If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.I never thought about it like that, but you are right. Because he could just make a planet appear from nothing, and make Venus habitable by just wishing it so, and he could walk on water etc.
Actually, that strikes me as a very succinct demolition of the idea of god. If miracles were possible, physical laws couldn't be, and vice versa.
TK may be on to something, but NTK drives along a dangerous path IMHO
Knowledge can be contextually valid, that is fully integrated into a knowledge base without contradiction, and if it is, in the absence of contradictory evidence, can be certain knowledge. In fact, I think certain knowledge is somewhat redundant. For if it is found, in the future, to be false, then it wasn't knowledge. Example, the heliocentric model. The Earth centered model was not knowledge.
Take the statement noncontradiction of an identity makes it real. Do you agree with it?
If so, can I use these words instead to illustrate the meaning of that statement?
A "definition" [Identity arrived at without evidence] is only "true" [real] if it doesn't contradict what it means to exist [noncontradiction].
If you agree with my illustration, then you have to see that a definition is not an identity until you have evidence.
So using a definition to prove something is "not logical" (to borrow a phrase from Spock)