"Faith" and "Faith"

[ding]

See post #88. That's all I need.

Hey. If you're happy with logically flawed reason, then you do you boo. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

 

[Czernobog]

Hey. If you're happy with logically flawed reason, then you do you boo. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

 

[ding]

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

That's because the objective evidence supports that rather than intelligence being a late outgrowth it has always existed as the source or matrix.

 

[ding]

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

What evidence do you want?

 

[Czernobog]

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

That's because the objective evidence supports that rather than intelligence being a late outgrowth it has always existed as the source or matrix.

the objective evidence supports no such thing. There has not even been evidence provided that such an intelligence even exists. That is simply a fact that you cannot s;pin with rhetoric. Simply asserting that the universe had to be designed, does not make it so, and is not evidence of a designer.

 

[Czernobog]

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

What evidence do you want?

I want a direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe, like we can get from dark matter, and quantum matter. Provide evidence that this intelligence exists.

See, here's the thing; forget the advent of the universe. Nearly every theistic religion in existence insists that God actively answers prayer, and moves the universe to provide positive outcomes to people's prayers. Okay. that means that God must be actively affecting the universe. Provide objective, verifiable, measurable evidence of this effect.

To be clear, this does not mean that someone who prayed for it, was cured of cancer. Rather demonstrate the evidence that God specifically caused that healing.

 

[ding]

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

What evidence do you want?

I want a direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe, like we can get from dark matter, and quantum matter. Provide evidence that this intelligence exists.

See, here's the thing; forget the advent of the universe. Nearly every theistic religion in existence insists that God actively answers prayer, and moves the universe to provide positive outcomes to people's prayers. Okay. that means that God must be actively affecting the universe. Provide objective, verifiable, measurable evidence of this effect.

To be clear, this does not mean that someone who prayed for it, was cured of cancer. Rather demonstrate the evidence that God specifically caused that healing.

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

Like I said before, the only evidence you will accept is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

And since it is impossible to measure God the way you are trying, you accept on faith that he does not exist. You have no way to know.

 

[ding]

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

That's because the objective evidence supports that rather than intelligence being a late outgrowth it has always existed as the source or matrix.

the objective evidence supports no such thing. There has not even been evidence provided that such an intelligence even exists. That is simply a fact that you cannot s;pin with rhetoric. Simply asserting that the universe had to be designed, does not make it so, and is not evidence of a designer.

Anything inside of space and time can be used as objective evidence.

 

[Czernobog]

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

What evidence do you want?

I want a direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe, like we can get from dark matter, and quantum matter. Provide evidence that this intelligence exists.

See, here's the thing; forget the advent of the universe. Nearly every theistic religion in existence insists that God actively answers prayer, and moves the universe to provide positive outcomes to people's prayers. Okay. that means that God must be actively affecting the universe. Provide objective, verifiable, measurable evidence of this effect.

To be clear, this does not mean that someone who prayed for it, was cured of cancer. Rather demonstrate the evidence that God specifically caused that healing.

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

 

[Czernobog]

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

That's because the objective evidence supports that rather than intelligence being a late outgrowth it has always existed as the source or matrix.

the objective evidence supports no such thing. There has not even been evidence provided that such an intelligence even exists. That is simply a fact that you cannot s;pin with rhetoric. Simply asserting that the universe had to be designed, does not make it so, and is not evidence of a designer.

Anything inside of space and time can be used as objective evidence.

No, it can't. Because we have yet to find anything in the known universe that has a zero possibility of forming naturally. So, until we discover such a phenomenon, then nothing in the universe dictates a creator.

 

[ding]

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

What evidence do you want?

I want a direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe, like we can get from dark matter, and quantum matter. Provide evidence that this intelligence exists.

See, here's the thing; forget the advent of the universe. Nearly every theistic religion in existence insists that God actively answers prayer, and moves the universe to provide positive outcomes to people's prayers. Okay. that means that God must be actively affecting the universe. Provide objective, verifiable, measurable evidence of this effect.

