Evidence

[Pete]

The lack of evidence for something is not the same as evidence of lack of something. 

That said, it does not confirm its likelihood or support its existence.

In fact, the more a thing thing is without evidence either by it's existence or reaction to that we know exists the less likely it is to exist.

Hence, an atom can be thought likely because of its reaction but a god  is not confirmed by it's lack reaction to existence or tested existence.

[cuchulain]

Depending on the deity, a lack of observable action can be evidence against their existing.  A deity purported to meddle in the affairs of mortals with great frequency and regularity should be seen by the masses on a frequent basis, and when they aren't...

[Dan56]

Billions of planets and life sprung forth on just one of them, that's evidence of creation or unbelievable happenstance. I suspect that if you guys saw a pile of ashes where a house once stood,  you would not believe the house

burnt down because you didn't see it happen. Sometimes evidence is just a matter of putting 2+2 together, you don't always need observable evidence to confirm the obvious. Life just magically appeared from nothing or life is

the result of intelligent design, the rational conclusion is the latter. 

[Pete]

I did not say you need observation of a god to confirm its existence, just evidence of a reaction that is there. As for your astronomy arguement, it is possible life does exist in one form or another on other planets. It is just a matter of finding them. However, even in our solar system many scientists are hoping for evidence of life on the moons Europer  and Titan. 

The fact that the universe is so massive  suggests it is not just about our creation. We know of about 13 billion light years across the universe and who knows beyond that. The universe itself suggests the genesis story is nonsense. As a point, the light from the most distant objects still show it forming. That is because the light has taken so long to get here.

As for your burning house argument,  I have seen biblical archeologists in action. They find a pile of rocks and insist it must be something from the bible. Totally ignoring the masses of things that existed back then that was not mentioned in the bible. That argument does not stand Dan.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I'm going to repeat myself.

 

We have no objective, verifiable facts about God.  There is nothing about God that can be demonstrated.  God does not intervene, show itself or otherwise demonstrate it's existence.  It is impossible to detect or discern God's existence.

 

Worse, the attributes of God are mutually contradictory.

 

Despite all this, God could still exist.  It doesn't matter.  Even the question of God's existence is meaningless.  It is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter.

 

There is only one reason to even consider God's existence.  Assertions.  Empty assertions, with nothing to back them up.  Assertions made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.  Threats of damnation, are part of those empty assertions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Billions of planets and life sprung forth on just one of them, that's evidence of creation or unbelievable happenstance. I suspect that if you guys saw a pile of ashes where a house once stood,  you would not believe the house

burnt down because you didn't see it happen. Sometimes evidence is just a matter of putting 2+2 together, you don't always need observable evidence to confirm the obvious. Life just magically appeared from nothing or life is

the result of intelligent design, the rational conclusion is the latter. 

As devil's advocate for a moment. You already admit there are billions of planets, so as much does not fit in our own little galaxy, then you, by deduction, admit there are multiple galaxies in the universe. With so many across light distances away, it is impossible for anyone to know for certain that life only exists on one planet out of billions. That, itself, was a poor declaration as evidence.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

As devil's advocate for a moment. You already admit there are billions of planets, so as much does not fit in our own little galaxy, then you, by deduction, admit there are multiple galaxies in the universe. With so many across light distances away, it is impossible for anyone to know for certain that life only exists on one planet out of billions. That, itself, was a poor declaration as evidence.

 

 

 

Yes.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Billions of planets and life sprung forth on just one of them, that's evidence of creation or unbelievable happenstance. I suspect that if you guys saw a pile of ashes where a house once stood,  you would not believe the house

burnt down because you didn't see it happen. Sometimes evidence is just a matter of putting 2+2 together, you don't always need observable evidence to confirm the obvious. Life just magically appeared from nothing or life is

the result of intelligent design, the rational conclusion is the latter. 

 

 

Maybe.     👽     🛸     👽

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

Not knowing the cause of the universe doesn't make it the one you settle for Dan.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Not knowing the cause of the universe doesn't make it the one you settle for Dan.

