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.

  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    1·
    18 hours ago

    Assuming you’re a skeptic…

    There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. [i.e. God]

    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.

    No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.

    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.

    I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.

    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.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      17 hours ago

      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.

      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.

      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.

      Why do we need a transcendent source of rationality? We only need to build upon foundations of solid axioms.

      Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can’t propose any “oughts” without a justification.

      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.

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        1·
        17 hours ago

        The axioms seem to hold though.

        It’s impossible for you to know that.

        We only need to build upon foundations of solid axioms.

        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.