As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.
As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.
Is this true? Because if so it is a contradiction.
This is just another way of making a truth claim even though you can’t know the truth.
Who says seeking truth is something we ought to do? Particularly if knowing the truth is an impossibility. These are all assertions as to what we should do without any justification as to why we should do them.
I’m being slightly annoying to shine your own standards on yourself. Not meant to be combative.
Knowledge and truth are two different things, although I should have written it better. There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. (Well, there is a way to know theoretically, if a god exists. There isn’t a way to know if one doesn’t exist though. You can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist. You can only prove that something exists.)
No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.
I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.
Assuming you’re a skeptic…
Arguments for God’s existence (such as classical theistic arguments) are not merely isolated truth claims—they function at the paradigmatic level, offering a foundation for knowledge itself.
If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.
Only if you can justify the validity of logic in your worldview. But without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally? You’re using a tool (logic) without explaining why it ought to work or why it’s trustworthy in a purely materialistic or skeptical framework.
Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can’t propose any “oughts” without a justification.
Again. I’m being nit-picky but I feel like this thread is meant to invite some apologetic banter.
All of those are based on axioms. They’re true if the axioms are true, but not otherwise. They are useful, but not self-evident. The axioms seem to hold though.
Why do we need a transcendent source of rationality? We only need to build upon foundations of solid axioms.
Do I need to spell out why someone who values truth should seek it? It’s not really an opinion, but a statement. I guess it isn’t a complete statement. I guess a more complete statement would be “someone who values truth, and wants to find what they value, should seek truth.” Is that better? I don’t think that middle portion is required to spell out, but whatever.
It’s impossible for you to know that.
Says who? How do they justify that claim?
Axioms are pragmatic and therefore used a lot in math and science but when you enter the realm of metaphysics (e.g. Philosophy) you have to ground your worldview in a justified true belief.