 

 

Do we have a choice?               

[Dan56]

On 12/10/2019 at 5:07 AM, Pete said:

I did not say you need observation of a god to confirm its existence, just evidence of a reaction that is there. As for your astronomy arguement, it is possible life does exist in one form or another on other planets. It is just a matter of finding them. However, even in our solar system many scientists are hoping for evidence of life on the moons Europer  and Titan. 

The fact that the universe is so massive  suggests it is not just about our creation. We know of about 13 billion light years across the universe and who knows beyond that. The universe itself suggests the genesis story is nonsense. As a point, the light from the most distant objects still show it forming. That is because the light has taken so long to get here.

As for your burning house argument,  I have seen biblical archeologists in action. They find a pile of rocks and insist it must be something from the bible. Totally ignoring the masses of things that existed back then that was not mentioned in the bible. That argument does not stand Dan.

 

Yes, the possibility of life on other planets exist, its just a matter of revealing it, but the same can be said of God. Scientist are hoping and so are Christians. The bible says that God created the heavens, so I'm not sure how the universe suggest the Genesis story is nonsense? And discovering a long extinct biblical city like Jericho is more than a pile of rocks, discovering a stone plaque with King Davids name on it, or one with Pontius Pilate's name in the ruins of Caesarea, is factual archaeological evidence that these places and people actually existed. 

 

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Despite all this, God could still exist.  It doesn't matter.  Even the question of God's existence is meaningless.  It is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter.

 

I'd disagree, If God could still exist, then it certainly does matter and is not meaningless... Its like saying that if the stock market collapses and if the economy tanks, it doesn't matter. But surely you recognize that there are severe consequences when that "IF" is realized. A faithful person builds a storm shelter in case a tornado hits,  an unfaithful person perishes "if" a tornado strikes. 

 

18 hours ago, Key said:

As devil's advocate for a moment. You already admit there are billions of planets, so as much does not fit in our own little galaxy, then you, by deduction, admit there are multiple galaxies in the universe. With so many across light distances away, it is impossible for anyone to know for certain that life only exists on one planet out of billions. That, itself, was a poor declaration as evidence.

 

Its a declaration of no objective verifiable facts, that's the only type of evidence these guys find acceptable.. Just as no one has the necessary evidence to confirm God, neither have they facts to confirm life exist elsewhere. Evidence swings both ways. My point was that in the absence of observable evidence, its necessary to draw rational conclusions based on what is most likely evident. The bible says God put mankind on earth, we've seen no life existing elsewhere, so based on the absence any contrary evidence, the truth leans towards the credibility of the bible.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Dan56

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Not knowing the cause of the universe doesn't make it the one you settle for Dan.

 

Of course not... I simply have a source that says God was the uncaused cause of all that is..... You guys have zip.... But if you ever discover the unknown origin of the universe, I'm all ears.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

30 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Yes, the possibility of life on other planets exist, its just a matter of revealing it, but the same can be said of God. Scientist are hoping and so are Christians. The bible says that God created the heavens, so I'm not sure how the universe suggest the Genesis story is nonsense? And discovering a long extinct biblical city like Jericho is more than a pile of rocks, discovering a stone plaque with King Davids name on it, or one with Pontius Pilate's name in the ruins of Caesarea, is factual archaeological evidence that these places and people actually existed. 

 

 

I'd disagree, If God could still exist, then it certainly does matter and is not meaningless... Its like saying that if the stock market collapses and if the economy tanks, it doesn't matter. But surely you recognize that there are severe consequences when that "IF" is realized. A faithful person builds a storm shelter in case a tornado hits,  an unfaithful person perishes "if" a tornado strikes. 

 

 

Its a declaration of no objective verifiable facts, that's the only type of evidence these guys find acceptable.. Just as no one has the necessary evidence to confirm God, neither have they facts to confirm life exist elsewhere. Evidence swings both ways. My point was that in the absence of observable evidence, its necessary to draw rational conclusions based on what is most likely evident. The bible says God put mankind on earth, we've seen no life existing elsewhere, so based on the absence any contrary evidence, the truth leans towards the credibility of the bible.

