• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I am Alpha and Omega!

Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
I have replied to the question:

what objective evidence can you demonstrate for these claims?

with: trust me, I am rich with ideas.
Click to expand...


Yes I know, I read it, however it was not what I asked, why bother responding if you are not going to address what was said? You made several claims, I asked you if you could demonstrate any objective evidence for any of those claims, and you respond with an irrelevant read herring? JK Rowling is rich with ideas, but I'd stunned to learn she could demonstrate any objective evidence for wizardry.
 
setarcos

setarcos

The hopeful or the hopeless?
Sheldon said:
Which deity, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for these claims?
Click to expand...
Hi. I got side tracked with the COVID and went down that rabbit hole...but I'm back...yay me.:neutral:
Anyways. For me the Judio-Christian conception of GOD seems to be the most rationally relatable proposal for an actual existent deity. The relevant scriptures which speak of this entity can be and in some cases have been historically validated as far as events involving real people and real places. That isn't to say proof of real interactions between those real people and real places with GOD however these are real places and real people involving real events with realistic depictions of reactions and actions, the good, the bad, and every human frailty, perversion, and disposition in between.
Its the realistic historicity of the biblical scriptures ,barring disputes over the supernatural parts, which is an attractive factor for me though. A rational starting point to a discussion of it proposal of what GOD is.
So...objective evidence of an existent deity? Let alone the Christian deity?
First let me ask you what actually would be acceptable evidence for you? Since hundreds if not thousands of people have witnessed what might be considered evidence objectively seen or experienced....though that evidence may be open to interpretation. I'm guessing that you are speaking of a specific kind of evidence. What kind of evidence would you need beyond someone claiming objective experience of the supernatural?
 
setarcos

setarcos

The hopeful or the hopeless?
Nakosis said:
Based on what experimentation or scientific evidence.
I suspect theories are a dime a dozen. Those which include supporting evidence are usually seen as having more value.
Click to expand...
Hello.
I'd like to comment here on science and its relationship to a Hypothetical creator God.
The idea of this existence being "created" by some unimaginably "powerful" creator God is a serious hypothesis proposed as an explanation of certain scientific conundrums which have recently come to light. The concept of God or Gods of course is ancient and in theory mainly faith based. However it has evolved along side science as new scientific discoveries about our universe have come to light into a scientifically plausible explanation for some of these discoveries.
Discoveries like; the universe and time with it had a beginning and ours is not a steady state universe, the increasing discoveries of just how complex life actually is; discoveries concerning the unanswered mysteries of currently proposed theories of evolution; the continuing additional discoveries of just how inconceivably improbably fine tuned our universe is for our life and even itself to exist the way it is and the perplexing data that the quantum theory is presenting to us. Like the seeming need for observational data to exist in order for the field to collapse into reality. Are all unobserved objects in super positional states until observed? Einstein for one thought it ridiculous to believe the moon would cease to exist if no one was observing it as quantum mechanics seemed to indicate. But quantum mechanics has notions that it would indeed cease to exist except in a super positional state of probabilities.
So what keeps the universe uniform with everyone's experience? One proposal is there is never something not "observing" everything at once. That something? God of course. Its a theory.
Keep in mind that some proposals such as string theory or the multiverse conception of reality have themselves no experimental evidence to date to support them. They are pure conceptions of the mind's attempt to answer some of life's perplexing phenomena. Yet many people believe they are scientific in some sense of the word.
Also keep in mind that science is a tool and is only as good as the creatures that use it in their ability to understand what it is telling them about the universe. Certain aspects of quantum mechanics come to mind as scientifically giving us rich data about the universe but many times in ways the human mind is not quite equipped to comprehend.
We don't know how or why many of these things do what they do but we march on making things with our discoveries like monkeys rubbing sticks together to make fire without understanding friction or fire. Incidentally unbeknownst to a lot of people friction is still scientifically a mystery believe it or not.
And ironically, unbeknownst to a lot of people...there is NO proof to date of the inviolability of physical laws such as newtons laws of thermodynamics. So how did they become laws? Simple observation of the data returned by many many experiments.
That is not proof of necessity. That is probabilistic analysis. I thought that to be interesting at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top