> Knowledge of God's existence is derived from observed features of reality.

If it were so, God's existence would be just another scientific fact.

Did you read my entire post? I already explained to you why this isn't the case. We known that, for example, change is real through general observation, but it is not something belonging to any empirical science per se. Rather, it is presupposed by each of those sciences.

Of course, the classical definition of "science" is more expansive, including what would be the most general science - metaphysics - so in that sense, yes, you can say the existence of God is a "scientific fact". (God here is self-subsisting being, not some ridiculous "sky fairy" straw man of New Atheist imagination.)

	▲	TheOtherHobbes an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's a straightforwardly circular argument - creating your own definition, then using it as a proof. Change is not presupposed by science. Various experiences/models of change are described by science, which is not the same thing at all. There are block universe interpretations of cosmology which do not require change.
	▲	bheadmaster 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes I did, but the rest of the comment hangs on the initial claim I replied to. If you redefine God to mean "fundamental assumptions of the universe", its existence becomes tautological. But that is not what most people mean (including the author of the article we're commenting on) when they say "God".