evidence, and that doesn't change simply because it takes a written form. Nothing about the Bible connects it to God or Jesus.

Theists routinely suggest that placing such limitations upon what they offer is unfair because they claim that it serves only to mask out any evidence applicable to God. If that is true, it's because there is no objective evidence applicable God.

God's supposed non-physical nature DOES NOT remove him from the probability for objective evidence. If God did not affect the physical, there would be no reason to suggest him to be God, and it would show the whole of the Bible (or Qur'an) to be false. That which affects the physical, leaves physical evidence. The very alteration to the physical IS physical evidence. So if God exists, there should be valid physical evidence, of an objective nature.

So... with all of that in mind, here is your chance (once again), to present the objective evidence for God, which theists continually insist does exist. Present that evidence. Don't wait for another debate, in another thread, to suddenly pop up and proclaim that there is objective evidence for God. Please, if you have such evidence, present it here and now. Be as strictly honest as possible.

Let me provide a prediction of my own. When this thread fades into obscurity, it will carry with it not a word of objective evidence for God, but will contain many arguments against the restrictions placed on the forms of evidence deemed acceptable within this opening post. Should that prediction come true, would it be a prophecy provided by God, or simply a presumption based on evidence provided in prior threads?

I'm asking for nothing other than is expected in support of anything else proclaimed to exist.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is where I just suck it up and accept it when I neglect to spot a typo - not just in the opening post - but in the thread title itself. Oh well...
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:56:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
The evidence (or lack, thereof), for God is one of the most fundamental points of argument between theists and atheists. I've started threads in the past, asking for objective evidence for God. What I received were arguments for God and debates over what is meant by "objective evidence" (verses "subjective evidence).

Arguments are not evidence. You will find arguments for both sides of every war, and both sides of every court trial. You'll find arguments for both sides of every partnership and relationship. Anyone can produce an argument for anything. Even flat-Earthers produce arguments against a spherical Earth, spinning, and flying through space on a curved trajectory. This does not equate to objective evidence for a flat, stationary planet.

"Subjective evidence" is that which is applied with a bias. If the bias is removed, or re-directed, the conclusion suggested by the evidence changes. This being the case, such "evidence" is not of value in determining truth.

Personal testimony is not objective evidence because it can be no more than the interpretation of the person providing the testimony, and will thusly, carry with it the bias of that person, even when they believe they are being as objective as possible. Anyone watching Criss Angel or David Copperfield can provide only their biased interpretation of what they observed - their personal perspective. They are not intending to deceive, but were themselves deceived (the very goal of an illusionist), and can only pass that deception to those to whom they testify. This tends to be the substance of "miracles" - a perception of an event, not properly understood.

"Old Book" is not evidence for God, anymore than the novel "Peter Pan" is evidence for jealous fairies sprinkling magic dust on children. Nothing about the Bible connects it in any way to God. It contains a few predictions which can be interpreted to be fulfilled prophecy, and at least as many predictions which have flatly failed, even within the structure of its own stories. Personal testimony - unaccompanied by supporting subjective evidence - is not of itself, evidence, and that doesn't change simply because it takes a written form. Nothing about the Bible connects it to God or Jesus.

Theists routinely suggest that placing such limitations upon what they offer is unfair because they claim that it serves only to mask out any evidence applicable to God. If that is true, it's because there is no objective evidence applicable God.

God's supposed non-physical nature DOES NOT remove him from the probability for objective evidence. If God did not affect the physical, there would be no reason to suggest him to be God, and it would show the whole of the Bible (or Qur'an) to be false. That which affects the physical, leaves physical evidence. The very alteration to the physical IS physical evidence. So if God exists, there should be valid physical evidence, of an objective nature.

So... with all of that in mind, here is your chance (once again), to present the objective evidence for God, which theists continually insist does exist. Present that evidence. Don't wait for another debate, in another thread, to suddenly pop up and proclaim that there is objective evidence for God. Please, if you have such evidence, present it here and now. Be as strictly honest as possible.

Let me provide a prediction of my own. When this thread fades into obscurity, it will carry with it not a word of objective evidence for God, but will contain many arguments against the restrictions placed on the forms of evidence deemed acceptable within this opening post. Should that prediction come true, would it be a prophecy provided by God, or simply a presumption based on evidence provided in prior threads?

I'm asking for nothing other than is expected in support of anything else proclaimed to exist.

There isn't any evidence that God or His people exist. Quantum physicists don't have any hard evidence that we exist. They only have theories about who we are and theories are NOT THE TRUTH.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:03:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:56:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
The evidence (or lack, thereof), for God is one of the most fundamental points of argument between theists and atheists. I've started threads in the past, asking for objective evidence for God. What I received were arguments for God and debates over what is meant by "objective evidence" (verses "subjective evidence).

Arguments are not evidence. You will find arguments for both sides of every war, and both sides of every court trial. You'll find arguments for both sides of every partnership and relationship. Anyone can produce an argument for anything. Even flat-Earthers produce arguments against a spherical Earth, spinning, and flying through space on a curved trajectory. This does not equate to objective evidence for a flat, stationary planet.

"Subjective evidence" is that which is applied with a bias. If the bias is removed, or re-directed, the conclusion suggested by the evidence changes. This being the case, such "evidence" is not of value in determining truth.

