We know there's a God because...

Thank you for acknowledging the fact...Entities simply refers to the subjects in question. You who are materialists philsophically (ie. 'scientists' cough cough...) already admit (at times) that you do not know 'what' matter (or the cosmos) is. You speak only about what it does.In the simplest sense, I meant that our ideas (theories) about the empirical world are not necessarily real in principle, so I was referring specifically to them in terms of an 'entity'. Even so, the actual case is that we do not have comprehensive knowledge at all. So in theory, all of these factors in our equations are 'entities that are not fully defined/.As to your 2nd to the last question, is there a place I am not allowed to go?As to the last, It is related to the topic since it is my opinion as to how we can know there is a God in purely philosophical terms such as these.The only means of actually 'knowing' is to meet Him personally. Such experience or observation is the hallmark of scientific reasoning. But we all know that the Christian concept of a personal relationship with the truth Himself is nonsense. I am only here to show that it is logical in theory, and that science historically originates from that belief.Scientific equations are triune. They require at least two entities that, if coherent and consistent, are held to be real. And int that sense, logic is self existing.I explain it all in the article I gave you a link to. I am not hold logic up as God, but as indivisible from Him as per the 1st chapter of John's gospel.

Saying that the law of contradiction is used in the scientific method is not the same as saying that science is the law of contradiction. The law of contradiction is the law of contradiction.

If I am to grasp this I am going to need to try and apply this to something a little more concrete (forgive my lack of imagination)In my post message 121 in this thread (how do I link to this BTW?)
I discuss the difference between the personal and wholly subjective concept of 'red' and the verifiable consistently corroborated properties of that which we all call red.Can you apply your methodology of contradiction thinking to this case so that I can understand what you are saying?

I'll get back to you on your point about 'red'.Does this link work? rob_lock LiveJournal

bluegenes:Yes it is, because without it, there is no systematic science.

Saying that the scientific method depends on the law of non-contradiction is not the same as saying "science is the law of contradiction", the original statement that I picked you up on.The scientific method also depends on observation, and the statement that science is observation would also be false."Is" doesn't mean "includes" or "depends".Science includes the scientific method, which in turn includes observation, experimentation and the testing of hypothesis (where the law of contradiction can certainly be important). Science also includes the body of knowledge gained from this.If you want to be a philosopher of science, as you appear to, you need to be as precise as philosophers try to be.{ABE}Incidentally, Rob, the admins have put in a free for all section since you were last posting, and that's good for when people want to cover a lot of ground, instead of staying strictly on one topic. I think it's a good idea, and it might suit you.Edited by bluegenes, : addition

Hi Rob,First I'll reply to this post as Percy, then I'll reply to the rest of your posts as Admin. How do you tell the difference between a God-created world and life, versus a natural world and life where we lack sufficient evidence and intelligence to explain how they came about? So if in a Godless world we should expect wars and disease, since wars and disease are exactly what we do have, then isn't a Godless world the natural conclusion?--PercyPS - I think it's great that you can spell empirical now, but you somehow managed to misspell for!

Hi Rob,I'm ruling the nature of science off-topic in this thread. If you require more than just a couple posts to introduce some novel approach to the topic, you should probably propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Observation as well is pointless unless it is weighed against an interpretaion.Isn't you who argue against people who observe the universe and see God?If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.All of those qualities depend upon the law.Science is the law of contradiction. The other definitions that we have depended upon (since the 16th and 17th centuries) exist to obscure that fact.I am simply pointing to it's actual roots.Those roots are necessarily philosophical whether one is an empiricist, or a theist.In fact, that is the great Irony that I mention in my article. That it was the materialist philosophers who are ironically called 'empiricists'.I don't think we need to waste space on this thread arguing that matter any longer.

Hello Percy, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I have a couple of comments: Translation: how do we determine whether something non-material exists by examining only material evidence? I'm not saying that god is non-material, just using this as an analogy. The problem here is only having one set of data, one that you can't tell whether it is created or not.How would gravity be different in a created universe versus one that came about in the absence of a god? One could argue that in a chance formed universe that things would behave according to simple basic laws that could be easily determined, like Newtonian gravity, while in a created universe the closer you looked the more mystery was involved.How would matter\energy be different in a created universe versus one that came about in the absence of a god? One could argue that in a chance formed universe that things would be formed of simple particles, particles that are stable over time and different from energy, while in a created universe one can become the other at whim, and the closer you looked the more mystery was involved.Thus one can argue that a self formed universe would be necessarily simpler than the one we see, while a created universe would necessarily be complicated due to complexity added by the creation of something more than a simple universe. Was that the purpose of creation?If the purpose was entertainment, then the fact that we entertain ourselves with historical and fictional accounts of such things would show that this purpose is fulfilled.If the purpose is to compose a 4-dimensional kaleidoscope, the existence of certain life forms and their peculiar peccadilloes may be incidental "noise" in the system. Humans seem particularly adept at developing religious texts without needing a particular starting point, in every culture known. If god existed and could be partially perceived by occasional mystics in some necessarily incomplete manner (due to the vast complexity of god), then we would logically expect many different religious texts.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

As you wish...you're the boss. Feel free to hide my last post as I just became aware of this new formality.

Percy:Not necessarily, it may just mean that mankind has crucified God so as to stay in control as god himself.

Rob, see my addition by edit on the last post. The "free for all idea" is ideal for when you want to range over the connections between different subjects, as you like to do. If you start a topic on your current line of thinking there, you can take it where you want to, without "off topic" warnings.

That's on topic, so I can reply. Not if they're Pantheists.It always seems to me that if people are observing the universe, they're observing the universe, and seeing the universe. Maybe I'm weird.We can go into what science is on your new thread.

I bet you also argue against people who look at clouds and see bunny rabbits.

---

...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi