Evidence for God?

[MarkDuffy]

LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?

Trust me on this. The coin will go down.

Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?

What if you're in a black hole?

What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?

What if you are in the vacuum of space?

What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?

You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.

I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.

Guess what? The coin just went down again.

Is this proof of God?

In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.

We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.

You changed the environment of the experiment, you did not prove anything. I am dropping a coin, your spirit got lost again.

No, I didn't change the environment, you didn't state the environment. I took advantage of that detail to show you how your assumption could be wrong. Of course I didn't "prove" anything, it's impossible to prove something to someone who refuses to accept evidence.

My spirit is not lost and neither is yours. My spirit is strong because I nurture it and yours is weak because you ignore it.

Quote my post and apologize

 

[MarkDuffy]

None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such. I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ... It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.

Another dishonest reply.
1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.

Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.

You cumstain moron.

"Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationcysts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​

Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
`

1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.

Yes, all evidence IS subjective. A gun with fingerprints is evidence but it's subjective. It could've been planted to frame someone. The OJ Simpson jury is a good example of DNA evidence being subjective, the jury subjectively didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor. The same is the case for the security video or any other example you give. Evidence is always subjective, that's why we have juries of more than one.

Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.

All you have to do is ask yourself one question. Is it possible that someone might believe a person was told by God who did it? If that is a possibility at all, then evidence is subjective.

Proof is evidence establishing a fact but since all evidence is subjective, so is proof.

Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.

What you are really saying here is that you don't value my evidence as much as you value scientific evidence. You're actually proving my point, that all evidence is subjective.

Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.

Well, there are well over 100 abiogenesis theories, they can't all be correct. IF 75% are wrong then 25% are right, correct? How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence?

Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.

No, it's not. In fact, science has been wrong far more times than it has been right. Science continuously challenges itself. It does not draw definitive conclusions. It continues to leave the door of possibility open in all cases. That's what science IS. I can give you an endless list of things science has gotten wrong dating back to Aristotle. New science is constantly coming along to replace old science.

Up until about 2009, every physics book in the world was wrong.

Were they now?

They all said the universe is made up of mostly atoms. In your eyes, this would have been "demonstrable truth" but it was not correct.

You have proof of this?

The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and only 4% is atoms. Whenever you draw conclusion, you have abandoned science for faith. Science can't do anything with a conclusion.

Yet none of the dark matter/energy has ever been found. Sounds to me like the invention of "missing mass" is what's wrong.

Why are you believing baseless science, but rejecting well founded evolutionary science?

If you have to invent first dark matter, then dark energy, that should be a hint that the physics is wrong.

Most of the current cosmology is assuming Hubble was correct. Methinks the trouble is there. We had to apply a relativistic adjustment to physics for high velocities. Hubble just might need such an adjustment also.

 

[Divine Wind]

Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.

But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.

Disagreed.

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it. We have brains. My understanding is that we are expected to use them. Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.

 

[Divine Wind]

Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?

What if you're in a black hole?

What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?

What if you are in the vacuum of space?

What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?

You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.

I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.

Guess what? The coin just went down again.

Is this proof of God?

In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.

We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.

You changed the environment of the experiment, you did not prove anything. I am dropping a coin, your spirit got lost again.

No, I didn't change the environment, you didn't state the environment. I took advantage of that detail to show you how your assumption could be wrong. Of course I didn't "prove" anything, it's impossible to prove something to someone who refuses to accept evidence.

My spirit is not lost and neither is yours. My spirit is strong because I nurture it and yours is weak because you ignore it.

Quote my post and apologize

It's hypocritical of you to ask others to do exactly what you've refused to do yourself.

 

[Boss]

None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such. I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ... It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.

Another dishonest reply.
1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.

Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.

You cumstain moron.

"Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationcysts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​

Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
`

1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.

Yes, all evidence IS subjective. A gun with fingerprints is evidence but it's subjective. It could've been planted to frame someone. The OJ Simpson jury is a good example of DNA evidence being subjective, the jury subjectively didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor. The same is the case for the security video or any other example you give. Evidence is always subjective, that's why we have juries of more than one.

Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.

All you have to do is ask yourself one question. Is it possible that someone might believe a person was told by God who did it? If that is a possibility at all, then evidence is subjective.

Proof is evidence establishing a fact but since all evidence is subjective, so is proof.

Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.

What you are really saying here is that you don't value my evidence as much as you value scientific evidence. You're actually proving my point, that all evidence is subjective.

Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.

Well, there are well over 100 abiogenesis theories, they can't all be correct. IF 75% are wrong then 25% are right, correct? How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence?

Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.