Personal testimony is not objective evidence because it can be no more than the interpretation of the person providing the testimony, and will thusly, carry with it the bias of that person, even when they believe they are being as objective as possible. Anyone watching Criss Angel or David Copperfield can provide only their biased interpretation of what they observed - their personal perspective. They are not intending to deceive, but were themselves deceived (the very goal of an illusionist), and can only pass that deception to those to whom they testify. This tends to be the substance of "miracles" - a perception of an event, not properly understood.

"Old Book" is not evidence for God, anymore than the novel "Peter Pan" is evidence for jealous fairies sprinkling magic dust on children. Nothing about the Bible connects it in any way to God. It contains a few predictions which can be interpreted to be fulfilled prophecy, and at least as many predictions which have flatly failed, even within the structure of its own stories. Personal testimony - unaccompanied by supporting subjective evidence - is not of itself, evidence, and that doesn't change simply because it takes a written form. Nothing about the Bible connects it to God or Jesus.

Theists routinely suggest that placing such limitations upon what they offer is unfair because they claim that it serves only to mask out any evidence applicable to God. If that is true, it's because there is no objective evidence applicable God.

God's supposed non-physical nature DOES NOT remove him from the probability for objective evidence. If God did not affect the physical, there would be no reason to suggest him to be God, and it would show the whole of the Bible (or Qur'an) to be false. That which affects the physical, leaves physical evidence. The very alteration to the physical IS physical evidence. So if God exists, there should be valid physical evidence, of an objective nature.

So... with all of that in mind, here is your chance (once again), to present the objective evidence for God, which theists continually insist does exist. Present that evidence. Don't wait for another debate, in another thread, to suddenly pop up and proclaim that there is objective evidence for God. Please, if you have such evidence, present it here and now. Be as strictly honest as possible.

Let me provide a prediction of my own. When this thread fades into obscurity, it will carry with it not a word of objective evidence for God, but will contain many arguments against the restrictions placed on the forms of evidence deemed acceptable within this opening post. Should that prediction come true, would it be a prophecy provided by God, or simply a presumption based on evidence provided in prior threads?

I'm asking for nothing other than is expected in support of anything else proclaimed to exist.

There isn't any evidence that God or His people exist. Quantum physicists don't have any hard evidence that we exist. They only have theories about who we are and theories are NOT THE TRUTH.

A theory is an explanation based on evidence, which has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and found to remain consistent with ALL of the pertinent evidence. That's as close to truth as one can get. And you're wrong about Quantum Mechanics. It offers nothing to suggest that we don't exist. It shows that as we approach the sub-atomic, the apparent certainty we see at the Newtonian scale, becomes a matter of probability. And the reduction of certainty is the result of the necessary restrictions placed on comparisons.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:22:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
The evidence (or lack, thereof), for God is one of the most fundamental points of argument between theists and atheists. I've started threads in the past, asking for objective evidence for God. What I received were arguments for God and debates over what is meant by "objective evidence" (verses "subjective evidence).

Arguments are not evidence. You will find arguments for both sides of every war, and both sides of every court trial. You'll find arguments for both sides of every partnership and relationship. Anyone can produce an argument for anything. Even flat-Earthers produce arguments against a spherical Earth, spinning, and flying through space on a curved trajectory. This does not equate to objective evidence for a flat, stationary planet.


Arguments incorporate evidence. Arguments typically start from some pieces of evidence If you were a bayesian about evidence (which you should be) you wouldn't even be making this point because it isn't strong. AT all.

In the case of the flat Earth - you can start with the plausible assumption of common sense epistemology that If something appears to person S to be the case that some propsition p, then S has prima facie justification for believing P. Ex: if it seems to me that I am typing on this computer that gives me prima facie jusification for believing that I am. Now, that evidence and justification is DEFEASIBLE not indefeasible. By defeasible I mean capable of being undermined or rebutted. And example of an undermining defeater for my belief that I am typing on this computer is that I am dreaming. Now, it amy well be that I am typing on this computer (I could be sleep typing) but knowing now that I was dreaming gives me no reason to think I am/or was typing on this computer.

In the calse of a flat earther they have prima facie justifcation for believing that the earth is flat (the earth does LOOK flat after all). But that justfication is defeasible - we have both undermining and rebutting defeaters to that belief. And undermining defeater would be an explanation that is consistent with the earth being spherical that would explain why the earth appears flat to us. A rebutting defeater would be direct evidence showing that the earth is spherical (i.e. photos taken from space, etc).

All this is to say, that you are entirely wrong about your contetion that arguments aren't evidence. The rest of your point is moot because hinges ont hat point. Arguments can provide weak or strong inductive support in a bayesian framework depending of course on the line of reasoning from premise to premise and the content of the premises (the data points; the evidence).

That there are weak arguments (i.e. that they provide weak inductive support for their conclusions) doesn't preclude there being strong arguments (i.e. they provide strong inductive support for their conclusions.)

"Subjective evidence" is that which is applied with a bias. If the bias is removed, or re-directed, the conclusion suggested by the evidence changes. This being the case, such "evidence" is not of value in determining truth.


*sigh*

Perception is theory laden.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Many scientific theories underdetermine what conclusion should be drawn from the evidence.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

There's no such thing as evaluating the evidence without bias or from an "objective" standpoint.

Personal testimony is not objective evidence because it can be no more than the interpretation of the person providing the testimony, and will thusly, carry with it the bias of that person, even when they believe they are being as objective as possible. Anyone watching Criss Angel or David Copperfield can provide only their biased interpretation of what they observed - their personal perspective. They are not intending to deceive, but were themselves deceived (the very goal of an illusionist), and can only pass that deception to those to whom they testify. This tends to be the substance of "miracles" - a perception of an event, not properly understood.

"Old Book" is not evidence for God, anymore than the novel "Peter Pan" is evidence for jealous fairies sprinkling magic dust on children. Nothing about the Bible connects it in any way to God. It contains a few predictions which can be interpreted to be fulfilled prophecy, and at least as many predictions which have flatly failed, even within the structure of its own stories. Personal testimony - unaccompanied by supporting subjective evidence - is not of itself, evidence, and that doesn't change simply because it takes a written form. Nothing about the Bible connects it to God or Jesus.

Theists routinely suggest that placing such limitations upon what they offer is unfair because they claim that it serves only to mask out any evidence applicable to God. If that is true, it's because there is no objective evidence applicable God.

God's supposed non-physical nature DOES NOT remove him from the probability for objective evidence. If God did not affect the physical, there would be no reason to suggest him to be God, and it would show the whole of the Bible (or Qur'an) to be false. That which affects the physical, leaves physical evidence. The very alteration to the physical IS physical evidence. So if God exists, there should be valid physical evidence, of an objective nature.

So... with all of that in mind, here is your chance (once again), to present the objective evidence for God, which theists continually insist does exist. Present that evidence. Don't wait for another debate, in another thread, to suddenly pop up and proclaim that there is objective evidence for God. Please, if you have such evidence, present it here and now. Be as strictly honest as possible.

Let me provide a prediction of my own. When this thread fades into obscurity, it will carry with it not a word of objective evidence for God, but will contain many arguments against the restrictions placed on the forms of evidence deemed acceptable within this opening post. Should that prediction come true, would it be a prophecy provided by God, or simply a presumption based on evidence provided in prior threads?

I'm asking for nothing other than is expected in support of anything else proclaimed to exist.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:22:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:03:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:56:00 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
The evidence (or lack, thereof), for God is one of the most fundamental points of argument between theists and atheists. I've started threads in the past, asking for objective evidence for God. What I received were arguments for God and debates over what is meant by "objective evidence" (verses "subjective evidence).

Arguments are not evidence. You will find arguments for both sides of every war, and both sides of every court trial. You'll find arguments for both sides of every partnership and relationship. Anyone can produce an argument for anything. Even flat-Earthers produce arguments against a spherical Earth, spinning, and flying through space on a curved trajectory. This does not equate to objective evidence for a flat, stationary planet.

"Subjective evidence" is that which is applied with a bias. If the bias is removed, or re-directed, the conclusion suggested by the evidence changes. This being the case, such "evidence" is not of value in determining truth.

Personal testimony is not objective evidence because it can be no more than the interpretation of the person providing the testimony, and will thusly, carry with it the bias of that person, even when they believe they are being as objective as possible. Anyone watching Criss Angel or David Copperfield can provide only their biased interpretation of what they observed - their personal perspective. They are not intending to deceive, but were themselves deceived (the very goal of an illusionist), and can only pass that deception to those to whom they testify. This tends to be the substance of "miracles" - a perception of an event, not properly understood.

"Old Book" is not evidence for God, anymore than the novel "Peter Pan" is evidence for jealous fairies sprinkling magic dust on children. Nothing about the Bible connects it in any way to God. It contains a few predictions which can be interpreted to be fulfilled prophecy, and at least as many predictions which have flatly failed, even within the structure of its own stories. Personal testimony - unaccompanied by supporting subjective evidence - is not of itself, evidence, and that doesn't change simply because it takes a written form. Nothing about the Bible connects it to God or Jesus.

Theists routinely suggest that placing such limitations upon what they offer is unfair because they claim that it serves only to mask out any evidence applicable to God. If that is true, it's because there is no objective evidence applicable God.

God's supposed non-physical nature DOES NOT remove him from the probability for objective evidence. If God did not affect the physical, there would be no reason to suggest him to be God, and it would show the whole of the Bible (or Qur'an) to be false. That which affects the physical, leaves physical evidence. The very alteration to the physical IS physical evidence. So if God exists, there should be valid physical evidence, of an objective nature.

So... with all of that in mind, here is your chance (once again), to present the objective evidence for God, which theists continually insist does exist. Present that evidence. Don't wait for another debate, in another thread, to suddenly pop up and proclaim that there is objective evidence for God. Please, if you have such evidence, present it here and now. Be as strictly honest as possible.

Let me provide a prediction of my own. When this thread fades into obscurity, it will carry with it not a word of objective evidence for God, but will contain many arguments against the restrictions placed on the forms of evidence deemed acceptable within this opening post. Should that prediction come true, would it be a prophecy provided by God, or simply a presumption based on evidence provided in prior threads?

I'm asking for nothing other than is expected in support of anything else proclaimed to exist.

There isn't any evidence that God or His people exist. Quantum physicists don't have any hard evidence that we exist. They only have theories about who we are and theories are NOT THE TRUTH.

