Thanks for your patience. I will now engage at a limited capacity as my time is limited.
- Objective evidence for God.
A number of you have requested that I give an answer for objective evidence for God. I honestly think that this conversation will not be fruitful for now. Not because there isn’t evidence for His existence but rather because I’m assessing (and could be wrong) that (1) the only evidence at this point that would convince you is for me to “physically” take you before God, point to Him and say “here He is” or some variation of that and (2) the world we find ourselves in, leads us to gathering a multiplicity of facts to reason that God exists or not. And it’s to this we turn in heading (III).
But before this, so you know that I’m trying to answer you I will give you this one piece of objective evidence.
Jesus resurrected from the dead; therefore, the God of the Bible exists
I’m down to debate this point but not now as it will not be as fruitful as heading (III) will be to clear up first and so I will not engage with points discussing it.
- Current Objections
I haven’t had time to re-read all posts against my arguments (there are over 100 posts on this thread now) However, from what I do remember there has only been one major one I’ll need to do a little more research on and that is Planck time. From the links posted, after a brief pass, I couldn’t find anything to discredit the arguments I’ve already posted about the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. Planck time is an unimaginably small unit of time (debatable about the unimaginable part since it’s measured lol but you get the expression). However, it’s still not infinite. It’s small but it’s not infinitely small. Therefore, it still has to engage with the arguments I’ve placed here for an infinite regress. Again for now this will not be a fruitful argument to engage with for now. Lastly, if there have been times where I have repeated arguments in a way that has disregarded your comments I apologize. I will reread this thread as I have time and see where that happened. However, I usually will repeat an argument if I am not convinced that it has been logically debunked. I’m still not convinced that the KCA has been debunked by any arguments here. But again for now this is not the topic of discussion.
- Major Impasse and focus of discussion
We are at a major impasse, ladies and gentlemen. In this time, the movement toward arguing for (or even against) God will most likely be best based upon cumulative case argumentation. This is why I’ve stressed the analogy of triangles. The analogy may not be perfect right now, but I’m hoping you get the general gist of the analogy. I’m highlighting that we naturally and rightfully reason by way of cumulative case in many areas of life and it is a good means toward increasing our chances of getting to truth claims in both everyday life as well as the hard sciences.
If what I have mentioned does not seem reasonable, Then please answer me this in return:
What (single) objective evidence (meaning that it conclusively proves without holes or room for doubt) do you have to prove there is NOT a God.
Now for me, I don’t think you guys trying to answer this question will be fruitful. Rather, I’d rather us focus on talking about the following as this seems to be a root issue:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.