We know there's a God because...

How about adding to the mix some healthy reason and logic?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

But is it even evidence of the probability of the supernatural?Do you take widespread belief in different cultures that evil spirits cause infectious diseases as being "evidence of the probability of the supernatural"?And are the many forms of ancestor worship around the world evidence that the spirits of the ancestors hang around in the area in which they lived and died?And do the many forms of witchcraft give credence to the idea that there are real witches, capable of performing magic and casting spells?Or could all of this (and much more) be seen as evidence that our species is a highly superstitious creature, and invents lots of supernatural things?

Hi Buzz, isn't it simply the existence of mind itself that is our best intellectual proof of God's existence? The empirical world declares it.The entire question hinges upon the definition of science. What is legitimate knowledge? Are science and knowledge empirical?rob_lock LiveJournalps. please note the correct spelling of the word empirical

Well, that certainly is one interpretation. Another one is that they all share a predisposition toward superstition. Since they are all seeking to explain the same phenomena (weather, natural disasters and such), they have come up with similar explanations, namely invisible entities. I still see no reason to assume that this plethora of claims must be valid, when alternative explanations exist, especially considering that many folk beliefs are mutually contradictory. I note that you have not addressed this point Buz.
Why should we assume that the ubiquity of belief in the supernatural is strong evidence of its reality, when more parsimonious explanations exist?
Why should we assume that belief in the supernatural is strong evidence for God, specifically? Why not call it evidence of spirits or djinni? I'm almost in agreement with you there actually. The ubiquity of belief in the supernatural does look a bit like evidence of its reality. It's just not very good evidence (at best). It's far from conclusive when other explanations exist. Ultimately, it's just an appeal to popularity, a logical fallacy. It's like saying that the popularity of the belief that lightning is sent by angry sky entities, is evidence of it's truth. Other explanations exist, that don't invoke invisible entities. These alternative explanations would surely be the more compelling in Percy's hypothetical world-without-scripture. I'd quite like to see you back that claim up with some kind of evidence, since I'm not quite ready to agree to that. I suspect that a great many cultures have no specific supreme being. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm not sure you're right about that bit. It is nothing of the kind. It is an indicator that maybe, just maybe, there might possibly be something in it, no more. When weighed against the wealth of evidence against the supernatural it comes to nothing. It's just not convincing.

---

Mutate and Survive

Lets not get caught up in whether or not ALL known cultures througout history have resorted to supernatural answers of one form or another at some point.There are enough examples of cultures that have to make the point stand to some extent.The question, in terms of the OP, is whether or not this gives any weight to the idea that supernatural answers of one form or another can be inferred without the aid of a religious text of some sort.If all the cultures under consideration had drawn the same supernatural conclusions independently then Buzz's point would be considerably more valid.However as things stand independent cultures have come up with vastly different, and more often than not conflicting, supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon.
In the overwhelming majority of cases the explanations provided by various cultures can now be shown to be unreliable at best.A better explanation of the facts would appear to be that humans will invent answers to inexplicable questions and are quite prepared to invoke supernatural entities in order to do so.If we imagine an experiment in which a set of children were allowed to grow up completely seperated from the rest of humanity then I have little doubt that they would invent supernatural answers to explain natural pheomenon.
I would also bet my life on them not inventing anything that eve resembles the Christian God.This does not make the supernatural entities the children invent any more real or probable.
This does not make the Christian God or any other supernatural entity that any other culture has ever invented any more real or likely.It just means that humans will try to explain things up to the point that they can convince themselves that no further explanation is possible or required i.e. religion in one form or another.

When you can explain all of the details of how a world, and life specifically, could come into being without a God, then your question will be meaningful.The fact is, there is a world, there is life, and these ancient religious texts exist.Furthermore, in a world without a god, I wouldn't expect wars and disease to be a problem fo you. Those things would simply be the natural course of all things.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Well science is empirical by it's very nature.Other forms of 'knowledge' don't have to be empirical.The question then becomes one of the reliability of the knowledge in question. Not all knowledge is equally reliable. Some forms of knowledge are more prone to the opportunity for delusion than others.The methods of science are an attempt to maximise the reliability of the knowledge gained through scientific investigation.

Science is not empirical. The empirical world is empirical. We must assume that it is scientific and intelligible to us for the purposes of our own inquiry. And things are only intelligible to us if they are logical. Otherwise our knowledge and reasoning is mere subjection.Science (as it is too often called) is the law of contradiction.You are talking about the law of contradiction applied to the empirical world. That is what natural science is. But the law itself (which gives to us the power to test) is not empirical.It is an assumption of the validity of logical and coherent processes that we believe = legitimate knowledge.The law of contradiction is the real methodology behind the curtain. Assuming the law is valid, we can then apply it to the empirical world.The fact is, there is no such thing as a test without at least two entites to compare. And we test for contradiction or coherence.I don't know how we missed the simplicity of the scientific method for so long, but I have detailed much of it here: rob_lock LiveJournalEdited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

iano can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that he is aiming for a version of TAG. I think his point is that an atheistic/materialistic outlook gives no basis for logic or knowledge, and that only through the Christian evangelical god can we acquire a proper basis upon which we can trust we have knowledge.

---

...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

You seem to be using a personal definition of the word empirical rather than any established version I am aware of.
Whilst it is possible something can be both empirical and contradictory I have no idea what this has to do with the question under discussion?The scientific method is almost impossible to summarise as it is in effect whatever method best evaluates the evidence at hand in terms of reliability, consistency and objectivity. There are common components (prediction, verification, repetition of experiment etc. etc. etc.) but the exact method used in any particular investigation will depend on the evidence available.This is in danger of going very OT............Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In relation to the O.P. question, I don't think redefining words is a way of seeing evidence for God without scriptures.Dictionary Com.Science1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.And from Wiki:

quote:

---

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

​

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

​

Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and
Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies.
These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[2]

---

Science - WikipediaWelcome back, and are you going give us more evidence that you need to play word games in order justify belief in your God?

So far as I know when using the word empirical, I am referring to the clasical definition of observation and experience as per the five senses.My point, is that scientific testing, observation, repeatablility is only accomplished by way of comparing entities and looking for consitency or contradiction.

We can always take philosophies to illogical extremes. If all perception is subjective then there is no reality. If this is your reasoning for the vacuous nature of objective reality then this also means your perceptions of the “third” which you describe as god are equally vacuous. Without objective reality you live in a dream world and your perceptions mean nothing.

Did you notice that all of those definitions (except for the one not applicable) used the term 'systematic' in some form or another?Is it a word game to say that systemic methodology is by definition comparative and therby seeking consistency or contradiction between entities (specifically between theory and evidence)?The question is really whether you will play word games to deny the fact?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

OK. Not a very full definition but true at least in as far as it goes (depending what is meant by 'entities')So where exactly are you going with this? Is it related to the topic at hand?