A theory is an explanation based on evidence, which has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and found to remain consistent with ALL of the pertinent evidence. That's as close to truth as one can get. And you're wrong about Quantum Mechanics. It offers nothing to suggest that we don't exist. It shows that as we approach the sub-atomic, the apparent certainty we see at the Newtonian scale, becomes a matter of probability. And the reduction of certainty is the result of the necessary restrictions placed on comparisons.

I know what a theory is but quantum mechanics has taught man that we're not real at all. We're only illusions that make us believe we are real.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:33:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thinking about it even more: your assertion that arguments can't constitute as evidence seems absurd.

Take Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True".

In it he provides multiples lines of evidence, and a series of (plausible) inferences to support the hypothesis that evolution is true. He lays this all out in a series of smaller arguments and incorporates that all into a longer, sustained book length argument supporting that hypothesis. It'd be absurd to say that his arguments can't constitute as as evidence that evolution is true. If that can't, then what can?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:43:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:22:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
The evidence (or lack, thereof), for God is one of the most fundamental points of argument between theists and atheists. I've started threads in the past, asking for objective evidence for God. What I received were arguments for God and debates over what is meant by "objective evidence" (verses "subjective evidence).

Arguments are not evidence. You will find arguments for both sides of every war, and both sides of every court trial. You'll find arguments for both sides of every partnership and relationship. Anyone can produce an argument for anything. Even flat-Earthers produce arguments against a spherical Earth, spinning, and flying through space on a curved trajectory. This does not equate to objective evidence for a flat, stationary planet.


Arguments incorporate evidence.
Then provide your objective evidence and leave the argument to the recognition that what can be argued one direction, can almost always be argued in a different direction. The argument is little more than the opportunity to provide a subjective flavor to the evidence. If your evidence is reliant upon your argument, then it is subjective.

Arguments typically start from some pieces of evidence If you were a bayesian about evidence (which you should be) you wouldn't even be making this point because it isn't strong. AT all.
Actually, it's strong enough to be beyond refute. Until you can show me a war where either side is unable to argue for their justification, that's simply the true nature of arguments, they can be formulated to reach a number of different conclusions, and carry the subjective bias of those arguing, while objective evidence is objectively evident.

In the case of the flat Earth - you can start with the plausible assumption of common sense epistemology that If something appears to person S to be the case that some propsition p, then S has prima facie justification for believing P. Ex: if it seems to me that I am typing on this computer that gives me prima facie jusification for believing that I am. Now, that evidence and justification is DEFEASIBLE not indefeasible. By defeasible I mean capable of being undermined or rebutted. And example of an undermining defeater for my belief that I am typing on this computer is that I am dreaming. Now, it amy well be that I am typing on this computer (I could be sleep typing) but knowing now that I was dreaming gives me no reason to think I am/or was typing on this computer.
And here we go again. You ask a theist for evidence for the existence of God, you get arguments - not evidence - arguments. Then you engage them in another thread, assert that they have no evidence, and they insist that they do. So you again provide them the forum to present their evidence, and what do they give you... arguments.

So do you have any objective evidence for God, or don't you?

In the calse of a flat earther they have prima facie justifcation for believing that the earth is flat (the earth does LOOK flat after all).
The Earth looks no more flat than it is. If one observes the horizon over a calm ocean, you see that it is not flat.

But that justfication is defeasible - we have both undermining and rebutting defeaters to that belief. And undermining defeater would be an explanation that is consistent with the earth being spherical that would explain why the earth appears flat to us. A rebutting defeater would be direct evidence showing that the earth is spherical (i.e. photos taken from space, etc).
Not arguments... evidence. When I make the observation that theists have no objective evidence for the existence of God, they claim that they do. Here is the opportunity for them to list those evidences. And again...

YOU EITHER HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, OR YOU DON'T. IF YOU HAVE IT, PRESENT IT. If you don't, then don't claim that you do.

This is very simple. Don't try to cloud the issue by presenting multiple arguments. This is about evidence. Present it, or admit that you can't.

DONE!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.
The truth will set you free
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:50:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:33:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Thinking about it even more: your assertion that arguments can't constitute as evidence seems absurd.

Take Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True".

In it he provides multiples lines of evidence, and a series of (plausible) inferences to support the hypothesis that evolution is true. He lays this all out in a series of smaller arguments and incorporates that all into a longer, sustained book length argument supporting that hypothesis. It'd be absurd to say that his arguments can't constitute as as evidence that evolution is true. If that can't, then what can?

I have the book you've named as an example. But look just to the nature of your claim; that arguments can contain evidence, and ARE evidence? That would mean that one could present a reasoned claim devoid of evidence, and claim it as evidence. One cannot reasonably do so because an argument can be formulated only on assertions and claims, yet you want to claim that such an argument, is itself evidence. It is not.

Let's back up; remember the example in my opening post? "You don't love me because you forgot my parent's anniversary!" What is the evidence, that the accused does not love the accuser? It is that the accused did not remember the accuser's parent's anniversary. Does that evidence support the conclusion without the argument?

Once again; this is a request for "evidence", not arguments. And the only reason I've presented this is because the last time I asked for objective evidence, I received only subjective evidence and arguments. And since then, I've been confronted numerous times (almost daily), by theists assertion that they do indeed have objective evidence for God.