To be clear, this does not mean that someone who prayed for it, was cured of cancer. Rather demonstrate the evidence that God specifically caused that healing.

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

You on the other hand are seeking evidence that is impossible to be measured and observed and yet you demand it still.

Do you not see your dilemma?

 

[ding]

No. You are free to argue that.

I am arguing that the objective evidence we have is evidence of intelligence.

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

That's because the objective evidence supports that rather than intelligence being a late outgrowth it has always existed as the source or matrix.

the objective evidence supports no such thing. There has not even been evidence provided that such an intelligence even exists. That is simply a fact that you cannot s;pin with rhetoric. Simply asserting that the universe had to be designed, does not make it so, and is not evidence of a designer.

Anything inside of space and time can be used as objective evidence.

No, it can't. Because we have yet to find anything in the known universe that has a zero possibility of forming naturally. So, until we discover such a phenomenon, then nothing in the universe dictates a creator.

Yes, it can. That is the nature of matter. It can be measured and observed. You can put your hands on it. You can use it in a court of law.

You want evidence from outside of space and time.

 

[Czernobog]

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

What evidence do you want?

I want a direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe, like we can get from dark matter, and quantum matter. Provide evidence that this intelligence exists.

See, here's the thing; forget the advent of the universe. Nearly every theistic religion in existence insists that God actively answers prayer, and moves the universe to provide positive outcomes to people's prayers. Okay. that means that God must be actively affecting the universe. Provide objective, verifiable, measurable evidence of this effect.

To be clear, this does not mean that someone who prayed for it, was cured of cancer. Rather demonstrate the evidence that God specifically caused that healing.

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

 

[Czernobog]

Except we don't. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that we don't know how the universe came into being, so it must have been God. That's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It mustn't be anything. That's what "I don't know" means. It doesn't dictate that the blank be filled in. It is simply a place-holder while we search, explore, experiment, and expand our knowledge, and understanding until with have an actual answer, based on observable, verifiable evidence. "God did it", despite your protestations to the contrary, does not have observable, verifiable evidence, because "God Exists" has not even been established with observable, verifiable evidence. Working backward we know something caused the universe to explode into existence. And that's ALL we know. You are imposing an intelligence on that something for which there is no evidence to support.

That's because the objective evidence supports that rather than intelligence being a late outgrowth it has always existed as the source or matrix.

the objective evidence supports no such thing. There has not even been evidence provided that such an intelligence even exists. That is simply a fact that you cannot s;pin with rhetoric. Simply asserting that the universe had to be designed, does not make it so, and is not evidence of a designer.

Anything inside of space and time can be used as objective evidence.

No, it can't. Because we have yet to find anything in the known universe that has a zero possibility of forming naturally. So, until we discover such a phenomenon, then nothing in the universe dictates a creator.

Yes, it can. That is the nature of matter. It can be measured and observed. You can put your hands on it. You can use it in a court of law.

You want evidence from outside of space and time.

It is matter that has a non-zero possibility of happening naturally, so it is evidence of nothing in regards to a "creator".

 

[ding]

What evidence do you want?

I want a direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe, like we can get from dark matter, and quantum matter. Provide evidence that this intelligence exists.

See, here's the thing; forget the advent of the universe. Nearly every theistic religion in existence insists that God actively answers prayer, and moves the universe to provide positive outcomes to people's prayers. Okay. that means that God must be actively affecting the universe. Provide objective, verifiable, measurable evidence of this effect.

To be clear, this does not mean that someone who prayed for it, was cured of cancer. Rather demonstrate the evidence that God specifically caused that healing.

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

 

[ding]

That's because the objective evidence supports that rather than intelligence being a late outgrowth it has always existed as the source or matrix.

the objective evidence supports no such thing. There has not even been evidence provided that such an intelligence even exists. That is simply a fact that you cannot s;pin with rhetoric. Simply asserting that the universe had to be designed, does not make it so, and is not evidence of a designer.

Anything inside of space and time can be used as objective evidence.

No, it can't. Because we have yet to find anything in the known universe that has a zero possibility of forming naturally. So, until we discover such a phenomenon, then nothing in the universe dictates a creator.

