For debate:
Please offer direct evidence for the existence of God, and some means to confirm it is direct evidence.
Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #1I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #11I find the use of "no intelligent reason" an important few words to consider here.
I hate to break this to ya, but the bible's a compilation of human tales regarding a god that can't be shown to exist.Bible God shows knowledge and understanding that no other god shows. That is why I reject the others.
And ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 932 times
- Been thanked: 3486 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #12That's it , really. Though clearly the evidence for the existence of God (Biblegod) has to be reliance on the Bible (some or all of it) and that either requires dismissing some as 'Symbolic' (pack of lies) or maintain it as true, which requires denial of science. Though curiously not denying the astronomical science. There, my argument that Genesis describes the Babylonian snowdome -cosmos (and Venom asked me to show this, but I have to defer it to a later time as it is a trickier debate even that the one on the Tower of babel I had recently) is rejected and there, the science isn't denied but it is denied that the Bible says anything different, though some extraordinary theories have to be invented to explain how there was day and night before the sun was created..(1). It's the old story of Religious fundamentalism fighting a rearguard action against modern thought except where at least Some Church thought has to play catchup or get left behind.
Unless it can establish a Theocracy.
(1) But that andthe 'evidently, Mioses dreamed it all, because he wasn't t there.' theory has to wait for another time.
Unless it can establish a Theocracy.
(1) But that andthe 'evidently, Mioses dreamed it all, because he wasn't t there.' theory has to wait for another time.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9342
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 883 times
- Been thanked: 1240 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #13You (like all of us) will eventually die and the world will move on and Genesis beliefs will no longer be an accepted explanation. Progress takes time. Just look how long it took for enough believers to die off in order for those very same religions to now agree with evolution as an explantation or that the earth is not the center of our solar system to just name a couple.
While you are on this earth, you are free to believe the claims of any religion you choose, even if you have no intelligent reason to do so, but don't be expected to be taken seriously here on a debate forum when the claims nor the god can be evidenced.
You were in fact raised in the religion you are now saddled with and that is why you reject the others. Please stop pretending that you understand other religions and made some sort of educated reasoning to pick the religion you were born in to.Bible God shows knowledge and understanding that no other god shows. That is why I reject the others.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #14How is that evidence at all? There are a series of unsupported claims to try to back that up.1213 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:18 amGood is the creator. Created things are the evidence for creator. We can see the created things, therefore we have evidence for the creator.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:39 am For debate:
Please offer direct evidence for the existence of God, and some means to confirm it is direct evidence.
If this is not direct evidence, can you show an example of direct evidence for anything?
1) Good is the creator. How do you know that? Can you objectively show what 'good' is? Can you measure good.
2) All the created things I know are created are created by man, or perhaps other types of animals (burrows and such). Man and animals are not God.
Can you give an example of a 'created' thing that wasn't made by man , or perhaps another anima
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #151) Good is the creator. How do you know that? Can you objectively show what 'good' is? Can you measure good.Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:23 pmHow is that evidence at all? There are a series of unsupported claims to try to back that up.1213 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:18 amGood is the creator. Created things are the evidence for creator. We can see the created things, therefore we have evidence for the creator.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:39 am For debate:
Please offer direct evidence for the existence of God, and some means to confirm it is direct evidence.
If this is not direct evidence, can you show an example of direct evidence for anything?
2) All the created things I know are created are created by man, or perhaps other types of animals (burrows and such). Man and animals are not God.
Can you give an example of a 'created' thing that wasn't made by man , or perhaps another living thing?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #16[Replying to 1213 in post #9]
Sadly, my non-reading friend, every body of science, every application of engineering, has observed proof that there is no thing that exists now that was ever created, only formed from a precursor.
Since nothing is or was ever created, there is no creator.
God dismissed as the fantasy of ignorant goat herders, that modern people still manage to believe.
Sadly, my non-reading friend, every body of science, every application of engineering, has observed proof that there is no thing that exists now that was ever created, only formed from a precursor.
Since nothing is or was ever created, there is no creator.
God dismissed as the fantasy of ignorant goat herders, that modern people still manage to believe.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11342
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 312 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #17Sorry, I meant God, not Good, all though I think God is good.Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:23 pm ....
1) Good is the creator. How do you know that? Can you objectively show what 'good' is? Can you measure good.
2) All the created things I know are created are created by man, or perhaps other types of animals (burrows and such). Man and animals are not God.
Can you give an example of a 'created' thing that wasn't made by man , or perhaps another anima
And, I don't think people have created anything. People can only build, form and construct from what exists, they don't really create anything.
Created things were for example this planet, animals and humans.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 932 times
- Been thanked: 3486 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #18So, essentially we get back to 'Who made everything, then?' With denial of abiogenesis (life from non -life). The idea being that 'it is impossible to explain this other than by an Intelligent Creator'. Which is the two best apologetics for a god, though it says nothing about which one.
But the arguments have been done to death, including plants from seeds in life from non -life and protests that it is potentially life. The objection is that this supposed creator has to come from somewhere but that is dismissed. This creator was eternal and uncreated and they don't have to explain how.
But the supposed 'reasonable' agnosticism says 'nobody knows' and that is not evidence for the existence of a god. But this recurring apologetic 'What other explanation is there?' keeps being presented. The answer is not 'an intelligent creator', 'but 'we don't know'. That is not evidence, let alone direct evidence.
I need hardly reiterate the false mindset of faith here - God is the default explanation unless unbelievers can prove 100% demonstrable in real time proof of the materialist explanations down to the last nano -particle'. That is not how evidence works. But it is how gap for God apologetics work.
But the arguments have been done to death, including plants from seeds in life from non -life and protests that it is potentially life. The objection is that this supposed creator has to come from somewhere but that is dismissed. This creator was eternal and uncreated and they don't have to explain how.
But the supposed 'reasonable' agnosticism says 'nobody knows' and that is not evidence for the existence of a god. But this recurring apologetic 'What other explanation is there?' keeps being presented. The answer is not 'an intelligent creator', 'but 'we don't know'. That is not evidence, let alone direct evidence.
I need hardly reiterate the false mindset of faith here - God is the default explanation unless unbelievers can prove 100% demonstrable in real time proof of the materialist explanations down to the last nano -particle'. That is not how evidence works. But it is how gap for God apologetics work.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #19Ok. You made the claims that 'God is the creator'. How do you know that? That looks like an axiom that there is no evidence for.1213 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:04 amSorry, I meant God, not Good, all though I think God is good.Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:23 pm ....
1) Good is the creator. How do you know that? Can you objectively show what 'good' is? Can you measure good.
2) All the created things I know are created are created by man, or perhaps other types of animals (burrows and such). Man and animals are not God.
Can you give an example of a 'created' thing that wasn't made by man , or perhaps another anima
And, I don't think people have created anything. People can only build, form and construct from what exists, they don't really create anything.
Created things were for example this planet, animals and humans.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 932 times
- Been thanked: 3486 times
Re: Direct evidence for the existence of God.
Post #20Saying 'God' is the axiomatic Christian fallacy, when arguing from Intelligent Creation. Because they don't know which one. This is the 'leap of faith' from the claim of some creative supernatural being to Biblegod. They assume there is only one god that could have created everything and (unless they are non -religious theists/Deists) that is what they have to argue. It comes down to the Bible and Cosmic origins and denial of Abiogenesis and evolution are really not the argument for (Bible) God.