We know there's a God because...

100%It did happen exactly that way.Can you show that it could have happened any other way? Was it possible for the expansion to happen at a rate different from what happened? Because if we only know of one way that it could have happened, and it actually happened that way, the chances are 100%.

This all depends, of course, on what I was doing the night before. But I understand your point.My push back is that whether this occurred or not is wholly within me and cannot be used as evidence for anything outside me. I also submit there is no such thing as personal evidence, only personal perception. Esse est aut percipi aut percipere.But there is an objective reality. With properly functioning senses we can perceive this objective reality. But “evidence” requires an higher standard. Evidence is not left to one’s perception but can only be regarded when others independently and dispassionately verify this perception.You trust your perceptions of reality of the world around you because throughout your life others have verified these perceptions. The chair really is there because not only do you see it there but so do others. Photons reflecting off the real physical substance of the chair folds the proteins in the receptors of the eye causing an electro-chemical cascade through the brain. The fact that others with different equipment independently see the same thing verifies its objective reality.The problem with perceptions of gods is that there is no independent verification. Each person’s perception is emotional and different and there appears to be no external “evidence” to be verified independently.There may be others who have similar enough (emotional) perceptions of one flavor of god who reinforce each other’s perceptions through the formation of a sect with separate rituals. But a complete lack of evidence leaves only fragmented emotional perceptions (as evidenced by the fragmented nature of religious sects) none of which can be said to conform to objective reality.I submit you do not perceive the reality of god’s existence. I submit you have an emotional perception of a specific flavor of a personal god unique to you. To thine own self be true.But objective reality has its own court. You are not in this world alone.

Hi Rahvin, We are here and that is proof enough.There are other alternatives.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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

The point was, whether I actually said it or not, that they SAID that they had no exposure to monotheism. Nope, like I said: uneducated Africans who after Emancipation and becoming literate wrote their stories and said that they deduced in Africa that reality reflected a Creator and in America they then learned WHO the Creator was.Your penchant to misrepresent simple claims is deliberate based on the fact that you undoubtedly understand complicated scientific arguments written in journals.Ray

Such as?In a coin toss, we know that the results can be either heads or tales. With dice, we can get a number between 1 and 6.How many possibilities were there for the expansion, ICANT? Do you know? I can tell you that we know of exactly one possibility - this one. But we have no idea whatsoever whether there were any other possibilities. We could be dealing with a 1 in 2 chance, a 1 in 6 chance, a 1 in 100,000 chance....or a 1 in 1 chance. We simply don't know. The probability will be limited only by those variables that define the expansion - do you know what those variables are? I don't.In the absence of any other possibilities (because we have no idea how many if any other possibilities there were), the probability of the only result is 100%.

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"?

The degree of slander seen, that is, equating a Stanford Ph.D. to be a moronic Fundamentalist is equal to the degree that you perceive Dr. Scott to have invulnerably refuted your evolution theory; hence the reason and motive of the slander.Without any religious texts a person can easily deduce that reality reflects the work of an invisible Designer based on the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature and organisms. Dennett, of course, is writing in the context that said designs were produced by the non-intelligence of natural selection. But the point and fact of the matter is that he, unlike most evolutionists, admits design to exist in nature. Creationists have a better explanation: this same "breathtaking design" corresponds to the work of intelligence or invisible Designer.But the point in this thread, based on Dennett, reality can be SEEN to be the work of a Creator or Designer; hence the need of a religious text to conclude for a Designer is false and refuted.Let the stupid misrepresentations begin, which are a compliment indicating the inability to refute what was said.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : add the phrase: "of intelligence or" in third paragraph from the top

It's not slander if it's true, Ray. Your mentor is a moron. He has a PhD in theological studies, not anything remotely science-related. He's really good at reading the Bible. Whoopdey-do.His argument is that evolution is false because acceptance of evolution is a punishment from god. It's the most retarded thing I've ever heard, and it's not a refutation of anything - it's the stupid statement of a schizophrenic doomsday prophet with a carboard sign on the corner of the street.I say all of this despite it not being related to the topic just to remind any lurkers of exactly what Ray bases his beliefs on: the rants and raves of "gods angry prophet," Dr. Scott. Check him out on YouTube - he's not just a televangelist, he's the worst televangelist I've ever seen. Such "deductions" invariably stem from personal incredulity and ignorance, not an objective study of the evidence. As such, those conclusions are fallacious and have no bearing on reality.I can marvel at the beauty of a snowflake, examine how perfectly organized its structure is, and proclaim wonder at how each snowflake is totally unique...but snowflakes are still the result of natural processes, and are demonstrably not designed. My sense of awe, wonder, and beauty are just as irrelevant to the facts as your personal incredulity and ignorance. Silly wordplay. I can talk about the "design" of a snowflake, referring to its intricate structure. That doesn't mean there was a designer. Your conclusion once again rests on the premise that complexity and organization can not come about unless guided by an intelligence - a premise that is demonstrably false in such examples as the snowflake. You mean that design can be inferred from personal incredulity, ignorance, and other emotional reactions. That's true - without religious texts, belief in deities will still occur.Someone had to make up the deities in all of those texts in the first place, after all.But that has no bearing on reality. Any attempt to objectively show the existence of a deity without using a religious text as a definition for that deity will ultimately be a search for whatever imaginary deity the searcher can come up with. You can even make your definition of a deity match up with reality...but you're still violating parsimony, adding an extraneous entity without any reason to do so.

No, he knows where he is going. (To supper, hence the running! )God can be both simple and complex. there are no limits, after all.God can be anything we are capable of imagining. He needs no logical explanation, nor a creator to create Him. (except, of course, our overactive imaginations)

I think you're showing dangerous signs of evolving into an agnostic or perhaps a Christian Atheist, or MetaPhysician, Phat. I couldn't agree more about the imaginations bit!Check out:Christian Atheists

Rahvin is just lashing out because a Stanford Ph.D. refuted evolution. If Dr. Scott did not refute evolution, and if he was a "televangelist" then Rahvin would not be lashing out and slandering a Stanford Ph.D. because as we know televangelists are stupid and they do not refute evolution.I urge everyone to listen to Dr. Scott at Pastor Melissa Scott presents Dr. Gene Scott - The Official Site - he is the first person to explain WHY a theory with no evidence is accepted as true: Materialism and its products known as Darwinism or evolution, that is, to accept them as true, the reason why persons accept these fallacies as true is because God is punishing them for denying Him credit as Creator and Designer. This is the only explanation as to why Darwinism is "successful". This punishment exposes "Christian" evolutionists, like EvC member Phat, to be deceived and not real a Christian, much like Judas who was deceived when he betrayed Christ to His face with a kiss. This explains how and why "Christians" could side with Atheists CONCERNING ORIGINS.Of course persons like Phat THINK they are the exception, that their feelings based salvation overrides what the Bible actually says. Again, to be deceived is of the mind and it makes you believe something to be true when it is not.Rahvin understands the refutation and has no answer, that is why he is lashing out in anger at the Stanford Ph.D. who figured out the refutation.The objective claims of Darwinism and evolution deny that design corresponds to Designer. The "success" of this illogic has been explained by Dr. Scott.Ray

Err..Ray, I don't think you quite meant that.

In other words you do not understand or cannot refute.I said what I meant and meant what I said.Ray

I can speak English. Have another look at what you said.Now, were the biographies (or autobiographies) written by Christians?Yes, or "Nope".