(April 3, 2015 at 11:30 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:A person can say, I don't believe in morality, and therefore, would not be doing evil if I rape someone because there is no such thing as evil. There is no way to prove by an argument that morality is binding and to be followed and not a delusion. But it doesn't mean because the person fails to acknowledge it is wrong, that he for example doesn't have a binding proof that rape is wrong within his own conscious.(April 3, 2015 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote: So just because you don't acknowledge something it ceases to be a proof?
If I don't acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2, then all of a sudden mathematics is a bunch non proven axioms?
No, I don't just reject your "proof" I reject your premises. I don't believe in any supernatural/theistic beings or mechanisms, because they haven't been demonstrated to exist. You can't then use those (undemonstrated) supernatural/theistic ideas to justify your conclusion that the supernatural/theistic source (God) exists.
In the same way, if you deny the divine light and eternal nature of praise, it doesn't mean it's not a binding proof.