Yes, it can. That is the nature of matter. It can be measured and observed. You can put your hands on it. You can use it in a court of law.

You want evidence from outside of space and time.

It is matter that has a non-zero possibility of happening naturally, so it is evidence of nothing in regards to a "creator".

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

 

[Czernobog]

I want a direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe, like we can get from dark matter, and quantum matter. Provide evidence that this intelligence exists.

See, here's the thing; forget the advent of the universe. Nearly every theistic religion in existence insists that God actively answers prayer, and moves the universe to provide positive outcomes to people's prayers. Okay. that means that God must be actively affecting the universe. Provide objective, verifiable, measurable evidence of this effect.

To be clear, this does not mean that someone who prayed for it, was cured of cancer. Rather demonstrate the evidence that God specifically caused that healing.

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

 

[Czernobog]

the objective evidence supports no such thing. There has not even been evidence provided that such an intelligence even exists. That is simply a fact that you cannot s;pin with rhetoric. Simply asserting that the universe had to be designed, does not make it so, and is not evidence of a designer.

Anything inside of space and time can be used as objective evidence.

No, it can't. Because we have yet to find anything in the known universe that has a zero possibility of forming naturally. So, until we discover such a phenomenon, then nothing in the universe dictates a creator.

Yes, it can. That is the nature of matter. It can be measured and observed. You can put your hands on it. You can use it in a court of law.

You want evidence from outside of space and time.

It is matter that has a non-zero possibility of happening naturally, so it is evidence of nothing in regards to a "creator".

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

 

[ding]

You want to examine something which exists outside of space and time?

There you go, right there. That is where your claims of "objective evidence" falls apart. You have no way of proving that anything exists outside of time, and space. You can infer that perhaps something exists. And even then you have no way of knowing that it has intelligence. Now, do I assert that nothing exists outside of the universe (time and space) as we know it? No. I assert we. Don't. Know what, if anything, exists outside of the universe as we know it. So, I will wait until our technology, and understanding has advanced to the point that we can explore beyond our universe to see what is out there. Now, you want to believe in your God, that's fine. But quit pretending that you have any evidence to support your belief, and that your belief is anything more than blind faith.

My lamp on my desk is objective evidence of something. It can be observed and measured.

And your lamp has a zero possibility of happening naturally. Now, present anything in the universe that has been determined to have a zero possibility of happening naturally.

Doesn't matter what it proves. In and of itself it proves what objective evidence is.

And you aren't looking for it.

Nice spin. I notice you are still not presenting any phenomenon in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until you do, nothing in the universe is evidence of anything, much less an intelligent creator.

Again you are missing the point.

You created a null hypothesis because it is impossible for you to inspect God with the tools you are using and use that as proof that God does not exist.

And to make matters worse you reject objective evidence on the grounds you don't know where it came from.

So you are absolutely, 100% taking it on faith that God does not exist. Say it with me you pancake eating motherfucker.

Anything inside of space and time can be used as objective evidence.

No, it can't. Because we have yet to find anything in the known universe that has a zero possibility of forming naturally. So, until we discover such a phenomenon, then nothing in the universe dictates a creator.

Yes, it can. That is the nature of matter. It can be measured and observed. You can put your hands on it. You can use it in a court of law.

You want evidence from outside of space and time.

It is matter that has a non-zero possibility of happening naturally, so it is evidence of nothing in regards to a "creator".

Again, it doesn't matter what it proves by sitting there. It proves what objective evidence is.

The only objective evidence which exists is creation itself. Everything else is outside of it.

Great. Show me something that we know is created. Present something in the universe that has a zero possibility of occurring naturally. Until then, you. Have. Nothing.

You are trying to change the subject.

Admit you have created a null hypothesis and then we can talk.

 

[badger2]

#119, you have been refuted. It is not impossible to inspect god, though you continue to do ostrich imitations about what we post, which is cowardice as exhibitionism. You contradict yourself about objective evidence when being a coward to address and debate what we have posted. You're mad.