We know there's a God because...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Percy:No... it is what I would conclude in a world where religious texts do exist.My point is a legitimate deduction in a world that does have religios texts. And that is the world we live in.I simply do not know anything about a world without them. The speculation about it is utterly unscientific and irrelevant to me.I gues I have nothing to cotribute to your speculation. Why do you want to know what we could conclude in a world without religious texts? Would it be relevant to this world?If God exists, the only legitimate explanation for war and other evils... is that man has been given the dignity to freely choose his destiny and subsequently, he has in general, rejected God's counsel, prophets, and His personal incarnation as well.PercyYes, that's exactly right!Jesus went so far as to make the case that even if a man were raised from the dead, 'they still would not believe'.He appears to know us well.There is nothing that god can dish out that will persuade a man who has made up his mind not to believe in God. Any consequenses man brings upon himself will immediately be used to prove that there is no Good God.All you have to do is read the story of the Exodus to see how hard the heart of Egypt is. And Egypt is a metaphor for the world in general.They might however, bow to a pantheistic god who does not threaten their diverse proclivities.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Percy:Of course...I think that (hypothetically) in a world with no religious texts, we would live in a world without logical thought or consiousness.In which case... I wouldn't be thinking at all.

StragglerVery well said...If evolution were a fact, then your point would stand. As it is, your reasoning is actually circular. You assume that people existed for many millions of years based upon a materialistic philosophical interpretation of history.It also assumes that people are more capable and sensitive today to their own logical faculties. This is also unfounded.The fact that the earliest ancient texts actually reveal incredibly rich logical and cognitive function (arguabley more logical than modern man's 'wisdom') should tell us that logical thought was common long before writing was used to digitize it.You see, my point, is that the texts are not the issue. It is thought itself that is the key.

Percy:Yes to the first question.Percy:As to your summary, it doesn't indicate that there 'must be a god', it indicates that we would have philosphical discussions about all this, and the religous texts that we do.As to your question... aren't you the one who said that would be off topic?