Proof of the Christian God

[RonE]

In a current topic there was the following post:

Merely saying something is true does not make it true….
We as humans like to have proof.
Gullible people accept things, because it suits them…

And yet theists continue to claim that a creator being exists and that it made everything, despite repeatedly failing to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim....

I’ve seen other posts in the past on this site where theist claim to have scientific evidence of God. I never seen this actually done, usually their evidence is never presented, if something is presented it is invariably misquoted, or doesn’t say what the presenter claims it does.
So, to help us not be “gullible people�. This topic will be dedicated to theists to provide that which has been claimed but never provided, to my knowledge, real scientific evidence of the Christian god.
First, some definitions and parameters for debate:
1. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support, or counter, a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpreted in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls applied. Wikipedia
2. The scientific hypothesis you will be trying to support with your evidence goes like this: “there is a god as defined in the Christian bible who is omnificent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and creator of the universe�.
3. This is not a debate about evolution, disproving evolution is not a proof that your god exists. Nor is it about attempting to debunk other scientific hypothesis or theories, unless doing so is direct proof that your god exists, disproving the theory of gravity is not evidence of your god.
4. Please follow the forum rules. “the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.�

The rules for this debate are simple:
1) present your scientific evidence of your god
2) see #1

If you don’t have the evidence, please don’t waste everyone’s time.
If you don't like the OP create one for your own topic.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 20 by JLB32168]

Personal testimony of course carries very little weight.

That presupposes I crave your validation of my beliefs. I don’t. [smile]

Just as it should be, nor do I yours. But, for purposes of this debate forum the rules state that personal opinion carries no weight as evidence.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 17 by JLB32168]


Two kinds of evidence:
Useful and worthless.

Well I'd hope that it would be, you are placing your 'faith' and possibly a good bit of your time, effort, and treasure into something for which you have no evidence.

I have evidence. Did you perhaps mean the conclusive kind? That’s not the only kind of evidence, you know.

Yeah there is the inconclusive kind that concludes nothing. What a great kind of evidence to base a life on!.....

Inconclusive evidence is worthless.. it doesn't prove anything. So, if your evidence isn't conclusive, it's bad evidence, and should be rejected. Case closed.

Got anything else?

IMHO it is a double whammy, no proof of your claimed deity and no proof of anything supernatural.

Once again you seem to confuse “conclusive proof� with the idea of proofs – a sequence of steps used to validate a solution/conclusion. Theists each have an individual burden of proof for “God exists� that has been met and that is why they are theists.

You seem to think that inconclusive proof is worthwhile.

We usually get subjective impressions and empty claims such as the ones you offered us below from Christians instead of objective facts. Hardly impressive. The bar for truth in Christianity is set way too low.

"If I feel it's true it must be true"... isn't to be taken seriously as evidence, sorry.

I have seen icons weep chrism (a mixture of olive oil mixed w/ground frankensense tears) and have known men who went to Mt. Athos who came into contact with monks that possessed the ability to read people’s minds and tell them the answers to spiritual questions before the questions had been asked.

So you claim.
I'd ask for you evidence before I'd believe a single word of that.
Sorry.

Of course, the entire idea that the universe erupted from nothing (since there can’t be an infinite regression of causes) is complimented by calling it absurd, IMO.

Yeah, but that's only an appeal to ignorance and isn't proof of your god claims.

I have had more than enough evidence and proofs other than the things I mentioned in this post to form my conclusion that the supernatural exists and specifically that God is its foundation.

I didn't see any.
You now seem to be making claims about having made claims.

But you are free to take your evidence as convincing to YOU.. it's just going to be a lot harder to convince any one who is skeptical of your claims.

If someone else doesn’t then I have concluded that they are not being objective

But if your conclusion is based on falsehoods, things that we can't possibly verify and bad reasoning, we have no choice but to reject it.

and I simply can’t be bothered with trying to convince people of something when they are immune to evidence.

Our minds are open to your evidence, now, where is the evidence?

[JLB32168]

Inconclusive evidence is worthless.. it doesn't prove anything.

Preponderance of evidence is inconclusive evidence. Circumstantial evidence is inconclusive evidence.