SO PRESENT THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE!

if you're going to claim it, be prepared to support the claim by providing what you claim to have.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:59:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Nature did not emerge with an understanding of science methodology, and a special brand of evidence for that methodology, nor does that methodology claim a need for a specially honed formulation of evidence. Science uses "objective evidence".

As for your claims about God being untestable, I would return you to the opening post where this has already been addressed. Only if God does not affect the physical, is he excused from objective evidence. If God grants prayers, then those offering prayer should be provided with signs of benevolence more often than those who do not pray. Studies on prayer show this not to be the case.

If God turns a dust speck through 5-degrees of rotation, the repositioning of the dust speck through an unexplained force, may be evidence of God. No such physical changes through unexplained forces are offered. The only way to remove your God from physical evidence, is to proclaim your God not to affect the physical.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ah O beastts throwing a tantrum again, it isn"t getting what it wants. It wants God to meet it own terms.

Beastt, evidence in this case is the universe, which is evidence of what ever you want to interpret it to be evidence of. Therefore in the case of God as in Creator and Judge, it has to be between you and your Maker for proof. But it"s not the burden of the believer to prove there is a God, it is up to God to show those who ask or seek Him according to His terms, of which you"ve had to have read a thousand times or more on this site. God"s not stupid, Jesus was healing hundreds and many other things that showed and proved that God was with Him, but it was those who were the religious leaders of the time that thought to require a sigh that was to be on their terms. Didn"t happen, never will. On your terms it will never happen, not because there isn"t a God, its because God doesn"t respond to the rebellious and the disrespectful. Politicians might have to, to keep your vote, or your mommy might just to shut you up, but God will not.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:20:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:09:45 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Beastt, evidence in this case is the universe, which is evidence of what ever you want to interpret it to be evidence of

Thank you.
You just described subjective evidence.
Well done.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 9:33:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:20:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:09:45 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Beastt, evidence in this case is the universe, which is evidence of what ever you want to interpret it to be evidence of

Thank you.
You just described subjective evidence.
Well done.

Call it pink yo-yo"s if you like, it is what it is.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 9:35:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 9:33:48 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:20:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:09:45 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Beastt, evidence in this case is the universe, which is evidence of what ever you want to interpret it to be evidence of

Thank you.
You just described subjective evidence.
Well done.

Call it pink yo-yo"s if you like, it is what it is.

Yep sure is.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 10:21:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:09:45 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Ah O beastts throwing a tantrum again, it isn"t getting what it wants. It wants God to meet it own terms.

Beastt, evidence in this case is the universe, which is evidence of what ever you want to interpret it to be evidence of. Therefore in the case of God as in Creator and Judge, it has to be between you and your Maker for proof. But it"s not the burden of the believer to prove there is a God, it is up to God to show those who ask or seek Him according to His terms, of which you"ve had to have read a thousand times or more on this site. God"s not stupid, Jesus was healing hundreds and many other things that showed and proved that God was with Him, but it was those who were the religious leaders of the time that thought to require a sigh that was to be on their terms. Didn"t happen, never will. On your terms it will never happen, not because there isn"t a God, its because God doesn"t respond to the rebellious and the disrespectful. Politicians might have to, to keep your vote, or your mommy might just to shut you up, but God will not.

The existence of the universe is evidence that the universe exists. It's just another in a long line of "therefor god!" non sequiturs. What's worse, using a god as the only explanation for the universe and the phenomena within it stifles intellectual curiosity.

The "on your terms" explanation is just an iteration of "the fastest draw in the West" routine-- the person drew and then holstered his pistol so quickly, your eyes could not perceive the motion.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:50:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:59:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Nature did not emerge with an understanding of science methodology, and a special brand of evidence for that methodology, nor does that methodology claim a need for a specially honed formulation of evidence. Science uses "objective evidence".

As for your claims about God being untestable, I would return you to the opening post where this has already been addressed. Only if God does not affect the physical, is he excused from objective evidence. If God grants prayers, then those offering prayer should be provided with signs of benevolence more often than those who do not pray. Studies on prayer show this not to be the case.

If God turns a dust speck through 5-degrees of rotation, the repositioning of the dust speck through an unexplained force, may be evidence of God. No such physical changes through unexplained forces are offered. The only way to remove your God from physical evidence, is to proclaim your God not to affect the physical.

So you do believe there could be objective evidence of God?
The truth will set you free
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 12:04:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:59:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Nature did not emerge with an understanding of science methodology, and a special brand of evidence for that methodology, nor does that methodology claim a need for a specially honed formulation of evidence. Science uses "objective evidence".

As for your claims about God being untestable, I would return you to the opening post where this has already been addressed. Only if God does not affect the physical, is he excused from objective evidence. If God grants prayers, then those offering prayer should be provided with signs of benevolence more often than those who do not pray. Studies on prayer show this not to be the case.

If God turns a dust speck through 5-degrees of rotation, the repositioning of the dust speck through an unexplained force, may be evidence of God. No such physical changes through unexplained forces are offered. The only way to remove your God from physical evidence, is to proclaim your God not to affect the physical.

There's no such thing as hard physical matter. The objects we observe are only illusions that aren't real at all. That's how perfectly God made His illusions to make us believe they are real.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:02:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 12:04:20 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:59:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Nature did not emerge with an understanding of science methodology, and a special brand of evidence for that methodology, nor does that methodology claim a need for a specially honed formulation of evidence. Science uses "objective evidence".

