(December 4, 2024 at 10:29 am)Disagreeable Wrote: "God is an axiom."
On Discord I had a debate with a Christian who said that God is an axiom and can be presupposed rationally. I pointed out that it's special pleading to pick the Christian God as an axiom rather than Hinduism as an axiom, for instance, or a thousand other arbitrary positions.
But he insisted that it's rational to start with the Christian God as an axiom.
He also said that you start with a theory and develop a hypothesis afterwards. Which I said I was pretty sure he got backwards but he insisted that it was the right way around and it made sense to start with God and if you can't disprove him then he's an acceptable "theory". I also pointed out that he had the burden of proof reversed by asking me to disprove God. He insisted that he had the burden of proof the right way around.
Pretty sure this counts as stupid things religious people say.
The emboldened claim he made is a text book argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so much for the belief being rational. It's also not an axiom that any deity exists, or is even possible, just because theists accept the existence of a deity as "established, accepted, or self-evidently true" does not mean it is so, that one is called begging the question, so again his claim for rationality seems like the usual rhetoric theists offer when they use words like rational and logic.
If one were to point out that you can't disprove the claim "no deity exists or is possible", would the claim be axiomatically true I wonder? Two contradictory claims can't rationally both be true at the same time and in the same place after all.
