Why do you not believe in God?

[Angrboda]

I believe the past is reliable because memory is ubiquitous. All animals are capable of at least some form of information storage and recall, as well as many non-animals, and of course, computers.

It's true that at the bottom, accepting the past as reality requires an assumption to be made. But, all assumptions are not equally valid. Belief in the reality of the past is an assumption which sits on the very edge of solipsism, to the point where only a solipsistic argument can be made to dispute it. That might be fun for a philosophy discussion, but it's useless for establishing truth in any practical sense, and Christianity demands that you accept God and Jesus as practical realities, not as mere philosophical possibilities.

This is true. Not only do my assumptions taste great, they are less filling.

---

Briefly, not wanting to get dragged in by the undertow.

Regarding "objective greatness" and similar ontological arguments.

Assume an inclusive set of all properties P in U, such that for all X having properties Q [= {p1, p2, p3, p4...pn} ], all properties in Q are also members of U. (In basic language, make U contain all possible properties that it is possible for a thing to have.) Demonstrate that there is a natural ordering property that is intrinsic to the set such that using a well defined ordering function O(), the set can be partitioned deterministically into two sets, G and NG (great and not great).

The problem is that there is no ordering function O() that is more natural than ordering function O2(), which partitions the set differently, or even diametrically opposite. So, in a nutshell, there is no objective greatness because greatness has no objective definition. (Or viewed alternatively, the devil's bread is buttered on a different side than God's is.)


(ETA: I just noticed this, so am unsure of where it leads, but... I presume the "property" of the members of the set that is used in ordering the set is also itself a member of the set. I'm primarily concerned with the complement of that property, though issues such as Russell's paradox may loom on the horizon.)