As for your claims about God being untestable, I would return you to the opening post where this has already been addressed. Only if God does not affect the physical, is he excused from objective evidence. If God grants prayers, then those offering prayer should be provided with signs of benevolence more often than those who do not pray. Studies on prayer show this not to be the case.

If God turns a dust speck through 5-degrees of rotation, the repositioning of the dust speck through an unexplained force, may be evidence of God. No such physical changes through unexplained forces are offered. The only way to remove your God from physical evidence, is to proclaim your God not to affect the physical.

There's no such thing as hard physical matter. The objects we observe are only illusions that aren't real at all. That's how perfectly God made His illusions to make us believe they are real.

Sorry, but physical matter most certainly does exist. It's simply not as substantial as we perceive it to be. It's more of a mist of sub-atomic particles, which are mostly (about 95%) vacuum fluctuations. Most of the volume of an atom is nothing. But about 5% of quarks is actual matter which does exist.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:05:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm already seeing the typical theist bait-and-switch. You bait with claims of real evidence for God, then switch to arguments and subjective claims.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:13:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:


"Subjective evidence" is that which is applied with a bias. If the bias is removed, or re-directed, the conclusion suggested by the evidence changes. This being the case, such "evidence" is not of value in determining truth.

Personal testimony is not objective evidence because it can be no more than the interpretation of the person providing the testimony, and will thusly, carry with it the bias of that person, even when they believe they are being as objective as possible. Anyone watching Criss Angel or David Copperfield can provide only their biased interpretation of what they observed - their personal perspective. They are not intending to deceive, but were themselves deceived (the very goal of an illusionist), and can only pass that deception to those to whom they testify. This tends to be the substance of "miracles" - a perception of an event, not properly understood.

I have to disagree with you here in regards to personal testimony being bias. When I became a believer, I think anyone who knew me personally would be hard pressed to suggest I was bias in any way towards Christianity shortly after my conversion. People who don't know me, like on the internet have assumed I live in the South or the Bible belt, grew up in a church environment, etc.

One of the problems is that there are so blanket statements, assumptions, made about Christians, it's apparently very difficult to have an objective view of any sort relating to Christianity specifically by non-Christians. Given that, imagine if a peer of yours you highly respect, thought along the same lines you do (an atheist), became a Christian? Let's say he had some sort of spiritual experience that he wasn't looking for, and the day after you both had a conversation about God not existing, he told you he is now a believer. Would you claim he was biased? He might be biased about his personal ability to reason the authenticity of a spiritual experience, but how could he be biased towards Christianity since just a day ago he was talking to you about how God doesn't exist?

And yes, these things happen (I'm an example of this). The thing is, anyone at any time could be become a believer. Christianity and atheism are not race or ethnic groups that one cannot remove themselves from, and not social/educational classes that one has to ascend or descend to attain. There have been fairly quick dramatic conversions, and could happen to anyone including those you highly respect with your similar views. A good example of this would be Peter Hitchens, a former atheist marxist. How often do we hear about him in comparison to his brother now that he is a Christian?

So keep in mind, you didn't make the claim that testimony is not evidence, just that it's not objective evidence. So you have to be sure that in every single case testimony is biased. Which goes back to the question about the scenario of a respected peer becoming a believer.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we all pretty much are swayed by testimonies. Even the issue of scientists favoring evolution (of the Darwinian kind) involves mass testimony because so many emphasize quantity of scientists who accept evolution as being part of the evidence.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:25:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:02:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:04:20 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:59:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Nature did not emerge with an understanding of science methodology, and a special brand of evidence for that methodology, nor does that methodology claim a need for a specially honed formulation of evidence. Science uses "objective evidence".

As for your claims about God being untestable, I would return you to the opening post where this has already been addressed. Only if God does not affect the physical, is he excused from objective evidence. If God grants prayers, then those offering prayer should be provided with signs of benevolence more often than those who do not pray. Studies on prayer show this not to be the case.

If God turns a dust speck through 5-degrees of rotation, the repositioning of the dust speck through an unexplained force, may be evidence of God. No such physical changes through unexplained forces are offered. The only way to remove your God from physical evidence, is to proclaim your God not to affect the physical.

There's no such thing as hard physical matter. The objects we observe are only illusions that aren't real at all. That's how perfectly God made His illusions to make us believe they are real.

Sorry, but physical matter most certainly does exist. It's simply not as substantial as we perceive it to be. It's more of a mist of sub-atomic particles, which are mostly (about 95%) vacuum fluctuations. Most of the volume of an atom is nothing. But about 5% of quarks is actual matter which does exist.

That's what some quantum physicists try tell you but they don't understand that the particles they believe consist of real hard matter are only illusions. They can only theorize through their mathematical language that God has taught His people to use to measure the illusions that He has formed within His mind. Even mathematical languages are illusions.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:30:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

God doesn't exist outside our universe. We exist as His thoughts that are processed into illusions that we get to observe and experience with many senses that also are formed with information. We have always been in the mind of God since He created us within His thoughts that were spoken into waves of energy. Invisible waves do not take up any space nor do they contain matter. Time is an illusion as we observe quantum waves of information, one picture at a time.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:54:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 10:21:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:09:45 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Ah O beastts throwing a tantrum again, it isn"t getting what it wants. It wants God to meet it own terms.

