Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Upset ? I ? No, not at all ... Upset with what ?


No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide ... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that ... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").


:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D


·

---

You are being redundant and thereby proving that you really have no idea what you are saying.

First of all, we have provided "objective" evidence. Objective means that it is an object which can be inspected by anyone. In other words, it is something which is independently verifiable. And you don't have to go to the ends of the earth to inspect it. Simply look at your hand. Notice how beautifully it is designed both externally and internally.

By reviewing this small sampling of objective evidence we have come to the subjective conclusion that God exists because of the intelligence it would take to make something so wondrous.

But you erroneously call this evidence subjective. Have you any idea why? Is your hand not an object? Is your hand not available for you to inspect? Yet the probabilities are great that you have a hand with digits just as I and most people do. But if you don't have one, let me know, I'm sure we can together come up with other objective evidence you can inspect which is readily at hand.

Now your peculiar use of the terms "objective supported evidence" and "subjective supported evidence" is simply a redundancy and misuse of the word evidence. Since evidence is used to support one's conclusions, evidence is not supported. Evidence supports. So, you could say, "objective support" or "objective evidence" both mean the same thing in this context.

Here are examples of the proper use of the word evidence and support in the same sentence:

None of the group C tests had any evidence to support their use.
Use this code where there is objective evidence to support a history of an acute coronary...

So, it might be nice if before you continue this discussion, you get a handle on what exactly you are talking about. Because as of now, you are really just making gibberish and trying to make it sound intelligent. But I assure you, it doesn't. It simply proves you have no idea what you are saying.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

....You really have no idea what you are saying ....

---

I know who says that. And to reply to it with anything more than this single line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

... we have provided "objective" evidence. Objective means that it is an object which can be inspected by anyone. In other words, it is something which is independently verifiable.

---

So now you even have to introduce word games, while you know very well that I almost always refer to "objective" as in contrast to "subjective". The one and only true meaning of objective as in the term I always use (OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE) is of course to exclude as far as possible any subjective based elements, i.e. to contain factual data instead of data based on belief and/or assumption.

The fact on itself that you do not provide the objective supporting evidence I asked for itself, but reply with posts like the one I refer to and quote from, is sufficient reason to completely dismiss your wild claim of any validity.

Of course - seeing your claims - it has to be easy to post in reply an example copy of what you suppose to be objective supporting evidence. To stay within the subject of the "religious discussion board" I therefore ask you once more to post your objective supporting evidence for the Christian God's existence and for that God being the Creator.

Please no "I already posted that". No more babble or accusations. Just the objective supporting evidence I ask you to provide above. I challenge you to provide that, though I already know that you won't do that...
And THAT on itself already validates my point !

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Hi Cred :)

Something that induces certainty or establishes validity ( one definition of proof )

Cred, this may sound bizarre to you. But the proof I will try and offer you today is this...

I am able, and do, actually have a Christian love for you in my heart. I want your heart to be happy, peaceful and to be able to experience all the joy one can have.

Now, Cred, how is that possible. It's true, it is proof, I just said it, I have an endearing love for you, without even knowing you.

This is possible, because I have God's love in my heart and it is the type of love that can easily be shared.

Now how can you dispute that :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Hi Cred

---

I'll come back to that, but let's wait first for De Maria's reply. I do not want him to use this to skip out of his reply!

:)

·

De Maria said good bye will be back in 8 days.

Thanks for that info, Nohelp4u ! Much obliged !

I have stored my post to De Maria to repost it here again upon his return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

something that induces certainty or establishes validity ( one definition of proof )

---

Thanks but I am not really interested in finding one of your "ways of proof".
I am referring to objective supported evidence, i.e. to scientific factual evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

... I want your heart to be happy, peaceful and to be able to experience all the joy one can have ...

---

I know you mean well, but I do not need your help with that. I am already very happy, peaceful and enjoying all I can. I do not need belief in a not-supported-to-exist-entity therefor !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

This is possible, because I have God's love in my heart and it is the type of love that can easily be shared.

