We know there's a God because...

You mean that when you were under 13 years of age you were already up and proficient on arguments for the existence of God?And I have no idea as to what constitutes a small tribe or if these persons were from a small tribe.Ray

"Deduced" you say. Invented, I say.Yes, I understand. But I've observed nature in Africa, and I didn't deduce any Gods or God. I've also observed people in Bali making an offering to their volcano God, and volcanos are natural. But I'd been inside the crater of the volcano, and nothing had revealed its God to me.Gods seem to be in the eye of the beholder, and people everywhere make them up, don't you agree? They can't all be true.So, if a culture believes in a God or Gods, that doesn't mean that they've "deduced" something that's real, just that they believe in something.And of course Gods can be invented without scriptures. No-one could write scriptures about a God first, then invent it after, could they?So it always starts with looking at the universe, then making up explanations.Exactly what you accuse scientists of doing, because their view doesn't fit an ancient middle-eastern invention that you seem to be very attached to.

We seem to have established that there is ample evidence available in the world for even the underprivileged souls who lack access to the scripture to discover that a Creator exists.The predictable counter arguments are starting to come in, and they're not improving. The favorite trick is to assume from the start that there is no Creator. False assumptions serve to guarantee false results.It's claimed that persons who are astute enough to perceive the evidence will proceed to invent their own god. But why would they do so? Why would they not choose to seek the true Creator? Sounds like another baseless assumption, doesn't it?In the real world, God's Word is available, and it tells us that all who earnestly seek the truth shall find it.I have never in my life encountered a single argument against the existence of God that didn't rely upon seriously flawed assumptions. Will this thread be more of the same?

Hi Rahvin, I don't either but the odds I quoted have been put forth by Scientist.Inflation was just one of a 122 consants that had those kind of odds to happen by chance.Any of those 122 things not happening we would not be here.So If I was looking at that kind of information with no reference to God as an alternative I would know something was responsible for me being here other than chance.So when I read what Andrei Linde the noted Russian Scientest known as the universal wizard said I would probably jump on his bandwagon.In Discover magazine in 1992 Linde suggests, our own universe might have been created by beings in another universe.But since we do have a book that tells us of a God and I see all these very improbable things. I have to think yes it had to be a super intellegence to overcome all those odds to bring about the universe.So I will choose God over those odds of it happening by chance.I read where some scientist said the odds of life starting on earth was 10^138 that equals: 1 in 1000...[135-more-zeros]God Bless,Edited by Admin, : Shorten long number.

---

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

One important thing about science is that no single individuals opinion can provide any meaninful conclusions about anything. You must first ask yourself ICANT if this individuals opinion is the result of a scientific concensus. It does not matter what initials come before a persons name, if they are spouting numbers that are not supported by a majority of scientists within that field there is no way of knowing if they are correct or if they are a quack.That is what science does. Any individual is capable of putting his personal views ahead of his research. Science, by its very nature, has a tendency to expose frauds, biases, and mistakes when other scientists attempt to reproduce the research and consistently come up with different results.What I mean to say is this: ...is essentially meaningless in science. Thats also not to say hes incorrect. Edited by Admin, : Shorten long number.Edited by Vacate, : Thanks for the edit Percy, I will remember that if it ever comes up again!

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

quote:

---

...If I’m going to assume that the world is designed because it looks designed...

---

That's actually a conclusion. It's based on evidence. Assumptions are the ones that have no evidence.

quote:

---

So It is not required to obey my wishes, but merely to not intentionally deceive me.

---

Why not? You've already reasoned a lack of love, but that still leaves the opposite available.It pays to examine all assumptions involved, and maybe try different sets. It's also good to try and see if evidence is available to support them so they can be promoted to tentative conclusions.I see your entity is singular, still extant, and concerned with people. Are you happy with this group?

Edited by bluegenes, : Problem fixed. Post obsolete!

CTD, Bullshit. I didn't quote that, I quoted what I was responding to in the very first instance. Why say you said something that I didn't quote you on? I'm sure you are. You have failed to provide an objective test in order to determine whether miracles pertain to tyre blowouts or not. At least your evasion is honest.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You mean this has been established in this thread? I don't think so.The opening post asks the question, "Say there were no Bible, no Qur'an, no Bhagavad Gita, no religious texts of any sort. How would we know just by examining the world around us that there is a God?"Can you answer this question? Iano appears to disagree that such evidence exists. He believes that unless God reveals himself to you that it isn't possible to know he exists with certainty.--Percy

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

CTD, No, not at all. In fact, when pushed to provide data that would allow us to predict the miraculousness of your claims, namely tyre blowout phenomenon you failed to supply, claiming you were "tired". I'm not doing this, I'm asking you to provide what is required in order to predict & test your own claim. Why is this such a difficult concept to get over to you?If you are unable to predict the frequency of miraculous phemenon in this case objectively, then it is subjective opinion.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Oops. Just seen the warning.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

It's mutatis mutandis. I've never seen it abbreviated, though.Edited by Chiroptera, : Bad tagging.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies