We know there's a God because...

Sorry, I couldn't let ICANT go without a response. I'll return to the regularly scheduled topic now. I don't know that you could. Iano's half-right - the only way would be to assume that whatever god exists must have properties reflected by the real world. If there are wars, "god" must like wars. If there is love, "god" must be a god of love.The issue, then, is that it all becomes a matter of base assumptions. If you specifically define "god" as benevolent and all-powerful, then you can look at the world as it exists and reasonably conclude that that god does not exist.If you define "god" as a supernaturally powerful entity that's simply responsible for the existence of teh Universe, that god may exist.But it all depends on your base assumptions - iano is correct in that you wind up creating a god in your own image. You'll find whatever you want to find, becasue you have no evidenciary basis upon which to construct an objective description.There could be one god, or twenty, or a thousand. There could be a god of hiccups, whose sole purpose is to annoy humanity - and reality would "support" such an assertion becasue, after all, hiccups exist. But only if you define "God" to be both benevolent and all-powerful. Such a deity would certainly oppose such things, and step in to stop them, right? But what if there's another god who supports them? And a third, who really just doesn't care, but created the other two gods?Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster really did create the world exactly as it is, with all of our memories intact, last Thursday, and all of the famines and wars and hatreds and hiccups are thre by His Noodly Design specifically for his sick amusement. This reality supports that, doesn't it? I think the answer is simply that we find what we are looking for if we look hard enough, even if it's not there. If you see something out of the corner of your eye in a graveyard at night, you might say you "found" a ghost, even if it was just a moth flying by.You can define an infinite number of "gods" and test them against reality, but no matter how many of them "fit" our world, they're still just figments of your imagination.

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

I've read all your posts and I think I understand what you're saying. You didn't respond to my question about new miracles and new fulfilled prophecies, but I think that would be part of what you mean when you say "God finds you."So would it be correct to say that it is your view that unless God overtly provides us evidence that he exists that we would not otherwise know about Him?--Percy

The observation of design and organized complexity seen in all aspects of nature and organisms logically corresponds to the work of an invisible Designer or Creator.Logically, the same does not correspond to an antonym: the work of unintelligent or mindless materialistic processes.In fact we have read the biographies of African slaves, who after being sold and enslaved in America, and after Emancipation, learned how to read and write, and these accounts report that before being captured in Africa they recognized that the appearance of the natural world, and its living inhabitants, reflect the work of an invisible Creator, who they attribute to be the Biblical Creator after learning about Him in America. The point is that without any preexisting knowledge of written religious literature, these ex-African slaves admit that reality reflects the work of an invisible Divine Being.I might add that they go on to thank God for revealing Himself to them by nature, AND THEN by confirming this revelation by the written revelation of the Bible.Ray

Quite likely. Where you and I differ is that I pointed out in the previous post that the same applied to the ancients when they invented their Gods, like the one you believe in.All the absence of ancient scriptures, as suggested in the O.P., would mean is that those who wanted a God would have to invent their own, instead of believing in those invented by others.The ancients went on what they perceived as signs of teleology, as well. Often spectacularly active events like earthquakes, volcanic explosions, comets in the sky, or exceptionally furious storms and floods, etc.Modern people might look for different things, perhaps intricate mechanisms in biology that can give an appearance of design, for example. The invented Gods, or intelligent designers (as they're sometimes known as in modern times) would be subjective creations, as you imply. Same goes for the ancient one you're so attached to.

This would do exactly what Percy was asking for. Now, what evidence do you have for this?Anything but your own emotional need to see design and complex organization as god?Anything out there that literally could not have been designed by nature and can only be attributed (considering all other possibilities) to your version of your god?

Hardly surprising, after centuries of exposure to Allah by the spoken word, is it Ray?

quote:

---

When the Portuguese first sailed down the Atlantic coast of Africa in the 1430's, they were interested in one thing. Surprisingly, given modern perspectives, it was not slaves but gold. Ever since Mansa Musa, the king of Mali, made his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1325, with 500 slaves and 100 camels (each carrying gold) the region had become synonymous with such wealth. There was one major problem: trade from sub-Saharan Africa was controlled by the Islamic Empire which stretched along Africa's northern coast. Muslim trade routes across the Sahara, which had existed for centuries, involved salt, kola, textiles, fish, grain, and slaves.