Beastt, evidence in this case is the universe, which is evidence of what ever you want to interpret it to be evidence of. Therefore in the case of God as in Creator and Judge, it has to be between you and your Maker for proof. But it"s not the burden of the believer to prove there is a God, it is up to God to show those who ask or seek Him according to His terms, of which you"ve had to have read a thousand times or more on this site. God"s not stupid, Jesus was healing hundreds and many other things that showed and proved that God was with Him, but it was those who were the religious leaders of the time that thought to require a sigh that was to be on their terms. Didn"t happen, never will. On your terms it will never happen, not because there isn"t a God, its because God doesn"t respond to the rebellious and the disrespectful. Politicians might have to, to keep your vote, or your mommy might just to shut you up, but God will not.

The existence of the universe is evidence that the universe exists. It's just another in a long line of "therefor god!" non sequiturs. What's worse, using a god as the only explanation for the universe and the phenomena within it stifles intellectual curiosity.

Na, the universe according to the beholder is evidence of, what the beholder believes is true in the case of God, gods, religions, systems of belief, or no gods. It"s a matter of interpretation according to view.

Or haven"t you been paying attention to the constant arguments for the use of the universe to attempt to prove the multiple views using the same evidence, the universe.

Your view you just express is just one of many different views of the same evidence.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:31:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:25:37 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:02:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:04:20 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:59:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Nature did not emerge with an understanding of science methodology, and a special brand of evidence for that methodology, nor does that methodology claim a need for a specially honed formulation of evidence. Science uses "objective evidence".

As for your claims about God being untestable, I would return you to the opening post where this has already been addressed. Only if God does not affect the physical, is he excused from objective evidence. If God grants prayers, then those offering prayer should be provided with signs of benevolence more often than those who do not pray. Studies on prayer show this not to be the case.

If God turns a dust speck through 5-degrees of rotation, the repositioning of the dust speck through an unexplained force, may be evidence of God. No such physical changes through unexplained forces are offered. The only way to remove your God from physical evidence, is to proclaim your God not to affect the physical.

There's no such thing as hard physical matter. The objects we observe are only illusions that aren't real at all. That's how perfectly God made His illusions to make us believe they are real.

Sorry, but physical matter most certainly does exist. It's simply not as substantial as we perceive it to be. It's more of a mist of sub-atomic particles, which are mostly (about 95%) vacuum fluctuations. Most of the volume of an atom is nothing. But about 5% of quarks is actual matter which does exist.

That's what some quantum physicists try tell you but they don't understand that the particles they believe consist of real hard matter are only illusions. They can only theorize through their mathematical language that God has taught His people to use to measure the illusions that He has formed within His mind. Even mathematical languages are illusions.

I understand that you have some rather unique intra-cranial distortions. But that really doesn't put you in a position to make claims to knowledge which you clearly do not have. You keep using the word "hard" in a manner which demonstrates that you have less than a clue about the nature of quantum mechanics. You've obviously read some very basic comments, distorted them to your theistic bias, and now preach them as though you knew what you're talking about. You clearly don't.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:45:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:09:45 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Ah O beastts throwing a tantrum again, it isn"t getting what it wants. It wants God to meet it own terms.

Beastt, evidence in this case is the universe, which is evidence of what ever you want to interpret it to be evidence of. Therefore in the case of God as in Creator and Judge, it has to be between you and your Maker for proof. But it"s not the burden of the believer to prove there is a God, it is up to God to show those who ask or seek Him according to His terms, of which you"ve had to have read a thousand times or more on this site. God"s not stupid, Jesus was healing hundreds and many other things that showed and proved that God was with Him, but it was those who were the religious leaders of the time that thought to require a sigh that was to be on their terms. Didn"t happen, never will. On your terms it will never happen, not because there isn"t a God, its because God doesn"t respond to the rebellious and the disrespectful. Politicians might have to, to keep your vote, or your mommy might just to shut you up, but God will not.

I've made a specific request and I've tried to clarify what is, and isn't being requested in the O.P. If you can satisfy the request, great! Do so. if you can't, that's not really my fault. I'm not throwing any kind of tantrum. I'm simply trying to remind people that arguments are not evidence, subjective evidence is of little value in determining truth, (there is no such thing as "proof"), and it most certainly IS the burden of the one claiming that God exists, to provide objective evidence to support that claim. And if you can't do it, then it's not only appropriate for me to doubt your claim, but even more appropriate for you to doubt your claim, and to stop making that claim.

As far as your comments about Jesus healing people, take note of the details presented. Some of the most ancient religious beliefs included the idea that diseases were caused by "evil spirits". The Bible has Jesus curing leprosy by casting out evil spirits. Evil spirits don't cause disease, and leprosy is caused by bacteria, not evil spirits. So your prior comment about God not being stupid, would seem to be clearly refuted. Either that, your you can accept the fact that God didn't write any of the Bible, and didn't influence the Bible. And that explains why it carries only the ignorance of the men who wrote it.