---

Fine with me if you believe that. But it has no validity to the subject of this topic, which is supporting evidence.

:)

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Thanks for that info, Nohelp4u ! Much obliged !

I have stored my post to De Maria to repost it here again upon his return.


Thanks but I am not really interested in finding one of your "ways of proof".
I am referring to objective supported evidence, i.e. to scientific factual evidence.


I know you mean well, but I do not need your help with that. I am already very happy, peaceful and enjoying all I can. I do not need belief in a not-supported-to-exist-entity therefor !


Fine with me if you believe that. But it has no validity to the subject of this topic, which is supporting evidence.

:)

·

---

Hi Cred,

No, I wasn't suggesting that you didn't have peace and happiness, just letting you know that's what is truly in my heart for you and everyone.

See, Cred, and sorry that I may have been off topic, but the kind of "proof" that you are accustomed to may never be obtained in the way you seek. The proof that God exsist
Can be seen by eyes that believe and is actually all around you, but it's a spiritual proof,
And one that you would have to search within you to achieve. But I think you know all this, but still hammer for the type of proof that is more earthly.

May I ask what portions of the Bible you want supporting proof for? The Bible contains history, poetry, and prophecy, and of course doctrinal teachings.
Bible history has been found accurate about numerous things.
Poetry doesn't need substantiation.
Prophecy has been fulfilled many times.
How much substantitation do you require?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

... The proof that God exsist can be seen by eyes that beleive and is actually all around you, but it's a spiritual proof, and one that you would have to search within you to achieve. But I think you know all this, but still hammer for the type of proof that is more earthly.

---

Not really Allheart. You may believe from me whatever you want. No problem.
But if anyone here on these boards starts posting that (religious) claims are the truth, or a fact, or proved, than I ask for objective supporting evidence for that. So far that proof has never been posted.

I do not deny that to a believer what he/she believes is proof enough for him/her.
But that is something completely different than what someone believes is proof for everyone and for any religious claim.

I have never criticized anyone for posting "I believe that God ......... (just fill in).
But if anyone posts that God ......... (just fill in), than my standard reaction is "That is what you believe" , and/or "Can you prove that" ?

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

May I ask what portions of the Bible you want supporting proof for? The Bible contains history, poetry, and prophecy, and of course doctrinal teachings. Bible history has been found accurate about numerous things. Poetry doesn't need substantiation. Prophecy has been fulfilled many times. How much substantitation do you require?

---

I think with God being claimed to be the guiding factor of the Bible, it makes more sense to ask for objective supporting evidence for the existence of the Christian God, and for that God to be the Creator.
Why go through all these time-wasting sub-sections, when everyone knows that the existence of God and God being the Creator are the actual central issue??

:rolleyes:

·

Hi Everyone...

I have come to the conclusion that Credo has problems with accepting reallity. He is so zealous about his own beliefs that he becomes so blind and oblivious to reality... lol
We have given him Objective evidence for an intelligent designer and he just ignores and proceeds to CLAIM there is no objective evidence. So it is difficult to have an intelligent debate with someone like that.. especially one who claims a big bang created everything but has no conclusive evidence to show for it. :rolleyes:

So I wouldn't worry about him. He is just in his own closed minded world where everyone should believe what he believes. :rolleyes:

Hmmm

Reality (n): The state of things as they actually exist.

I think Credo accept reality just fine. It's the things that aren't real he has a problem with. :p
You can't use trees and birds as objective evidence when that evidence is used in the big bang, ID arguments as evidence also.

The truth is there isn't ANY evidence, proof, or concrete ANYTHING for God. Those that follow Him, BELIEVE in Him. And that's it. But that's all they need.

So there ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE of God. Just belief in Him. And if you believe in Him, that's all you need. If you don't, oh well.

And the BB, ID, Creationism stuff.. there is proof of some things evolving and proof of some things that have happened just like in the Bible. But is there real evidence or proof of everything just appearing and then evolving into what we are now? NO

So here it is

There is NO proof of God.
There is NO proof of no God.

It's up to each individual to decide on their own which one they want to believe in until someone or something establishes the proof.

