RE: Here is why you should believe in God.
April 7, 2020 at 9:51 pm
(This post was last modified: April 7, 2020 at 9:51 pm by SometimesFactsAreUnpopular.)
It's true that proofs need a starting point but such starting points are axioms that are so reasonable that they're even more logical than proofs are.
You can prove to yourself that you exist so it's untrue to say that you can't prove that anything exists.
"How can I be sure that I exist?" is not a question worth thinking about.
"How can I be sure that God exists?" is a silly question.
It's untrue that all propositions require further proofs.
It's irrational to require a proof for absolutely everything.
Irrational arguments are also circular.
Axiomatic 'arguments' are just another case of regressive question-begging or circularity.
Axioms are the answer but axiomatic arguments aren't.
Rational axioms are more fundamentally rational than rational arguments are.
Coherent axioms is rationality step 1.
Arguments/proofs is rationality step 2.
It is not the case that one should address the question of God's existence at all once you understand that the concept of God itself presupposes that all belief in the reality of such a God is irrational from the very outset.
The existence of physical laws do not warrant a lawgiver in the sense of a person or agent or supernatural being or intelligence.
Laws do not exist in any way that is separate from the animated stuff that they apply to.
Animated stuff S behaving in a certain way C following laws L are all identical. S = C = L = C = S. All the same thing.
You can prove to yourself that you exist so it's untrue to say that you can't prove that anything exists.
"How can I be sure that I exist?" is not a question worth thinking about.
"How can I be sure that God exists?" is a silly question.
It's untrue that all propositions require further proofs.
It's irrational to require a proof for absolutely everything.
Irrational arguments are also circular.
Axiomatic 'arguments' are just another case of regressive question-begging or circularity.
Axioms are the answer but axiomatic arguments aren't.
Rational axioms are more fundamentally rational than rational arguments are.
Coherent axioms is rationality step 1.
Arguments/proofs is rationality step 2.
It is not the case that one should address the question of God's existence at all once you understand that the concept of God itself presupposes that all belief in the reality of such a God is irrational from the very outset.
The existence of physical laws do not warrant a lawgiver in the sense of a person or agent or supernatural being or intelligence.
Laws do not exist in any way that is separate from the animated stuff that they apply to.
Animated stuff S behaving in a certain way C following laws L are all identical. S = C = L = C = S. All the same thing.
