We know there's a God because...

Your approach is to first set aside existing religious texts. You then intend to create your own 'religious text' by creating a god-in-own-image-and-likeness against which to compare the world around you. I mean, how can you say what could be expected of a world created by a god without projecting your own image and likeness onto that god?I don't know about the other texts but the Bible describes the world pretty much as it is: creation corrupt and groaning with mankind ravaged by sin and death. The Bible also indicates that man cannot get to God under his own steam so I can suggest no approach running along the lines you're suggesting.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Address that point to Percy. He's the one doing it. This doesn't address the point made. I'm not quite sure how you managed to miss the Bibles claim of universal application. I'm sure Percy won't have. Not true. It either relates to all (if true) or no one (if false). What a person believes is irrelevant. Would you not have to be making assumptions about the god you apply teleology to in order to teleologise in the first place? And create a god-in-own-image in so doing?

I understand that.But you must be referring to some religious text (even if it's your own made up one) in order for your approach to get off the ground. If not from such a text, where else would you get your ideas about the world a God would make? You would agree that your approach does need some idea of the world a potential God would make in order to compare it to the world you see around you. Your approach for clarities sake: Below is a sample of your religious text (italicised). You seem to be saying that evidence for the absence of God can be gleaned from the presence of war etc. Your idea of God requires that he, if he exists and made the world, would not make one with war and disease etc. Where did this idea come from if not god-made-in-your-image? .

Which only goes to underline biblical Christianities position: you don't find God, God finds you.Relax!

Simply put, yes. From what I have seen and heard (around my neck of the woods) the miraculous is usually the means whereby a person receives a final assurance that: "yes, it is me, God. And no, you are not imagining it". In terms of knowing he exists in an "as sure as night follows day" kind of way then the answer is yes. He has to provide you with clear evidence of his existance before you can know a) he exists b) get to know something about him. Note the evidence only need be sufficient to convince you.(That no one else believes you (other than other believers) will be neither here nor there for you at that point.)

Again, it is Percy to whom you should be addressing this kind of objection. The reason I believe in God has nothing to do with derivations such as proposed. God turned up personally. Knocked on my front door if you like. That's why I believe in Gods existance. The fact that he happens to be 'old' is neither here nor there.You sound ageist I don't really argue for the existance of God via science. For the simple reason that a person will never believe in God until God turns up personally for them too. Its not really a scientific gig that.

I understood what he said which is not what you say he said. My response (in the post you quoted from) indicated that a religious 'text' of some description will automatically be referred to. If not one of the 'established' ones then a-god-in-own-image-and-likeness-one.Percy wasn't asking how one would interact with God. He was asking how would one approach things in such a way so as to conclude God/no God from the world around - without reference to religious texts. If you cannot escape referring to a religous text of some description, then your approach cannot be said to be one that doesn't refer to a religious text - obviously.

If you mean that the examination should lead all to conclude the same thing when exposed to the same argument then no, I don't think there is anything. Some will look at a clear, star-filled night and ache with a suspicion that there is/must be/could be something more. RobinRohan was such a one - gazing upon starfilled nights and vast oceans caused him discomfort.Others will look at the same thing whilst saying they are perfectly content to hold that this life is all there is. They are not driven towards the same conclusion by that same 'evidence'.

Unless you were a Christian you wouldn't really be able to appreciate any attempt of mine aimed at describing it. Not to be insulting, but the attempt would be like trying to explain the quality red to a blind man. There are even more high school students who leave school convinced that ToE is fact when they are not in a position to comprehend the scientific evidence for themselves. They believe what others say the evidence says.Point being, if you are totally convinced that God exists then you are totally convinced. If a penny on the pavement suffices for one then that's the persons business. If it's God having to make himself personally evident to another then thats the persons business.Being convinced of something doesn't make it the case. It's just conviction that it is the case. In another thread I argued that all evidence is ultimately personal evidence - including the evidence that the world around you is real.It's down ultimately to whether you trust your own perceptions as reflecting what actually is the case. I trust my perceptions w.r.t. to the world around me being real. I also trust my perceptions w.r.t. to the reality of Gods existance. Both issues are down to me alone. I cannot appeal to a higher court than that.Question for you: you know what you thought 5 seconds ago. All you have is personal evidence for it. Now, did that thought really occur?

Your personal perception is that you had a thought 5 seconds ago and as far as you are concerned your personal perception is sufficient for you to know you had a thought 5 seconds ago. That thought occurred "inside"Another personal perception is that there is an objective reality "outside" you. That is to say: your personal and subjective perception is that reality is objective and outside you. Again and as far as you are concerned, your personal perception is sufficient for you to know this is the case.Twice we have your personal perception being deemed sufficient as a way to determine what the case is: one deals with what goes on "inside", and one refers to what goes on "outside". Your root reference in both cases is this personal perception. This... ..cannot be demonstrated. At least not without hauling yourself up by the bootstraps.Now, if always relying on personal, subjective perceptions and a perception happens to be added which fits neither in "inside" nor "outside" categories then a third category is perceived. The fact we can differentiate between inside and outside lends support to the notion that a third would be perceivable as a third.If God happens to be perceived in the third then it can be decided that God exists. Just like thoughts and "objective" reality are perceived in the first and second categories. That God is perceived to exist doesn't mean he does of course - the perception is like any other - it's subjectiveThe issue is not whether this can be proven to another. The issue is, failing a way to test what is objectively the case for any class of root perception, do I assume them all to be true and follow where that leads. Or don't I.Do I trust what I perceive or don't I.

I vaguely recall Percy saying once that he is a theist or deist. Could be wrong - but if not, you could add his imagination into the mix.

Hi StragglerI suggest you go back and read the post you are responding to. The problem is that your perception of an objective reality external-to-you is but subjective personal perception. You could be a brain in a jar afterallIt is not possible to verify reality to be objective without reasoning in a circle.Anyway, the post covers this..

No it is not. If you were a brain in a jar and what you "touch" is in fact an electrical signal fed into your brain by an alien then the objective reality you suppose self-verifying is otherwise.You're trying to verify things as objective and outside you by first assuming them to be objective and outside you. That forms perfectly circular reasoning.Seeing as so much of your post relies on circularity, perhaps the best thing to do is wait for you to come back on this point to see if we can progress.

The point of the 'pointless argument' is the point. You cannot get past it without assuming 'objective' reality objective. Having done that, you cannot point to anything within the assumed reality to verify your assumption accurate. That would be pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. That doesn't render your assumption other than an assumption. Assuming I exist in order to render my own argument void is more bootstrap thinking on your part A leap of logicEdited by iano, : No reason given.