Ybe an atheist

[Angrboda]

Here is a proof for G.

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

R = reasoning the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
G you know G.
G is the support for R and everything:
- thinking the future will be like it was in the past
-  why we call something good or evil
- Love
- logic
Bye for now tommorrow is Friday and I have to work early and so time is up.... its 12 am here Friday

I don't find your TAG argument at all persuasive, and it has been addressed in the literature (for example, Does Induction Presume the Existence of the Christian God?).

Moar.

When we look at reality, we usually explain things in terms of more primitive laws or principles. But eventually, you come to the bottom. These elementary principles, which can’t be defined in terms of anything more fundamental, are called axioms. There aren’t many of these, but there are more than zero.

Apologists claim that they can do better than this—they rest everything on just “God did it.”

The first problem is that this is stated as a theological claim, not as evidence. Problem two is that they’ve simply replaced natural axioms with others that they prefer. There are still axioms at the bottom, so this is no improvement.

Like naturalists, apologists agree that you’ve got to stop somewhere; it’s just that their stopping point is based on nothing. It has no evidence to support it. Contrast that with the naturalists’ logical and mathematical axioms. Unlike God, these aren’t taken on faith. They’re tested continually. Why would we want to ground the one that is strongly confirmed with evidence (logic) with the one that isn’t (God)? Why demand something solid to hold up the fundamental axioms but then use faith to hold up God?

I’ll admit that “that’s just the way it is” isn’t completely satisfying, but “God did it” resolves nothing. The apologist won’t tell us why or how God exists; he just exists. This informs us as much as “fairies did it.” But if the Christian can have a fundamental assumption about reality (God), so can the naturalist (natural axioms).

Show me that the laws of logic are optional or different in an alternate universe. Otherwise, we can presume that the logic that we have is universal.

Let’s say instead that reality just has properties. Or: properties are a consequence of reality. A universe with zero axioms is a universe without properties. Could such a universe even exist? Is that what a godless universe would look like? I await the evidence.

A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3)