I see you snipped the "favorite argument of college freshmen" part of my post, among many others. I think I've covered the basics. Feel free to re-read the parts you missed.
And how do we know that there is a God who does not deceive?
We don't. If God does not deceive, we can trust our senses. If there is no God and ours is a purely materialistic universe, we can trust our senses. If we are in a universe ruled by a capricious trickster god, we cannot trust anything, and live in perpetual uncertainty.
What started off as a bold assertion concerning what science can prove is reduced to a recommendation that we act as though science proves things.
I was recommending that, if you doubt the reality of the material universe, you not step in front of what appears to be a bus to test your hypothesis.
I hereby retract that recommendation.
Whether or not an argument is the favorite of someone does not refute the argument. That's why I ignored that comment.
We don't. If God does not deceive, we can trust our senses. If there is no God and ours is a purely materialistic universe, we can trust our senses. If we are in a universe ruled by a capricious trickster god, we cannot trust anything, and live in perpetual uncertainty.
So either can trust our senses or we cannot. Great. That was real helpful.
As long as you can't scientifically prove that the world wasn't created yesterday, you have no grounds for claiming that you can scientifically prove the truth of the theory of evolution. (I'm not picking on evolution; I'm pointing out the problem with positivistic scientism.)
-A8