Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,234 Year: 5,491/9,624 Month: 516/323 Week: 13/143 Day: 3/10 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004

Message 354 of 364 (849579)
03-15-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by mike the wiz
03-15-2019 8:45 AM

mike the wiz writes:
The problem is the comparison-table only suggests comparisons with things likely to be fiction. The adult mind innately knows that which is superficial and phoney or that which has no depth. Holy cows, Thor, Loki, etc, we know that these things are likely caused by primitive invention.
The comparison-table compares things that all have no objective evidence at all. Not even any objective evidence pointing in their direction.
It's not anyone's fault that the only things we know of that have "no object evidence at all" are "things likely to be fiction" or that "we know these things are likely caused by primitive invention."
If God fits the same mold... that's exactly what the comparison-table is intended to show.
For example our God is not physically detectable, and neither is a type of boson in another universe, so why not compare God to an undetectable type of higgs boson?
Because there is objective evidence that "some type" of a higgs boson exists right here in our local universe. We have that objective evidence. You can learn about it you'd like.
But, again, there is no objective evidence that "some type" of a God exists right here in our local universe.
The only other things with "no objective evidence of any kind" are those things that are known to be fiction - hence the comparison-table.
CONCLUSION: The error is in assuming that God can only be compared to things rigged to be false things, without comparing Him to things we don't know are false.
The comparison-table contains only those things that have "no objective evidence of any kind."
The problem (for you) is that things we "aren't sure about are true - but think they likely exist here or there where we haven't tested yet..." are still based upon having objective evidence for them in places where we have been able to test.
Therefore - they don't belong in the table because they have more than "no objective evidence of any kind."
God us undetectable and invisible, but this doesn't mean God is comparable to a holy cow or an I.P.U necessarily because we also know there were many things which used to be undetectable and invisible but they turned out to be true, such as the higgs boson.
God - no objective evidence, not known to be made up
Holy Cow or I.P.U - no objective evidence, known to be made up
Higgs boson - some objective evidence exsits, known to not be made up
The comparison-table is built upon the first section - those things with "no objective evidence."
The difference of knowing if something is made up or not is irrelevant. It's only relevant to those who want to cling to a belief that God is real and hide from the obvious implications.
So my request is that I compare Jesus Christ to other historical figures such as Ghandi or Caesar rather than playing the infantile game of the atheist by comparing God to invisible, pink unicorns and Santa.
But, again, we have objective evidence of Ghandi or Caesar.
The point of the comparison-table is to list all things that have no objective evidence.
You can have this table, too... but it doesn't negate the factual existence (or the obvious implications) that God must be included on any list of things with "no objective evidence" along with all the known-to-be fictional ideas.
Why can't we compare abiogenesis and evolution to other fairytales since they share the same method of "long ago and far away"...
Because abiogenesis and evolution either have objective evidence, or they have objective evidence pointing in their direction.
Holy Cow? Not so much -> bucket #2
God? Not so much -> bucket #2
It's not anyone's fault that God deserves to be in the same "no objective evidence" bucket #2.
Of course, you can get God out of that bucket. Just provide some objective evidence. Or, even, provide objective evidence showing a level of confidence in the direction of God's existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 8:45 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 9:40 AM Stile has replied

Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004

Message 358 of 364 (849587)
03-15-2019 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by mike the wiz
03-15-2019 9:40 AM

mike the wiz writes:
There is evidence consistent with God. God is a Creator, what is the usual evidence of creativity and intelligence? The usual evidence is intelligent design, order, aesthetics. Whether you like it or not there is evidence for God in that there are conditional implications where certain consequents MUST follow.
Okay, so what's the evidence? What can you present that we can both verify?
Qualify according to logical rules what evidence of God would be.
Evidence = verifiable information pointing in the direction of the claim and nothing else. Some information we can both verify.
For example:
Evidence of posts from user "Stile" existing on EvC = Stile's EvC Topic Index.
Please note how we can both verify this.
Please note that the most reasonable conclusion about posts from user "Stile" existing on EvC according to this information is that such posts do, indeed, exist.
Now your turn:
Evidence of God existing anywhere = ?
Specified complexity, contingency planning, information code, function, goals, irreducible complexity, when we look for where these things we find in life come from, 100% of the data shows they come from a creator/designer, and 0% of the data says they come from natural process.
Okay, so what's the evidence?
If you don't want there to be anything that evidences God you will say there is no evidence of God.
I wish there was evidence of God.
I've just never seen any.
You claim to know of some.
Can you provide it?
But logical rules show all of the expected evidence of an all-knowing God are right there in nature.
Okay, so what's the evidence?
Biomimetics alone proves the design in nature is smarter than our design because when we run out of ideas we have to plagiarise God's designs.
Think about the epitome of design. Surely we make the best lights, right? No, God does, such as the bioluminescence in fire-flies which has, "the efficiency with which this process turns chemical energy into light rather than wasting it as heat is extremely high; around 40%,1 some 20 times higher than an incandescent light bulb, and higher than the best fluorescent and LED bulbs"
That is evidence that nature can be better than our designs. Here, you are assuming God exists.
What is the evidence that God exists or that God created nature?
You can read lots of evidence for a more intelligent designer than us, in this one article alone
I don't see any evidence of God there either.
Could you point it out?
CONCLUSION: I can logically prove there is confirmation evidence for God's existence.
Okay, so what's the evidence?
You seem very confused.
I would recommend picking the "best information" you can provide as evidence of God's existence and we can start there.
Can you see what I am saying? I am saying your predicted evidence for evolution is based on HINDSIGHT
Yes, you say a lot of things that are clearly wrong.
But the question that you appear unable to answer is: What is the evidence for God's existence? So far, there is still zero and God belongs in the comparison-table alongside other known-to-be-imaginary ideas. The implications are still obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 9:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024