What verifiable evidence is there that god exists?

[WalterTrull]

Really? Every new fossil find qualifies as an experiment and test on evolution. The investigation of DNA of different species that shows how they are related also qualifies. Any test that could falsify evolution qualifies as an experiment. Experiments are not limited to the cookbook chemistry one does in high school or even as an undergraduate.

Uhmm... observation and assumption. OK.
How do we do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uhmm... observation and assumption. OK.
How do we do that?

Nope, no "assumption" allowed. What is the "assumption"? By claiming that there is an assumption you need to show what the assumption was and they were guilty of that.

 

[WalterTrull]

Nope, no "assumption" allowed. What is the "assumption"? By claiming that there is an assumption you need to show what the assumption was and they were guilty of that.

Well, here are a few. Ok Ok, I got'em here. But there fun.

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa (single-celled organisms) gave rise to the Metazoa (multi-celled organisms).

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phlya (organisms without a backbone) are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates (animals with backbones).

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and reptiles to the birds and mammals.

Kinda cute. Actually, I know nothing about all that. Do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, here are a few. Ok Ok, I got'em here. But there fun.

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

Nope, not an assumption. Evolution occurred regardless of the source of life. In fact you lose the debate when you move the goal posts that far. Don't you know this already? Please do not repeat this gross error.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

Wrong again. See above. And this is not an assumption. DNA supports this concept.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

Again, not an assumption. A conclusion based upon evidence.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa (single-celled organisms) gave rise to the Metazoa (multi-celled organisms).

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phlya (organisms without a backbone) are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates (animals with backbones).

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and reptiles to the birds and mammals.

Kinda cute. Actually, I know nothing about all that. Do you?

So all you have are misunderstandings of evolution and no assumptions. It got to boring to keep repeating the same corrections.

If you did not understand you should have said so. You should not have made a claim that you could not support and only demonstrated that you are completely ignorant of the science.

 

[WalterTrull]

Nope, not an assumption. Evolution occurred regardless of the source of life. In fact you lose the debate when you move the goal posts that far. Don't you know this already? Please do not repeat this gross error.



Wrong again. See above. And this is not an assumption. DNA supports this concept.



Again, not an assumption. A conclusion based upon evidence.



So all you have are misunderstandings of evolution and no assumptions. It got to boring to keep repeating the same corrections.

If you did not understand you should have said so. You should not have made a claim that you could not support and only demonstrated that you are completely ignorant of the science.

Ok, Ok, I was just havin' fun.
Could be that I'm ignorant of the science, but I don't get very far into it before I say: "This is absurd."

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well, here are a few. Ok Ok, I got'em here.

Unfortunately, your source is a known Liar For Jesus. He is clueless with respect to Evolution, the theory AND the facts surrounding the discovery.

Nothing he has ever said, can be trusted: if he predicted Sunrise in the morning? Many folk would stay up all night, just in case..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, Ok, I was just havin' fun.
Could be that I'm ignorant of the science, but I don't get very far into it before I say: "This is absurd."

You realized that your own post was absurd? Then why post it?

Seriously can you think of any assumptions? There are some, but they are generally thought to be reasonable assumptions. What you posted were not examples of assumptions at all.

 

[WalterTrull]

You realized that your own post was absurd? Then why post it?

Seriously can you think of any assumptions? There are some, but they are generally thought to be reasonable assumptions. What you posted were not examples of assumptions at all.

Rats.

 

[WalterTrull]

Unfortunately, your source is a known Liar For Jesus. He is clueless with respect to Evolution, the theory AND the facts surrounding the discovery.

Nothing he has ever said, can be trusted: if he predicted Sunrise in the morning? Many folk would stay up all night, just in case..

Oh no! An unbeliever! Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to be more careful.

 

[Trailblazer]

But they don't. What happens are that people find conflicting versions of a god. Only one version can be correct.

If more than one version of God is the same, they can all be correct. However, only one version of religion is the version that God wants us to follow in any age.

It is probably the other way around.

That would be true if there is no god or if the religious version that believers believe in is bunk.

Yes, comfort in a human construction. That is not very comforting to a rational thinker.

I do not know what you mean by a human construction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If more than one version of God is the same, they can all be correct. However, only one version of religion is the version that God wants us to follow in any age.

That would be true if there is no god or if the religious version that believers believe in is bunk.

I do not know what you mean by a human construction.

Religions are man made. They do not appear to be from any god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Religions are man made. They do not appear to be from any god.

That is true. After the religious followers get done with them, they no longer appear to be from any God.
That is one reason God has to send a new Messenger to establish a new religion in every age.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is true. After the religious followers get done with them, they no longer appear to be from any God.
That is one reason God has to send a new Messenger to establish a new religion in every age.

Or perhaps no messenger was ever sent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or perhaps no messenger was ever sent.

True, there are three logical possibilities, so there are two other logical possibilities to pick from:

1. God sends Messengers
2. God does not communicate
3. God does not exist

 

[lukethethird]

True, there are three logical possibilities, so there are two other logical possibilities to pick from:

1. God sends Messengers
2. God does not communicate
3. God does not exist

4. God exists as a human construct

 

[74x12]

I am of the opinion that the Biblical god is a human creation, I have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. If god really exists why does it hide away, instead of revealing itself to all humanity in a way that is indisputable?

It's a wonder God even regards the earth at all. When you consider we're like grasshoppers to Him. If we were more grateful; then God would show Himself more. If we love one another more than we do; then God will show up more because God is love.

If we would tell the truth; then there would be no lies. Therefore God would be manifest clearly as the day. But because people love to tell and believe lies; therefore God is hidden among our lies. The truth is the proverbial needle in a haystack.

 

[Trailblazer]

4. God exists as a human construct

That is the same as 3. God does not exist.

 

[lukethethird]

That is the same as 3. God does not exist.

Unless there is a God out there that is nothing like the God in our minds.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unless there is a God out there that is nothing like the God in our minds.

But that still leaves us with choosing options 1, 2 or 3. God either communicates or not and God either exists or not.

 

[lukethethird]

But that still leaves us with choosing options 1, 2 or 3. God either communicates or not and God either exists or not.

OK, and since we can't know which of the three scenarios is the case, then none of them make any difference, it's meaningless and a waste of time to ponder any of them.