You're welcome to keep insisting that God is hiding from people under the claim that they're not showing him the proper respect. But this applies to absolutely everyone because no one has ever provided objective evidence for God. And that's fine. But since that is the case, it would be appropriate for theists to discontinue insisting that there is evidence for God, since there isn't. And that's the point I'm making here... more accurately, it's the point YOU and other theists are making here.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:54:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 11:31:30 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:25:37 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:02:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:04:20 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:59:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:44:00 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:40:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

If scientific evidence is what your looking for, then you will never be able to find it. God exists, or supposedly exists, outside of our universe. Therefore, because science is the study of the natural world, God cannot be put to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, God is not testable, and testability is an extremely important part of science, so we will never be able to prove God scientifically or objectively.

There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Nature did not emerge with an understanding of science methodology, and a special brand of evidence for that methodology, nor does that methodology claim a need for a specially honed formulation of evidence. Science uses "objective evidence".

As for your claims about God being untestable, I would return you to the opening post where this has already been addressed. Only if God does not affect the physical, is he excused from objective evidence. If God grants prayers, then those offering prayer should be provided with signs of benevolence more often than those who do not pray. Studies on prayer show this not to be the case.

If God turns a dust speck through 5-degrees of rotation, the repositioning of the dust speck through an unexplained force, may be evidence of God. No such physical changes through unexplained forces are offered. The only way to remove your God from physical evidence, is to proclaim your God not to affect the physical.

There's no such thing as hard physical matter. The objects we observe are only illusions that aren't real at all. That's how perfectly God made His illusions to make us believe they are real.

Sorry, but physical matter most certainly does exist. It's simply not as substantial as we perceive it to be. It's more of a mist of sub-atomic particles, which are mostly (about 95%) vacuum fluctuations. Most of the volume of an atom is nothing. But about 5% of quarks is actual matter which does exist.

That's what some quantum physicists try tell you but they don't understand that the particles they believe consist of real hard matter are only illusions. They can only theorize through their mathematical language that God has taught His people to use to measure the illusions that He has formed within His mind. Even mathematical languages are illusions.

I understand that you have some rather unique intra-cranial distortions. But that really doesn't put you in a position to make claims to knowledge which you clearly do not have. You keep using the word "hard" in a manner which demonstrates that you have less than a clue about the nature of quantum mechanics. You've obviously read some very basic comments, distorted them to your theistic bias, and now preach them as though you knew what you're talking about. You clearly don't.

I was directly taught by our invisible Creator about these particles that aren't real. He used various analogies to help me understand that they cannot be contained. He woke me up in the middle of the night a couple years ago and made me look at my arm. Then He began to make my perspective smaller and smaller to see tissue, then cells, then into the particles swirling around. As I kept getting smaller and smaller, the particles that I thought looked like one particle began to break up into more particles. Eventually, He had me look around and it appeared that I was seeing a universe of tiny dim lights like what we see in space on a dark night. Then He began to show me how illusive these particles were by trying to reach them, which I never could. The closer I got to these particles, they would break up into even more particles with space between them. What He was doing was showing me that particles aren't what they appear to be.

He also taught me about these atomic elements by having me imagine one atom the size of a basketball. Then He told me to imagine being in the center of that swirling galaxy of particles and told me that He was still there. Then He told me to imagine one atom the size of the earth as we know it. He told me to imagine being in the center of it and then said He was still there. The next size He told me to imagine was the size of the known universe, whatever size the scientists now believe it to be. Then He told me that He was still in the center of it. This analogy was to teach me that no matter what we perceive, God is the source of it all.

He's used many analogies to teach me how He created everything. Then in January of this year, He had me start watching videos of quantum physicists and cosmologists. This is when I learned that many of the analogies He used to teach me about these particles were very similar to the analogies these scientists use to teach laymen like yourself and everyone else who doesn't understand the mathematical language they use to ( indirect knowledge from God ) to learn that these particles turn to waves when not observed. Many of these quantum physicists and cosmologists are now believing that there is no matter and that everything we observe is only an illusion. That's why they're trying to explain what we observe as holograms.

The fact is, these quantum physicists aren't being directly taught by our Creator so now they are guessing at where all these particles ( illusive waves of energy ) came from. They have no idea that we're only invisible information being processed into illusions that are formed according to God's program called Eternal Life. God is the one who adjusts these particles to dimensions to give us a make-believe world to experience life in. This isn't done by humans or beasts of this world but we are like computer processors that process information into quantum waves ( pictures ) to be observed by each individual created being.

One picture ( wave of information ) is all we can observe at a time but many pictures put together in a string give us the illusion of time and movement. So each one of us has been programmed to observe and sense exactly what God has planned for us. We are not our own creator of information or illusions to observe.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:58:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Based on what we can gather about the initial state of the universe and the singularity, the singularity can be viewed as eternal or timeless even. Therefore the singularity and what it became can be seen as god. All the power and energy coming from that initial state also is a qualifier for something with almost infinite potential.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 12:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 11:58:46 AM, Karmanator wrote:
Based on what we can gather about the initial state of the universe and the singularity, the singularity can be viewed as eternal or timeless even. Therefore the singularity and what it became can be seen as god. All the power and energy coming from that initial state also is a qualifier for something with almost infinite potential.

Maybe, and human history has proved that men have seen the universe or just things in it as god or gods of some sort, but is there something other than time energy space and matter that is manifest within time energy space and matter and could that be life? Could life be something that is, that is not dependant on time energy space and matter to be, or exist?