No, it's not. In fact, science has been wrong far more times than it has been right. Science continuously challenges itself. It does not draw definitive conclusions. It continues to leave the door of possibility open in all cases. That's what science IS. I can give you an endless list of things science has gotten wrong dating back to Aristotle. New science is constantly coming along to replace old science.

Up until about 2009, every physics book in the world was wrong.

Were they now?

They all said the universe is made up of mostly atoms. In your eyes, this would have been "demonstrable truth" but it was not correct.

You have proof of this?

The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and only 4% is atoms. Whenever you draw conclusion, you have abandoned science for faith. Science can't do anything with a conclusion.

Yet none of the dark matter/energy has ever been found. Sounds to me like the invention of "missing mass" is what's wrong.

Why are you believing baseless science, but rejecting well founded evolutionary science?

If you have to invent first dark matter, then dark energy, that should be a hint that the physics is wrong.

Most of the current cosmology is assuming Hubble was correct. Methinks the trouble is there. We had to apply a relativistic adjustment to physics for high velocities. Hubble just might need such an adjustment also.

37:58 to 40:20

 

[Boss]

Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.

But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.

Disagreed.

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it. We have brains. My understanding is that we are expected to use them. Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.

I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.

When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.

You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.

To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?

 

[Divine Wind]

Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.

But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.

Disagreed.

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it. We have brains. My understanding is that we are expected to use them. Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.

I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.

When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.

You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.

To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.

The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons. Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.

As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any. Why? I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.

But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.

Disagreed.

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it. We have brains. My understanding is that we are expected to use them. Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.

I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.

When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.

You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.

To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.

The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons. Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.

As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any. Why? I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.

"I think that is part of the mystery "

What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.

Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.

 

[Divine Wind]

Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.

But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.

Disagreed.

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it. We have brains. My understanding is that we are expected to use them. Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.

I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.

When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.

You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.

To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.

The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons. Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.

As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any. Why? I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.

"I think that is part of the mystery "

What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.

Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.

Faith is faith. Can't be proved or disproved. Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.

Disagreed.

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it. We have brains. My understanding is that we are expected to use them. Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.

I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.

When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.

You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.

To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.

The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons. Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.

As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any. Why? I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.

"I think that is part of the mystery "

What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.

Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.

Faith is faith. Can't be proved or disproved. Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded.

"
Faith is faith. Can't be proved or disproved. Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded."

Agreed 100%. It is what it is. I find it contradictory that people who proudly profess their "strong faith" will then do everything they can to paint it as something other than faith. What are they ashamed of? Being dishonest is more shameful than admitting faith, IMHO.

 

[Boss]

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.

The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons. Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.

As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any. Why? I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.

Well that's not true but apparently you're not understanding me. You have "evidence" the moon is made of rock. However, you've not examined and observed what's 10,000 feet below the surface of the moon, nor have you been to the moon to witness this for yourself. You said it best yourself when you stated, "I can accept as fact" ...that's a profession of faith in what you perceive to be factual.

Then you make the statement "...without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe..." Why without a doubt? What would be the reason God would need to prove something to you? I don't suppose you spend much of your weekends out in the back yard trying to prove to the ants that you have ESPN on cable. Why not? Without a doubt, you could!

I often say that I believe in Spiritual Nature but that's not really true. To believe in something, means to have faith without proof. I have spiritual proof of Spiritual Nature. I realize a tangible benefit in connecting with Spiritual Nature in my everyday life. It has given me tremendous strength, courage and patience. It has helped me through some really dark times in my life and it has provided irreplaceable guidance. This is MY proof and it's all I need. So, you see, it't not a matter of faith for me, it has been proven beyond any doubt.

 

[MarkDuffy]

None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such. I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ... It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.

Another dishonest reply.
1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.

Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.

You cumstain moron.

"Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationcysts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​

Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
`

1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.

Yes, all evidence IS subjective. A gun with fingerprints is evidence but it's subjective. It could've been planted to frame someone. The OJ Simpson jury is a good example of DNA evidence being subjective, the jury subjectively didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor. The same is the case for the security video or any other example you give. Evidence is always subjective, that's why we have juries of more than one.

Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.

All you have to do is ask yourself one question. Is it possible that someone might believe a person was told by God who did it? If that is a possibility at all, then evidence is subjective.

Proof is evidence establishing a fact but since all evidence is subjective, so is proof.

Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.

What you are really saying here is that you don't value my evidence as much as you value scientific evidence. You're actually proving my point, that all evidence is subjective.

Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.

Well, there are well over 100 abiogenesis theories, they can't all be correct. IF 75% are wrong then 25% are right, correct? How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence?

Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.