 

 

More assertions, with nothing to back them up.  Fairies could exist.  So what?  

 

It's not urgent.  I can wait.

 

I don't find the Bible credible.

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

44 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Of course not... I simply have a source that says God was the uncaused cause of all that is..... You guys have zip.... But if you ever discover the unknown origin of the universe, I'm all ears.

 

I know about your source.     

That seems unlikely.   You are not concerned with developments in physics.  

 

[Key]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Yes, the possibility of life on other planets exist, its just a matter of revealing it, but the same can be said of God. Scientist are hoping and so are Christians. The bible says that God created the heavens, so I'm not sure how the universe suggest the Genesis story is nonsense? And discovering a long extinct biblical city like Jericho is more than a pile of rocks, discovering a stone plaque with King Davids name on it, or one with Pontius Pilate's name in the ruins of Caesarea, is factual archaeological evidence that these places and people actually existed. 

 

 

I'd disagree, If God could still exist, then it certainly does matter and is not meaningless... Its like saying that if the stock market collapses and if the economy tanks, it doesn't matter. But surely you recognize that there are severe consequences when that "IF" is realized. A faithful person builds a storm shelter in case a tornado hits,  an unfaithful person perishes "if" a tornado strikes. 

 

 

Its a declaration of no objective verifiable facts, that's the only type of evidence these guys find acceptable.. Just as no one has the necessary evidence to confirm God, neither have they facts to confirm life exist elsewhere. Evidence swings both ways. My point was that in the absence of observable evidence, its necessary to draw rational conclusions based on what is most likely evident. The bible says God put mankind on earth, we've seen no life existing elsewhere, so based on the absence any contrary evidence, the truth leans towards the credibility of the bible.

Which contradicts your original statement in which you state there is life only on one. They never claimed life does or doesn't exist elsewhere, and are open to evidence of it.

Which is what they've been saying, as well. That God could exist but there is no evidence for them to believe, but are open to it should evidence present itself.

Not true. Scientist have discovered fossilized microbes on mars, which means there was once water there and there was some form of life, as well. They also theorize there is still an existing layer of water beneath it's surface somewhere.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Which contradicts your original statement in which you state there is life only on one. They never claimed life does or doesn't exist elsewhere, and are open to evidence of it.

Which is what they've been saying, as well. That God could exist but there is no evidence for them to believe, but are open to it should evidence present itself.

Not true. Scientist have discovered fossilized microbes on mars, which means there was once water there and there was some form of life, as well. They also theorize there is still an existing layer of water beneath it's surface somewhere.

 

 

Well done.     

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, Key said:

Which contradicts your original statement in which you state there is life only on one. They never claimed life does or doesn't exist elsewhere, and are open to evidence of it.

Which is what they've been saying, as well. That God could exist but there is no evidence for them to believe, but are open to it should evidence present itself.

Not true. Scientist have discovered fossilized microbes on mars, which means there was once water there and there was some form of life, as well. They also theorize there is still an existing layer of water beneath it's surface somewhere.

 

Its not a contradiction, life has only been found to exist on one planet. As far as the microbes on Mars, I don't personally believe it. 

https://www.space.com/33690-allen-hills-mars-meteorite-alien-life-20-years.html

 

[RevBogovac]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its not a contradiction, life has only been found to exist on one planet. As far as the microbes on Mars, I don't personally believe it. 

https://www.space.com/33690-allen-hills-mars-meteorite-alien-life-20-years.html

 

 

 

Of course you don't. It doesn't fit your "reality". 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its not a contradiction, life has only been found to exist on one planet. As far as the microbes on Mars, I don't personally believe it. 

https://www.space.com/33690-allen-hills-mars-meteorite-alien-life-20-years.html

 

 

 

Belief is not relevant.     

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

Of course you don't. It doesn't fit your "reality".