• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Debunked: "There is no evidence for God"

Eric h

Well-known member
Thanks for sharing.

If there is no evidence for God, then there is no evidence to say how the universe came to be purely by natural causes.
There is no real evidence to prove that life started from no life purely by natural causes.
There is no real evidence that life could evolve purely by natural causes.

All there is is waffle with no substance.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Short little video that concisely debunks the claim that there is no evidence for God:

I'm evidence for God. You're evidence for God. The universe is evidence for God. Everything in the universe is evidence for God. There is nothing that exists that is not evidence for God, since He made everything in heaven and earth. Saying there is no evidence for God is a way of saying I don't believe in God, and therefore there is no evidence. The fool says that. That's what makes him a fool.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I think, therefore I AM
At least, I think I am. But I don't think "I AM"
I know you capitalized "I AM", but God thinks, therefore I am: I AM, therefore I am.
But because God can think us into existence, we can think: I am, therefore I think.
I can't think myself into existence, but I can imagine, and then create something else, though not from nothing: I think, therefore [something else]
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
At least, I think I am. But I don't think "I AM"
I know you capitalized "I AM", but God thinks, therefore I am: I AM, therefore I am.
But because God can think us into existence, we can think: I am, therefore I think.
I can't think myself into existence, but I can imagine, and then create something else, though not from nothing: I think, therefore [something else]
That's putting de cart before the horse
 

Lon

Well-known member
Romans 1 says the same:
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

So literally, all men are born knowing God exists, if God is right ( 0.o )! Literally all men see God clearly, and understood, so that all people have no excuse for disbelief at all.

Kierkegaard, I think, wasn't quite correct about a 'leap of faith' in the sense of proof. Rather, we trust in God Who is there, and has made Himself clear and plain by what He has made. It is a principle of identity: If I have characteristics that are what we would call 'divine' (right, good, holy, loving), then that value must necessarily exist already in the universe as itself. Because of that, whatever 'big bang' or any other originator (God surely), must have contained the property or it could not exist now. Love isn't an atom. Grace isn't a cell. Both and all characteristics of God and good men are examples of identity: If it exists, something else of it does too, to infuse it. All men intuitively then, do know, beyond doubt, that beauty exists and they love it. Love exists and they embrace it. Therefore, all things attributed to God are "clearly seen so that all men are without excuse."

We are rocks, crying out. God literally doesn't need us because He already has said that He is clearly enough evident for every man. One must then assess, necessarily, that any who claims atheism, is as scriptures says: exchanged, truth, and thought themselves only flesh as the lie.

Such illuminates why evolution, as if anything can exist without God or change without Him, is such a problem. It is the 'self-accidental-evolving-survival-of-the-fittest' that is directly contested by God and scriptures. Any Christian evolutionist either is 'not' or has augmented his/her definition of 'evolution' as to be 'creation with purpose' which really isn't 'evolution' by definition, but perhaps mechanism. They are arguing over God's tool choice at that point, not against God creating the universe and man with a clear and easily recognizable purpose.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
You've just destroyed Darwin's theory.
Darwin's theory was constructed in the 19th century. The theory of evolution merges Darwin's ideas of natural selection with knowledge of genetics. Evolution is observed in the lab and in the field.

Looking at the fact that books in a library had an author and declaring anything with a beginning had a cause IS NOT evidence. BTW, The Big Bang was not the ultimate beginning. It was the beginning of the current stretching of the universe.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Darwin's theory was constructed in the 19th century. The theory of evolution merges Darwin's ideas of natural selection with knowledge of genetics. Evolution is observed in the lab and in the field.

Looking at the fact that books in a library had an author and declaring anything with a beginning had a cause IS NOT evidence. BTW, The Big Bang was not the ultimate beginning. It was the beginning of the current stretching of the universe.
Seeing creatures "change" and assuming all creatures derive from a single common ancestor is the ultimate in
Common sense, and analogies
And you rightly say they are not evidence.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Seeing creatures "change" and assuming all creatures derive from a single common ancestor is the ultimate in

And you rightly say they are not evidence.
That alone is not enough to make a claim about a specific LUCA. Combine it with the fossil record and information on the genome and then we see a convergence that represents highly compelling support.

See how this is evidence and contemplating a library is not?
 

Derf

Well-known member
That alone is not enough to make a claim about a specific LUCA. Combine it with the fossil record and information on the genome and then we see a convergence that represents highly compelling support.

See how this is evidence and contemplating a library is not?
Only if you think of "highly compelling" as pretty much the same as "analogies and common sense".
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Only if you think of "highly compelling" as pretty much the same as "analogies and common sense".
Of course, it's not. Example: hypotheses about the content of our genome have been tested. A bottom-up process would show some circuitous route to achieve results. The circuitousness would reflect earlier forms. Investigation has borne these hypotheses out. The human kidney is built, partially dismantled, and rebuilt a few rimes during development. The precursers mimic structures we see in other animals.

There is no evidence of the steps a creator took to make each form, and there is no evidence of the creators existence? Where is evidence of the materials and machinery of the creator? Even Santa leaves incriminating Claus marks.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
Of course, it's not. Example: hypotheses about the content of our genome have been tested. A bottom-up process would show some circuitous route to achieve results. The circuitousness would reflect earlier forms. Investigation has borne these hypotheses out. The human kidney is built, partially dismantled, and rebuilt a few rimes during development. The precursers mimic structures we see in other animals.

There is no evidence of the steps a creator took to make each form, and there is no evidence of the creators existence? Where is evidence of the materials and machinery of the creator? Even Santa leaves incriminating Claus marks.
Before you move on to your example, can you address my contention? Your example is decidedly post-Darwin.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Before you move on to your example, can you address my contention? Your example is decidedly post-Darwin.
Darwin's ideas were a bit of an analogy but quite a bit beyond common sense. Analogies and common sense go into creating hypotheses, not conclusions. That is where the video fails.

Now, get beyond the history lesson and focus on the modern theory of evolution.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Darwin's ideas were a bit of an analogy but quite a bit beyond common sense. Analogies and common sense go into creating hypotheses, not conclusions. That is where the video fails.

Now, get beyond the history lesson and focus on the modern theory of evolution.
Because it had to evolve to get where it is today?
 
Top