Here is my empirical evidence of the existence of God from the experience of the brain working out inferences.

The brain knows about artificial satellites, that is an empirical knowledge, which is essentially a vision of the brain which in turn is an experience of the brain founded upon the very first and foundational experience of the brain, which is consciousness.

The brain also knows about the moon being a natural satellite of the earth, which knowledge is also an experience of the brain, which is an empirical piece of information initially launched from the sight organ of the eye.

To explain: the eye looks at the moon but the brain sees the moon and infers from earlier knowledge that it is a satellite of the earth; all this process is justifiably called empirical knowledge, founded upon experiences of the organ of sight, the eye, and on the organ of inference, the brain, all which experiences are empirical — empirical means experience.

By the inference through analogy, the brain comes to the knowledge that as the artificial satellites are made by men, so also the natural satellite which is the moon is made by an agent much greater than man and which man can never ever hope to equal, much less to excel.

This agent which made the moon is God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

So we know the maker of the moon and infer to His also making everything in heaven and on earth and everywhere in space and any period in time.

The way atheists want to oppose this empirical evidence for the existence of God is to deny that brain’s operations are experiences, empirical processes, by insisting on their own kind of the definition of experience.

That is typical of the atheists’ attitude: they put their heads in the sand, which heads house their brain, and thus see everything from underneath the sand, for example, in defining experience as to exclude the brain as an organ of experience — the most essentially crucial organ of experience, first of consciousness, and by and through and on and with brain’s consciousness all other experiences of man, which experiences occur in his state of consciousness or while his brain is experiencing consciousness.

The fallacy of the atheists’ understanding of empirical knowledge is bound up with their insistence that empirical knowledge means knowledge from the external senses of the eye, the ear, the tongue, the skin, and the nose, but they adamantly keep out of their consideration, that all these external sense organs are useless without the main essentially crucial sense organ which is the brain.

Ask them how they can ever experience anything at all with the eye and the ear and the nose and the tongue and the skin, without the brain first experiencing consciousness.

They might say that without the external senses the brain cannot experience the external world, but they are again too blind to realize that even without external sense stimulation, the brain can and does experience the consciousness of itself and thereby and therefrom of itself as a part of the external world.

Gerry