Evidence for God?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Again... You can THINK whatever you like. I have never known of anyone who has faith in anything without any evidence. "


You can THINK whatever you like. Every person who has faith is doing so without evidence, else it is not faith.

See how that works? When all you have at your disposal are authoritative declarations, the correct rebuttal to anything you say is, "Nuh-uh!". That's your first clue that you have a weak argument.

No, I don't see how that works. I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. I see there is a huge difference between evidence and proof. I can tell you that I have "evidence" that Elvis Presley is still alive.... you can accept my evidence as valid or not but my faith that Elvis lives is based on my subjective evaluation of my evidence. Your rejection of my evidence doesn't mean that I don't have any or that I have faith in something without evidence. I don't have PROOF but that's something different entirely.

Faith is belief without PROOF... not evidence.

"I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. "


I know you do, and you are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time, and you will always be wrong. And I called out this slow creep you were attempting to this false equivalence in about your third post. This is "The Alamo" for guys like you: all opinions are equal in that they are just opinions, anything with any degree of subjectivity is equally subjective to all else(which is everything), and evidence-based determinations have no more value than faith-based belief.
This is you, trying to place your faith-based nonsense on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge not by elevating your own nonsense, but rather by trying to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the mud. same thing, everytime. Very predictable, and obviously very wrong.

 

[Boss]

"I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. "


I know you do, and you are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time, and you will always be wrong. And I called out this slow creep you were attempting to this false equivalence in about your third post. This is "The Alamo" for guys like you: all opinions are equal in that they are just opinions, anything with any degree of subjectivity is equally subjective to all else(which is everything), and evidence-based determinations have no more value than faith-based belief.
This is you, trying to place your faith-based nonsense on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge not by elevating your own nonsense, but rather by trying to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the mud. same thing, everytime. Very predictable, and obviously very wrong.

LOL... Well I even gave you an illustrative example of how I am right.

What you want to do is use bully tactics to proclaim your evidence superior to all other evidence and claim moral authority over what is objective evidence. I'm not allowing you to do that and it's frustrating you. We ALL make "evidence-based" determinations because our faiths rely on evidence. Faith is belief without PROOF. You have faith in what you subjectively believe is objective evidence.

Let me give you ANOTHER illustrative example. You drop a bowling ball. You have faith the ball will travel to the floor. Your faith is based on your subjective evaluation that gravity is objective evidence. Turns out, your faith is well founded. Now let's go back to the days of Galileo. In his time, people believed heavier things fall faster than light things. He thought the evidence for this was subjective so he tested it. He provided us with new evidence that gravity works equally on everything. His objective evidence becomes proof.

 

[Divine Wind]

Most Christians will tell you worship is required

I was raised in a Baptist family and have an Uncle who is a minister.
I've never heard ANY Christian make this claim.

I'm a reformed southern baptist, VERY reformed. My entire Mom's side were ministers.

I have never heard ANY Christian NOT make this claim. Perhaps you should ignore the Christian links I provide cuz they are obvious liars?

Here's one now, duck! ~ Why does God demand, seek, or request that we worship Him?

1) I disagree with both of you since I've heard some Christians say yes and some not say anything about "worship" per se albeit acceptance of belief is certainly a requirement.

2) There are a lot more denominations of Christianity than Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, and Evangelicals.

3) Mark's link is biased and, no doubt, selected to provide evidence of his point, but not proof of his claim that all Christians require "worship". From Mark's link: "We believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God...". Not all Christians take the Bible literally as the linked one does.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. "


I know you do, and you are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time, and you will always be wrong. And I called out this slow creep you were attempting to this false equivalence in about your third post. This is "The Alamo" for guys like you: all opinions are equal in that they are just opinions, anything with any degree of subjectivity is equally subjective to all else(which is everything), and evidence-based determinations have no more value than faith-based belief.
This is you, trying to place your faith-based nonsense on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge not by elevating your own nonsense, but rather by trying to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the mud. same thing, everytime. Very predictable, and obviously very wrong.

LOL... Well I even gave you an illustrative example of how I am right.

What you want to do is use bully tactics to proclaim your evidence superior to all other evidence and claim moral authority over what is objective evidence. I'm not allowing you to do that and it's frustrating you. We ALL make "evidence-based" determinations because our faiths rely on evidence. Faith is belief without PROOF. You have faith in what you subjectively believe is objective evidence.

Let me give you ANOTHER illustrative example. You drop a bowling ball. You have faith the ball will travel to the floor. Your faith is based on your subjective evaluation that gravity is objective evidence. Turns out, your faith is well founded. Now let's go back to the days of Galileo. In his time, people believed heavier things fall faster than light things. He thought the evidence for this was subjective so he tested it. He provided us with new evidence that gravity works equally on everything. His objective evidence becomes proof.

There you go again... "My evidence"...yet no mention of which evidence you are referring to. As if the mountains of mutually supportive evidence from all fields of science is "my evidence". This hilarious attempt to personalize the debate is truly the hallmark of a charlatan.

Either something is evidence, or it is not. No, whether or not you"feel" it is evidence is not relevant, when gathering scientific evidence.

