(November 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Accepted as true without proof? But it isn't, not by everybody. So, unlucky.
Axioms don’t have to be accepted by everyone, logic is not based upon consensus opinion.
(November 21, 2011 at 5:35 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Furthermore, treating the existence of god as axiomatic in a logical proof can only lead to determine the proof a the validity of the argument, not it's soundness. It cannot validate that the axiom is true, and therefore, with respect to this particular axiom, says nothing about the existence of god.
As the entire argument is predicated on an unproven axiom, it's all nothing but mental masturbation, and IMHO, not worthy of serious discussion.
That’s not quite correct, you can demonstrate axioms are true transcendentally by demonstrating that if they were not true you could not demonstrate anything to be true at all.
(November 21, 2011 at 7:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Well it is to Waldork because if he for once lets go of his fairy tale reality he'll end up in a padded cell somewhere.
Actually that’s not quite correct, if I let go of my beliefs I would end up just like you. Hopelessly irrational, secretly assuming the existence of the very thing I desperately claim does not exist; logically incoherent and ascribing to a worldview that cannot stand under its own weight.
As much fun as that all sounds, I’ll choose rationality myself.