Question for achampio... Did the faces on mount rushmore apear by chance or were they scupted by an intelligent artist?

They were sculpted; don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

They were scultpted don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

They were sculpted; don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

---

When I say "intelligent" I just mean a Monkey, or a rock, or a car, or a fruit fly could not have come up with the same work of art.

Okey so since you have concluded that it was sculpted by a tallented artist, how did you come to that conclusion?
Was it common sense that made you come to that conclusion or did you have to see "objective supported evidence" that a intelligent talented human being sculpted those faces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

when i say "intelligent" i just mean a Monkey, or a rock, or a car, or a fruit fly could not have come up with the same work of art.

Okey so since you have concluded that it was sculpted by a tallented artist, how did you come to that conclusion?
was it common sense that made you come to that conclusion or did you have to see "objective supported evidence" that a intelligent talented human being sculpted those faces?

---

Well, actually we don't know if a monkey couldn't have done that. They seem to be able to do everything else humans can do. Little butt-heads. Next they'll be taking our jobs instead of machines or immigrants :eek: .

And I came to that conclusion about 2nd grade and from research...

Mount Rushmore National Memorial, near Keystone, South Dakota, is a monumental granite sculpture by Gutzon Borglum, located within the United States Presidential Memorial that represents the first 150 years of the history of the United States of America with 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents: George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).[1] The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres (5.17 km²)[2] and is 5,725 feet (1,745 m) above sea level.[3] It is managed by the National Park Service, a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. The memorial attracts approximately two million people annually.[4]

Wikipedia is freakin AWESOME!! :D

I want to add for the record Mr. Borglum used dynamite and tools to make that sculpture. He didn't just say "and there will be men's heads on that there rock" and they appeared.

I like this link
Making Mount Rushmore | Mount Rushmore | Oh, Ranger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I like this link
Making Mount Rushmore | Mount Rushmore | Oh, Ranger!

---

I do too!! :D

But the one I used was short enough to paste because when you use links on here they usually don't get looked at. SO I just cut and paste. Then they HAVE to read it;)

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

Well, actually we don't know if a monkey couldn't have done that. They seem to be able to do everything else humans can do. Little butt-heads. Next they'll be taking our jobs instead of machines or immigrants :eek: .

---

I don't think it is right to liken immigrants to machines and monkeys.. but anyway.. show me a monkey with that kind of artistic ability and I will give you a million bucks. ;)

Quote:

---

And I came to that conclusion about 2nd grade and from research...

Mount Rushmore National Memorial, near Keystone, South Dakota, is a monumental granite sculpture by Gutzon Borglum, located within the United States Presidential Memorial that represents the first 150 years of the history of the United States of America with 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents: George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).[1] The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres (5.17 km²)[2] and is 5,725 feet (1,745 m) above sea level.[3] It is managed by the National Park Service, a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. The memorial attracts approximately two million people annually.[4]

Wikipedia is freakin AWESOME!! :D

---

Good, so you were taught at a young age that a scuptor did this marvelous work of art and you believed it with out question. You were not there to personally witness the carving and yet you did not demand to see "obejective supported evidence" to "prove" that a sculptor did and not the wind because common sense told you that the complexity and design of the sculpted faces could not have just appeared on that mountain by chance. Everything thing that has a design and/or a purpose on earth has an originator.
Even if you took a 5th grade chinese girl (or any reasonable, rational human being) who had never learned anything about Mount rushmore, to see the faces, she would conclude, using only common sense, that a skilled artists scupted the faces into the mountain. She would not automatically assume the faces appeared by chance and demand to see evidence that an artist did this work of art.
So if the faces could not appear on Mount Rushmore by chance given common sense, then would it not be true that the men themselves (wway more complex) could not have appear by chance given common sense?

Quote:

---

want to add for the record Mr. Borglum used dynamite and tools to make that sculpture. He didn't just say "and there will be men's heads on that there rock" and they appeared

---

God used dirt and His hands to create Adam so I don't know what your point is. :confused: ALso the scupter is a man, God is God.