We know there's a God because...

Hello PercyI’m certain that as I went about my inquisitive, daily existence the question “I wonder if this is all designed?” would pop into my head. One has to admit that the Koo Creationists aren’t wrong that, superficially at least, the immediate world does have something of that aspect.I’m hoping that my response to the question wouldn't be epiphany but more questions.Assuming questions, my first would be, “Assuming this was all created, what properties of the creator might I be able to surmise?”Well, It is or was awfully powerful, but not infinitely so. I conclude this because every time I probatively saw a person in half ” Oh! Don’t try to tell me you haven’t. ” he’s full of guts. An all powerful designer would have no need for mechanism.Next, It is or was not all knowing. I conclude this because having added mechanism It didn’t devise the best mechanism.And, It is or was not all loving. I conclude this because It let* me saw those people in half, or any other not good thing that might happen if the other isn’t a constant of experience.Finally, It is or was not all present. I conclude this because It never responds “Here.” during roll call. ( Roll call: Any line of reasoning that would demand It’s existence.)From this silly-gism I’d have to conclude that if It exists It doesn’t deserve much consideration.To answer your question: We couldn’t.*I recognise this part of the argument fails as soon as I concluded It to be merely omnipotentish.

---

Kindly

When I was a child this was called the " There's a small tribe in Africa argument".Might I know the name of that "small tribe"?

It is not possible to know the motives of the creator. I have to make guesses that seem to make sense. If I’m going to assume that the world is designed because it looks designed, it behooves me to assume the most sensible design give the abilities of the designer. The best mechanism is the least mechanism (parsimony). Unnecessary parts increase the chances of failure. I assume failure is not desired, but what do I know?But if I were made of the dust of the earth and my arm came off, I could dampen it a bit and stick it back on. Think of how nice it would be if all one had to do to make a cell phone was make a mold, fill it with dust of the earth and presto.Why add an assumption that It would do less than It was able (parsimony)?I’m thinking the guy sawn in half would be less then impressed by It's loving nature. I’m sure if It can do anything It could figure out a way to give me free will and love the sawn-in-half guy. My mom never once let me saw any of my brothers in half and never removed my free will.Of course answering to my wishes is desired. That objection is just plain silly. Oh, you mean desirable to It. To be “demanded by a line of reasoning” is not actually a property of the object per se, but of the line of reasoning. So It is not required to obey my wishes, but merely to not intentionally deceive me. Not for an all powerful It.

---

Kindly

There is a lovely little phrase in latin that I can’t remember but is abbreviated M.M., meaning “given the appropriate changes. (If anyone knows ” clue me.) The "There's a small tribe in Africa argument" did not apply only to theological arguments, but to any type argument, i.e., There's a small tribe in Africa who consider it an honor to hand over their lunch money to older, bigger kids.In the instant case the small tribe is your group of folks who intuited god from their observations from nature and nature alone.The Idea of the statement was to get you to cough-up a citation of these folks and their statements. Otherwise I’m going to have to assume this small tribe in Africa has the same name as the one from my childhood. (The tribe was a rhetorical device ” just in case I'm being to cryptic.) Bummer.Edited by lyx2no, : Post script

---

Kindly

To assume means to accept. The word does not imply motive for acceptance. My motive for the assumption was to give some basis to a string of reasoning that was to follow. I assume that there are whole numbers p and q such that (p/q)^.5 = 2. I’m not concluding that there are such numbers. If I follow the necessary implications of this assumption I’ll soon conclude I was mistaken in my assumption. You see, an assumption starts a string of reasoning and a conclusion ends it. I never assumed that it wouldn’t try to deceive me. I assumed that if it did I would not be able to unravel its deceit, which would leave me having to conclude exactly what I concluded before.You did note that I made no claim that it didn’t exist; only that I’d no cause to bold it. Didn’t you? Thanks for the schoolin’... Wait up, I’ve got a cinder in my eye. My entity may be a committee for all I know. I’ve treated it as singular as it makes no difference with the current resolution of the speculation.You mean my entity is or was extent.If it’s not concerned with people why would people be concerned with it? Again I’m on my oblivious, mary way.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

Kindly

Thanks. I've only ever used it abbreviated, which is why I forgot.

---

Kindly

Cold Foreign Object: Might I ask what your methodology for reaching a conclusion is? Because if it is anything like CTD’s, observation_conclusion, as established in post 98, then I think I see the reason behind the confusion. Simply replace your uses of the word conclusion with conjecture and there is no longer an argument.Just an outline will do, i.e., Observation_initial hypothesis_experiment_ further hypothesis_ further experiment_gather loose ends_initial conclusion_peer review_answer refutations_ conclusion. Where the gathering of loose ends is an unknown number of repetitions of further hypothesis and further experiment. And all the while with the very real chance that the conclusion will be “no”.It would be a real shame if this whole argument was semantics.And yes, this is a real question.Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity.

---

Kindly

Sorry for the delay; Out of town.It is through healthy reason and logic that one determines what falsifying experiments would best fit the circumstances.And healthy reason and logic that allows one to recognize that one wants to falsify ones own hypothesis before someone does it for them, and they the fool.I suppose it would be good of me to say something to the OP in this post somewhere.Generally, can anyone out there tell me why God wouldn’t just use magic to make everything work? From all of what I’ve heard from the pro-C side of these posts it would be well within his abilities.Edited by lyx2no, : To address the OP.

---

Kindly******Fishing for complements without bait.