I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

I believe I am in right reason when I accept God's existence as truth. In the first run because I don’t believe anything else is a possibility, without logical self-contradiction. The denial of God’s existence else ultimately refutes its own epistemic foundation by rejecting an objective foundation and standard for logical and moral truth (God)

Can you further explain this part please? How is denying God self-contradictory, if that's what you are saying? I am having trouble following there. And when you put "(God)" (in brackets), are you saying that denying God is to deny truth (and 'moral truth', etc) because God is truth? Because my question is how and why you believe God is truth. Are you saying you believe God is truth because you can't deny God because that's to deny truth because God is truth? Because if so that's obviously completely circular! So my question is:

Can you further explain the above paragraph I quoted, please? If that's ok?

Hello again. I couldn't sleep, so I might as well reply now.

Are you saying that denying God is to deny truth (and 'moral truth', etc) because God is truth?

Absolutely not. That would be a circular argument and an informal fallacy.

What I was speaking about was rather the epistemic structure of the presupposition of atheism (the presupposition that there is no God) as compared to the presupposition of orthodox Christian monotheism (that God exists) or in any case, the presupposition of omnimax transcendental monotheism.

So I am not dealing, in that paragraph, with whether or not God exists, or what the truth is, but simply on the epistemic foundation for truth in the two different worldviews.

An atheist has no objective and infallible epistemical foundation and standard for logical and moral truth, according to his own worldview. By explicitly rejecting (or refusing to accept) the monotheistic foundation for infallible truth, it equals to subjectivism, because in his worldview there is no omniscient and infallible mind, only fallible and temporal human brain chemistry which is neither right nor wrong, it "simply is", and that provides no objective standard by which to determine truth, which is not itself a result of a temporal and fallible brain chemistry. And so there is no truth, and so atheism in its own epistemic structure denies its own objective truth, whereas omnimax transcendental (or simply Christian) monotheism affirms it.

So, let me try and paraphrase:

• You believe you are right to accept your god as truth and you do so because you believe that it is logically impossible for that god not to exist.

When you say "my god", you sound like I am just speaking of some arbitrarily predicated God. I am not speaking of an arbitrarily predicated God, but specifically the transcendental omnimax God, who can be defined as the transcendental source of everything that exists, that is, as pure actuality.

You believe that there cannot be no god because it refutes the concept of objective moral truth and allows for subjective morality and (as far as I can tell) the possibility that we may be more controlled by nature than controllers of it.

No. I believe it cannot be objectively true that God does not exist, because if God does not exist, there is no objective truth.

I'm afraid I can't even make the vaguest sense out of your second paragraph because it is complete and utter philosophical psychobabble. In essence it seems to be some kind of complex special pleading asking us to accept that your god exists because you believe it does.

It is not a special pleading. The reason you call it babble is likely because you are not familiar with the language devices I use. I use the language of the classical world, and of the Thomistic tradition. It is essential for understanding my argument that you understand the distinction of actuality versus potentiality. Here is a definition: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=...t_Potentia

A question ... why should your theism be excepted from the usual demands of evidence and rational/compatible explanation?

It isn't. My monotheism is rationally demonstrable, as soon as you understand the metaphysics of what I am saying. Every statement and any language has implicit metaphysics, even when we don't realise it. Upon analysing metaphysical propositions and presuppositions implicit in any assertions and claims, we come nearer to reality. The tradition of philosophy has been to analyse and make explicit metaphysical discourses which would otherwise be kept implicit and incomprehensible. Such is the case with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics.

Regards,
JP.