No, it's not. In fact, science has been wrong far more times than it has been right. Science continuously challenges itself. It does not draw definitive conclusions. It continues to leave the door of possibility open in all cases. That's what science IS. I can give you an endless list of things science has gotten wrong dating back to Aristotle. New science is constantly coming along to replace old science.

Up until about 2009, every physics book in the world was wrong.

Were they now?

They all said the universe is made up of mostly atoms. In your eyes, this would have been "demonstrable truth" but it was not correct.

You have proof of this?

The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and only 4% is atoms. Whenever you draw conclusion, you have abandoned science for faith. Science can't do anything with a conclusion.

Yet none of the dark matter/energy has ever been found. Sounds to me like the invention of "missing mass" is what's wrong.

Why are you believing baseless science, but rejecting well founded evolutionary science?

If you have to invent first dark matter, then dark energy, that should be a hint that the physics is wrong.

Most of the current cosmology is assuming Hubble was correct. Methinks the trouble is there. We had to apply a relativistic adjustment to physics for high velocities. Hubble just might need such an adjustment also.

37:58 to 40:20

?

 

[Boss]

?

You asked for proof and I gave you proof.

And you are wrong about dark matter not being found. It has been found. It was actually found through mathematics by accident. Physicists couldn't rectify the amount of gravity in the universe with the amount of matter. We still don't know a lot about dark matter because we can't physically interact with it.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- is AN IMMENSE leap of faith. No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.

The Big Bang SIMPLE??? That's a riot..

You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory. God willing of course.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- is AN IMMENSE leap of faith. No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.

The Big Bang SIMPLE??? That's a riot..

You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory. God willing of course.

Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. Theories are just tools for bounding the brain work.
If the Big Bang failed -- it would leave a gaping hole in the confidence that we have in understanding the origins of our Universe.

On encountering fantastical "solutions" that so far exceeds human experience -- it doesn't matter if you believe or not. BUT if you can't TRULY wrap your mind around it -- You're believing it -- "on faith". Physicists are some of the most "faithful" people on the planet.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- is AN IMMENSE leap of faith. No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.

The Big Bang SIMPLE??? That's a riot..

You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory. God willing of course.

Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. Theories are just tools for bounding the brain work.
If the Big Bang failed -- it would leave a gaping hole in the confidence that we have in understanding the origins of our Universe.

On encountering fantastical "solutions" that so far exceeds human experience -- it doesn't matter if you believe or not. BUT if you can't TRULY wrap your mind around it -- You're believing it -- "on faith". Physicists are some of the most "faithful" people on the planet.

I don't think if we discovered the big bang was wrong that it would leave a gaping hole in anything. We would just understand better how the universe got started.

If you found out that our universe came out of a reverse black hole, would that change your life? It wouldn't mine. If you found out the universe we observe now is not the first or only universe would it change you? Not me.

Watch: Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law Explained

A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence.

Scientific Theory vs Law – Science Journal – Medium

 

[MarkDuffy]

But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.

Disagreed.

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it. We have brains. My understanding is that we are expected to use them. Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.

I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.

When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.

You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.

To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.

The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons. Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.

As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any. Why? I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.

"I think that is part of the mystery "

What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.

Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.

Faith is faith. Can't be proved or disproved. Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded.

God can be proved

He just has to give the media an interview with followup

 

[MarkDuffy]

?

You asked for proof and I gave you proof.

And you are wrong about dark matter not being found. It has been found. It was actually found through mathematics by accident. Physicists couldn't rectify the amount of gravity in the universe with the amount of matter. We still don't know a lot about dark matter because we can't physically interact with it.

You claim there are no facts, no proof of anything.

You gave me opinion I did not care to click on.

You are worthless. We are done.

 

[sealybobo]

?

You asked for proof and I gave you proof.

And you are wrong about dark matter not being found. It has been found. It was actually found through mathematics by accident. Physicists couldn't rectify the amount of gravity in the universe with the amount of matter. We still don't know a lot about dark matter because we can't physically interact with it.

This is all subjective.

 

[Boss]

You claim there are no facts, no proof of anything.

You gave me opinion I did not care to click on.

You are worthless. We are done.

Well you asked for proof of what I said and I posted it but you refuse to click on it. It's just a YouTube video.

I never claimed there are no facts or proof of anything. That's just a dumb ass interpretation of what I've said. Facts and proof are words, they have meanings. Science has a methodology. Very few (if any) things can actually be called "scientific fact" because science continues to ask questions and challenge it's findings. IF science concluded "facts" there would be an endless number of things science would've never discovered. This is why science uses "theory" even when it seems to be a fact.

"Proof" is a subjective term. When you believe the evidence establishes a fact, you call it proof. I may not subjectively view the evidence the same as you, so I may not find proof.