You seem to think that inconclusive proof is worthwhile.

And you think it isn’t worthwhile. I’m neither responsible for nor beholden to your determination of worth.

JLB: I have seen icons weep chrism (a mixture of olive oil mixed w/ground frankensense tears) and have known men who went to Mt. Athos who came into contact with monks that possessed the ability to read people’s minds and tell them the answers to spiritual questions before the questions had been asked.

BC: So you claim. I'd ask for you evidence before I'd believe a single word of that. Sorry.

Oh well. You asked for evidence and I gave it and you rejected it as fiction – or that’s what your comment suggests.

Yeah, but that's only an appeal to ignorance and isn't proof of your god claims.

Oh I’m not appealing to anything. I’m just stating a subjective, feelings based, and inherently illogical value judgment, namely, the idea that there is an infinite regression of causes is complimented by calling it absurd.

I didn't see any. You now seem to be making claims about having made claims.

You’ve read quite a few posts of mine on various and sundry threads. If you can’t remember them then I’ve little interest in tracking the stuff down. That you don’t believe me is of interest to you alone.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

Preponderance of evidence is inconclusive evidence. Circumstantial evidence is inconclusive evidence.

The "preponderance of evidence" for the Christian claim that Jesus returned to life and then subsequently flew away is entirely derived from Christian claims, and only from Christian claims. Only the disciples of Jesus claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. There is NO other evidence. So, let's all go ahead and acknowledge that after Jesus was executed the disciples of Jesus almost certainly went about spreading the rumor that Jesus had returned to life, and that he then subsequently flew away, off up into the sky. Just as detailed in Acts.

All experience and observation however overwhelmingly indicates that a corpse is neither capable of returning to life, nor is it capable of flying away. That is NOT inconclusive evidence. All common experience and observation is as conclusive as humans can possibly hope for. So if we are going to consider the ACTUAL "preponderance of evidence" as being conclusive, then the "preponderance of evidence" overwhelmingly indicates that the corpse of Jesus did not and could not possibly have returned to life and then subsequently flown away as claimed. Rumors and unsubstantiated stories cannot possibly overcome all common knowledge and well established experience. So the case really should be closed.

[Zzyzx]

.

Personal testimony of course carries very little weight.

That presupposes I crave your validation of my beliefs. I don’t. [smile]

It might be prudent to realize that no one person is the center or focus of this thread, this Forum, or the thoughts of others (though some may have difficulty accepting the concept).

Notice that the OP asks for scientific proof of gods -- and stipulates:

Present your scientific evidence of your god

If you don’t have the evidence, please don’t waste everyone’s time.

If you don't like the OP create one for your own topic.

Personal testimonials are NOT scientific evidence. They are nothing more than storytelling.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 23 by JLB32168]

.
Language and logic problems.

Inconclusive evidence is worthless.. it doesn't prove anything.

Preponderance of evidence is inconclusive evidence.

No.

All that means is that we require enough evidence to be convinced. If there is enough, then we have a preponderance. If there isn't enough... then there is no preponderance.

Circumstantial evidence is inconclusive evidence.

Not even close.

Sometimes, all we have is circumstantial evidence and it can be VERY conclusive... such as skid marks on a road telling us how fast a car was traveling before an accident.

You seem to think that inconclusive proof is worthwhile.

And you think it isn’t worthwhile. I’m neither responsible for nor beholden to your determination of worth.

Of course you aren't!
But you might be interested in making a case instead of just making assertions.

If something isn't conclusive, it means we have not proved anything. So, if the Christian offers us evidence that is inconclusive, it's worthless to his argument. It doesn't PROVE anything. Just like an assertion... it doesn't PROVE anything, it's inconclusive by itself, and perfectly USELESS in a debate.

People are free to make as many useless assertions as they like, and they are neither responsible for nor beholden to my determination of worth.

So you claim. I'd ask for you evidence before I'd believe a single word of that. Sorry.

Oh well. You asked for evidence and I gave it and you rejected it as fiction – or that’s what your comment suggests.

I don't reject it as a FICTION.... please pay attention:

I rejected you claims because they are not VERIFIABLE. We can't just take your word for it. You may be wrong or lying or whatever. We would have to CHECK your miracle claims. I do not claim that you HAVE told us tall tales. I just can't RULE THAT OUT.