---

From:Origins of the Trans-Atlantic Trade of Enslaved PeopleMore on this topic: That's the kind of argument that would be used by modern creators of Gods in the absence of ancient scriptures, and indeed, as Ray is doing here, to modernise arguments for the ancient Gods, as many people find traditional "because the prophets said it in the Holy Bible/Koran etc" type justifications for religions to be inadequate.

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.

They said they had no exposure to anything but physical reality.The presence of Islam or Christianity in Africa is not disputed. The point is these biographies say they had no religious exposure. So your wild assumptions contrary to the evidence is just that.Ray

From the original comment (above yours): "The observation of design and organized complexity seen in all aspects of nature and organisms"Of course you knew this but have no way of refuting so you ask a rhetorical question that presupposes said observation to not be evidence. Again, the answer is the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature. Do you know what an observation is? Evolutionists use observation to say that gradations infer evolution. In reverse: what evidence do you have for the observation of gradations to infer evolution? How do you like a taste of your own stupid medicine?Of course you WILL now evade and misrepresent or ignore these simple points altogether.Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

And what kind of evidence of his existance does he provide? I don't want to seem insultive here, iano, but there are a whole lot of people out there with limited critical thinking skills and believe that finding a penny on a sidwalk is enough evidence of god.Other than the personal emotional comfort of wanting to see something as evidence, and thus declaring it so, is there any other evidence available? Or is it only personal evidence that counts?

Yes, I think I understand where your coming from. We tend to get accustomed to people trying to make scientific arguments on EvC, because it's about the creationist/I.D. type religion, but actually, most of the Christians I've known personally do not attempt to argue scientifically for God. You mean I think that the heavens need new blood? Fresh faced reformers? No, I'm perfectly happy to let the old Gods die out without replacements. Thunderbolts can just strike at random when they're gone. I always find it interesting that Gods are very selective geographically as to where they turn up. The same Gods also tend to turn up to people in successive generations of the same families, I've noticed, as well.

I've never heard of a human culture without some kind of religion in it. How can someone have no religious exposure? Even in the most secular of modern societies, kids all have "religious exposure".These biographies were, of course, written by Christians, I suppose.What you call "objective persons".

In other words, you find that design and organized complexity in nature are self-evident, and that these could only be the result of direct divine control.You ignore examples of organized complexity spontaneously forming from chaos, like snowflakes. That's one part of it. But this doesn't follow your comparison. You're taking observations of complexity in nature and assuming that this implies design, and that this assumption is a self-evident observation. That's not the case - it's the result of your personal incredulity, nothing more.The personal incredulity of a man who honestly believes that the acceptance of evolution is a punishment from god (and that this mere statement refutes all of evolutionary theory) is somewhat suspect, Ray. Put bluntly, I don't trust your conclusions over what time it is. When you respond with incredulity, I'm amused at the irony. Oh no, Ray's angry! Stop watching your angry televangelist mentor, Dr. Scott, and perhaps you can carry on a civil conversation like the rest of us. Or perhaps we'll refute your "irrefutable logic," show the lurkers why your line of reasoning is compeltely flawed, and sit back and laugh as you get all angry and call everyone who disagrees with you an "evil atheist."The fact is, Ray, complexity in nature, even organized complexity, is not a self-evident observation of design, unless you'd like to propose that snowflakes are individually designed as well.The observations that provide evidence for evolution make no such (il)logical leap. We directly observe, with the five senses, that the allele frequency of biological populations change over time. We directly observe, with the five senses, that this process of change is guided by natural selection, where unsuccessful traits do not reproduce, and successful versions do.We then use the simple process of logical inference to make predictions, like similarities in DNA between species the evolutionary model tells us should be closely related. We then observe, with the five senses, that these genetic similarities are there, just as predicted, and conclude that the model so far is accurate.There are no logical leaps here, Ray. Only observations, hypotheses, testing, and further observations.