 

[Boss]

There you go again... "My evidence"...yet no mention of which evidence you are referring to. As if the mountains of mutually supportive evidence from all fields of science is "my evidence". This hilarious attempt to personalize the debate is truly the hallmark of a charlatan.

Either something is evidence, or it is not. No, whether or not you"feel" it is evidence is not relevant, when gathering scientific evidence.

,Why do you want to make an ad populum argument as if that is scientific? Is there some misunderstanding about this? Popularity of an argument is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's not even evidence of anything, other than, it's popular opinion! When you say "mutually supportive" that's exactly what you are saying... this big group of people over here agree with me, therefore, I am correct!

And AGAIN... because you seem to have a head of concrete... ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE! You and I may differ completely on what we consider valid evidence of something. I've given you several examples and you just fucking ignore them and keep right on stubbornly trying to make an inaccurate point. There are people who believe aliens are roaming the earth among us... they can show you their evidence! You may not see their evidence as valid... that doesn't mean they don't have it... it just means you don't value it as evidence and they do. I don't know any other way this can be explained to you. If you just stubbornly refuse to accept that different people value evidence differently... go on through life believing that, but you're just fucking WRONG!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There you go again... "My evidence"...yet no mention of which evidence you are referring to. As if the mountains of mutually supportive evidence from all fields of science is "my evidence". This hilarious attempt to personalize the debate is truly the hallmark of a charlatan.

Either something is evidence, or it is not. No, whether or not you"feel" it is evidence is not relevant, when gathering scientific evidence.

,Why do you want to make an ad populum argument as if that is scientific? Is there some misunderstanding about this? Popularity of an argument is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's not even evidence of anything, other than, it's popular opinion! When you say "mutually supportive" that's exactly what you are saying... this big group of people over here agree with me, therefore, I am correct!

And AGAIN... because you seem to have a head of concrete... ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE! You and I may differ completely on what we consider valid evidence of something. I've given you several examples and you just fucking ignore them and keep right on stubbornly trying to make an inaccurate point. There are people who believe aliens are roaming the earth among us... they can show you their evidence! You may not see their evidence as valid... that doesn't mean they don't have it... it just means you don't value it as evidence and they do. I don't know any other way this can be explained to you. If you just stubbornly refuse to accept that different people value evidence differently... go on through life believing that, but you're just fucking WRONG!

The one making the 'ad populum' argument for the truth of anything is the one who says evidence is all subjective, and so ultimately is decided to be evidence by the most peole "feeling" it is evidence.

That one, in our discussion, would be you.

And that is not the first time in this discussion you have accused me or others of doing exactly what it is you are doing, as you do it.

 

[theHawk]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

 

[Boss]

The one making the 'ad populum' argument for the truth of anything is the one who says evidence is all subjective, and so ultimately is decided to be evidence by the most peole "feeling" it is evidence.

That one, in our discussion, would be you.

And that is not the first time in this discussion you have accused me or others of doing exactly what it is you are doing, as you do it.

Apparently, someone doesn't know what "argumentum ad populum" means.... How about you go look that up before you make more of a fool of yourself?

I did not ever say that "evidence" is based on popular opinion. That's just a bold faced LIE and you are a LIAR.

My statement was, all evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I'm sorry if I embarrassed you by schooling you and then schlonging your ass up one side of this forum and down the other... but that's what you deserve for being such an obtuse and obnoxious little troll bot.

 

[Boss]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

 

[MarkDuffy]

God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

"Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."

Two things incorrect about this statement:

1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet

2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.

 

[Boss]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.

Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis.

Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.

Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis.

Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.

"Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis. "

You contradict yourself. You first try to say that nothing is proven to always be true, then you misrepresent abiogeneis as an attempt to disprove biogenesis, which would only be the case if you meant biogenesis were always true. Abiogenesis as the origin of life would not disprove the principle of biogenesis, which could still hold in all evolution of life deriving from the first common ancestor. Oops. Sometimes the truth slips out on accident...

 

[theHawk]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.

"Abiogenesis" is a joke, it in no way demonstrates how to create life from the raw elements.

 

[theHawk]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

"Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."

Two things incorrect about this statement:

1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet

2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.

Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons. Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.

 

[Boss]

"Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science backgrund ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis. "

You contradict yourself. You first try to say that nothing is proven to always be true, then you misrepresent abiogeneis as an attempt to disprove biogenesis, which would only be the case if you meant biogenesis were always true. Abiogenesis as the origin of life would not disprove the principle of biogenesis, which could still hold in all evolution of life deriving from the first common ancestor. Oops. Sometimes the truth slips out on accident...

Not a contradiction at all. Theories remain valid theories until they are disproved. Abiogenesis WOULD disprove the theory of Biogenesis. For heaven's sake, the fucking name should be a clue!

 

[Boss]

scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...

Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."

Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.

Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.

 

[MarkDuffy]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

"Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."

Two things incorrect about this statement:

1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet

2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.

Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons. Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.

Carbon is not organic

Oh really? Did anyone here make this claim? No!

Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.

Perhaps you can point out where any of us claimed the primitive environment that gave rise to the abiogenesis of life was inorganic? CO2 organic? CH4 organic? HCN organic?