I hope that now, you can see the very important distinction.
People make religious claims, and I am a skeptic to those, so I need PROOF for them, does that make sense?

Yeah, but that's only an appeal to ignorance and isn't proof of your god claims.

Oh I’m not appealing to anything.

Wrong. You did.

You didn't notice that you made the fallacy, but you did. It would be helpful if you learned a little about logical fallacies. They are always important to avoid as they fail any argument.

I will quote you again and bold the part where you appealed to ignorance so you can see what I meant:

"Of course, the entire idea that the universe erupted from nothing (since there can’t be an infinite regression of causes) is complimented by calling it absurd, IMO. "

1. We don't actually KNOW how the universe "erupted" or that it DID "erupt" from "nothing". Not knowing is ignorance.
2. We don't actually KNOW that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes ( as strange as that might seem to us ) Again, not knowing is ignorance.
3. EVEN IF we don't know how the universe "erupted" i.e. that the idea that we have is absurd, appealing to that LACK of knowledge ( ignorance ) does not prove anything else, including a creator god concept. ( This represents the standard Argumentum ad Ignorantiam )

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

I’m just stating a subjective, feelings based, and inherently illogical value judgment, namely, the idea that there is an infinite regression of causes is complimented by calling it absurd.

So, what are we to make of your subjective feelings?... You have them, fine. Your feelings don't prove a thing and are not evidence.

I might "feel" that you are wrong... but my feelings are NOT a reasoned argument. We all have a perfect right to our feelings, but that's not what we are here to discuss. We are here to try to make SENSE to one another, and not just EMOTE to one another.

I didn't see any. You now seem to be making claims about having made claims.

You’ve read quite a few posts of mine on various and sundry threads. If you can’t remember them then I’ve little interest in tracking the stuff down. That you don’t believe me is of interest to you alone.

If you aren't interested in your very own ideas, that is no concern of mine. I will continue to criticize your errors. If you don't bother to defend yourself, that is your concern entirely.

You don't have to.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 26 by Blastcat]

Blastcat & JLB32168: I appreciate your exchange on logic, however it is off topic here. I'd appreciate if we could stay focused on the OP.

JLB32168: If you have any evidence of our god to present that complies with the OP please present it.

Thank you both.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by JLB32168]

JLB: I have seen icons weep chrism (a mixture of olive oil mixed w/ground frankensense tears) and have known men who went to Mt. Athos who came into contact with monks that possessed the ability to read people’s minds and tell them the answers to spiritual questions before the questions had been asked.

Blastcat

So you claim. I'd ask for you evidence before I'd believe a single word of that. Sorry.

Oh well. You asked for evidence and I gave it and you rejected it as fiction – or that’s what your comment suggests.

No you didn't provide evidence. What you did was type on your keyboard about having seen weeping statues, and having known other men who supposedly had their minds read.
SAYING you have seen this or that, or SAYING you know of people who had their mind read is NOT providing evidence.
You know that sheet of paper I won't shut up about? I still have it. Go on, demonstrate this mind-reading power if you will. I know what's on the sheet.
Put your money where your mouth is.

[JoeyKnothead]

.
Moderator Zzyzx removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complementing or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 15 by RonE]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Thank you Marco. That is exactly the point.

This topic has been largely ignored by the theists for what I believe is a perfectly valid reason. They cannot handle a demand for evidence of their extraordinary supernatural claims. I am working on thestudent in the current topic "what does intelligent design prove?".

Yes, I have singled-out thestudent for this debating experiment because of his creationist debating style, the results should be enlightening. So far I'd say it's been predictable.

An update on my previous post:

thestudent abandoned the debate topic he setup, "what does intelligent design prove", he as not posted on that topic since last Monday 8-1-16. There were open challenges from several participants he abandoned & that he refused to answer. As I said above "So far I'd say it's been predictable".

thestudent has modified his debate tactic and opened another topic under the title "Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific." In that topic he tries to redefine what modern science is and use science as a straw man for his lack of evidence for his god.

To date no valid replies have been posted to this topic.