We know there's a God because...

Certainly, I've never heard of a culture that doesn't have some kind of religious beliefs. But one problem with your view that they are independently doing this in relation to some kind of supernatural reality or truth is that they come up with very different religions, and very different Gods. The beliefs contradict one another, and often very directly.So, we know of animism, ancestor worship, polytheism, monotheism, and even cultures that view their chiefs, Kings or Emperors as living Gods. And the Gods in the polytheistic and monotheistic religions are many and varied. Collectively, it looks like people inventing stuff.Another problem for the Buzsaw/Ray hypothesis is the invention of supernatural ideas in many different cultures which we now actually know to be wrong. The idea that diseases are caused by evil spirits is one that crops up all over the place, and we now know these "spirits" are actually living organisms and viruses.That kind of knocks on the head your ideas that because many different cultures come up with supernatural explanations of things means there's any truth underlying them.As they're all wrong about the evil disease spirits, why assume there's some underlying truth in all the conflicting views of Gods or God, and all the contradictory religions and creation mythologies?

Edited by bluegenes, : Realized objective reality could be found via the peek button

I have to add a third alternative, which is creators, plural. This isn't a trivial point in relation to the O.P., because creators, plural, are almost infinitely more likely than just one creator (any random number of them is just as likely as one).It's a highly subjective mistake often made by people from cultures that are historically monotheistic to think of potential designers of life, or creators of the earth/universe, as being lonely individuals.So, on this basis alone, it would seem impossible to know that there is a God by just examining the world around us.That ends the discussion, really, unless Percy chooses to amend the O.P. by saying "God or Gods".So those who look at nature and see design with a teleological origin can only argue for this as evidence of teleology, nothing else.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

Every time I meet them. How did you know? As I said above, maybe I'm wierd.

All cultures I've ever heard of have had some kind of religious belief, I agree with you there. On the "intelligence" bit, not all, by any means. Some religious beliefs have a belief in the soul, but not in Gods, or superior intelligences. (Animism/Buddhism etc) I'd substitute many for the word most, as polytheism is historically more common than monotheism (although it can include a "chief" creator).The point about all of these religions is that they frequently contradict each other, often very strongly. If you follow the logic, that means that human beings are certainly capable of inventing false religions, and do so often. In fact, even if there is one true religion, inventing false ones must, logically, be the norm.So, this capacity to invent and believe in religions, far from being evidence of the veracity of any one of the many Gods that have been and are believed in, is actually evidence of a marked tendency in our species to make up Gods (and other supernatural beings) and then believe in them.A thoughtful religious person would not find reassurance in this.