We know there's a God because...

This is just not true. Objective evidence can be verified in a way that subjective perception cannot. This is very much at the heart of the difference between science and religion. Consider the following -Imagine the colour red. The 'redness' I imagine and the colour you imagine may or may not be the same. As far as I am aware there is no way to tell. Our perception of red, as you rightly suggest, is subjective and independent of each other to such an extent that we just cannot know whether or not we see the same thing inside our heads when we think of the colour red.However we can experiment to see if there is an objective non-subjective 'red' that is not merely a product of personal perception.
We independently pick out the red cards from a pack of different coloured cards and then compare to see if we both picked out the same cards from the same deck.
We can take things further and measure the frequency of light reflected from the cards that we are both calling 'red'. We can determine the physical properties of the concept we are both calling 'red'.
We can extend the experiment to other objects and their percieved redness across a large sample of people.
Eventually we will find a consistency of what is termed 'red' across the human population in terms of the physical characteristics of red (wavelength, frequency etc.)
We can then make predictions that light of a certain wavelength and frequency will be consistently identified independently and objectively by test subjects as 'red' (or whatever name you choose to give it in whatever language - the key is the consistency of identification and corroboration acros test subjects). These predictions can be tested and objective conclusions drawn.We still don't know that any of us are actually perceiving red as exactly the same thing inside our heads.
BUT we do know that light with certain properties is consistently identified as 'red' across the population and that the colour red can therefore be said to exist objectively and independently of perception alone.God is like the colour red above but with no opportunity to experiment or verify with others that what you mean by God is what they mean by 'God'. It is all inside your head with no reference to an objective reality.Yes you can describe your perception and others can describe theirs in the same way two people could both try to describe the concept of 'redness' as they imagine it. It may even sound as though you agree as to the nature and propreties of 'God'. But without any way to look inside the heads of others there can never be any way to confirm that you are actually experiencing the same thing or that God exists anywhere but as a figment of your subjective thought and imagination.As such perception of God is subject to personal delusion in ways that physical objective evidence is not and your whole argument falls apart at the seams.Traffic lights are testament to the fact that there is an objective reality we can all agree upon. Forums like this are testament to the fact that the conecpt of God is highly susceptible to personal delusion.In the absence of written texts some commonly identifiable objective physical evidence of God's existence would be required to suggest anything other than peronal delusion. As yet none exists.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Percy's question as to what would be required as evidence for God or gods in the absence of religioius texts is not adequately answered by either -A) The perception of apparent design in nature OR
B) The contradictory beliefs of numerous cultures across the globe and throughout historyA - Just tells us that there is a superficial appearance of conscious design in nature (which does not hold up under examination)
B - Just tells us that for whatever reason (and the question is in itself and interesting one) people like to invent supernatural entities and phenomenon to explain things that they do not understand.Surely more is needed to truly infer God?

Lets say that I, as an atheist, consider the apparent design of nature as we know it to be the work of an advanced alien civilisation that inhabits a different dimensional parallel universe.How does the appearance of design in our universe support the idea God any more than it does my alien hypothesis?In the absence of religious texts, even under the misapprehension that the appearance of design = actual conscious design, there is no reson to think that design supports any sort of supernatural answer so this is an inadequate answer to Percy's question.

I could be a brain in a jar imagining absolutely EVERYTHING including you and every other conscious being. The WHOLE 'reality' I percieve could ALL be false. This is true.BUT if we get past the rather pointless 'everything is a figment of my elaborate imagination and there is no way to eliminate this possibility' argument and accept that there are actually individual consciousnesses then your argument falls apart in the manner that I have described.For your argument, that independently corroborated physical evidence is no more valid than persoal belief, to hold true any one of us MUST assume that EVERYTHING we experience is false and that no other consciousnesses are inhabiting the reality that we perceive.How very nihilist of you.For my argument to hold true it requires only that there is more than one consciousness perceiving the same external reality.You don't believe that you are a brain in a jar. As such all the arguments regarding corroboration and verification available to phyical reality but not personal belief hold true.The whole basis of your argument is in shreds.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If we accept your false logic that apparent design = designer then what exactly is it that suggests that this is an "invisible designer" or God as opposed to a superior alien civlisation?You have asserted design as evidence for gods but not put forward any argument at all.Atheists can believe in design without believing in gods.

Iano
I assume nothing. I merely consider the logical consequences of the two possibilities.IF there IS an objective reality inhabited by multiple consciousnesses then independently corroborated physical evidence is evidently superior to personal belief in establishing what is true and what is not. As previously detailed.Do you disagree with that? If so on what grounds?IF no objective reality exists and I am a figment of your imagination then your God and the all the rest of your reality is also a figment of your imagiation and you will never be able to establish otherwise.Do you disagree with that? If so on what grounds?Either way what is definitely not possible is a reality experienced by multiple independent consciousnesses in which personal belief and independently corroborated physical evidence are equally valid.Logically you cannot have it both ways without internally contradicting yourself.The only way you can equate the validity of personal belief with the shared experience of 'red' and it's physical properties is by denying that I exist to experience either. Edited by Straggler, : I cannot spell

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Well if you start a new topic in which you explain your thinking in relation to a simple practical example like the concept of 'red' I have previously detailed then I will be happy to take part.I looked at the link and have a number of comments but I will raise these if and when we cover this in another thread rather then go against Admin's wishes in this one.Anyone - How do I link to a previous post in the msg= format if I do not know the number of the forum/thread (or how do I find these out)??Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

A world without the bible or any other similar religious text has been the norm for the majority of human existence.
War and the various other evils under consideration still took place. How could the people be expected to draw the same conclusions that you consider so evident without the help of the texts you consider so fundamental to your way of thinking?This is not unscientific speculation. It is history.The world you talk of, in which the texts in question exist and are readily available and accessible to those who seek them out, is a very recent development in human culture.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ignoring evolution -However long you think the human race has been in existence there will necessarily be a period of time in which no religious texts yet exist.
You have stated that you are unwilling to even consider the 'hypothetical' question of a textless world.
But unless the texts existed before people this must have factually existed.
How does your position deal with the evils committed by people during this period of time?
How were they rejecting a god they could know nothing of?

Well your honesty in this respect is unexpected, refreshing and to be commended. There seems little point pushing the point further. Now this seems debateable at best. On what basis do you make this claim?
The further back in human history we go (no matter whether you accept evolutionary time scales or not) the more evidence there appears to be of gods representing aspects of nature (god of fire, god of the sea etc. etc.), polytheism in general and other such non-christian beliefs.Are you really claiming that these cultures were more enlightened than the current followers of Christ such as yourself? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.