>>25351993
what's the usual justification for the first premise, that god is needed for us to have what we call knowledge?

doesn't line one beg the question

If you need an argument to believe in god then you don't actually believe in him / xer / xem. You either have faith, or you don't.

>>25351993
>God is a necessary condition for the possibility of knowledge
I disagree. There, very simple to refute
If you don't think that's enough to refute it, then refute the following:
>My penis in your mother is a necessary condition for the possibility of knowledge
>Knowledge exists
>Therefore, my penis is in your mother

>>25351998
>>25351995
For a claim to be made, there must be a world with regularity created by a personal God Who is omnipotent to ensure that the laws of logic apply, omnipresent that the apply everywhere, eternal that they apply at all times, personal that the universe might have telos. God then anchors the laws of logic, for example.
If you're an empiricist you can't make universal claims altogether, so that's a good starting point.
>>25352000
Not that it has anything to do with the topic, but this is an argument for His existence, not for one's belief in Him.

Many philosophers have refuted it. Have you not even bothered to check? You don't even have to ask a philosopher because it is patently false like >>25351998
Already said.

>>25351993
>knowledge is perspectival
>nothing from nothing
>sentient presence[s] are singularities participating in the (true) infinite
>That True Infinite is Alethic & Divinely Ordered & the One of primordial origination

Might get some mileage out of Hegel.

>>25352016
It's a logically sound formal argument which I'm happy to expound on.
You are prohibited from replying to this thread if you haven't read a 9th grade Logic textbook. "Socrates is a man" presupposes the existence of men and might beg the question according to you.

>>25352010
???
Are you saying your god is making the laws of logic apply? If he wasn't there, would the laws of logic not apply? And what if he chose to do something anti-logical, could he do that if he wanted to?

>>25352010
>For a claim to be made, there must be a world with regularity created by a personal God W
Begging the question, couldn't be any more textbook.

>>25352022
>>knowledge is perspectival
and what is knowledge again? I would have thought justification and truth might have something to do with it

>>25351993
>>God is a necessary condition for the possibility of knowledge
A question-begging fallacy

>>25352010
>For a claim to be made, there must be a world with regularity created by a personal God
This is simply restating the fallacy, not giving it a logical backing that would demonstrate its non-fallacious nature as sound.

Other non-Christian philosophies give coherent examples of the world and its laws, regularity etc being the creation or ongoing act/function of either an impersonal God, or a non-theistic eternal ordering principle, or a personal God who simply differs significantly from the Christian one.

When you have all these internally-consistent and coherent explanations of various different things that can account for the world and its laws, logic etc, then picking out any one of these and saying "it has to be this, it's necessary" its actually completely arbitrary and not something that is grounded in any solid logic.

>>25352026
>You are prohibited from replying to this thread if you haven't read a 9th grade Logic textbook. "
LOL
If you had any knowledge of logic, philosophy, or the history of philosophy, you would not be making this thread right now.

there is nothing that exists that necessitates the existence of god. Morals, the universe, free will, fate, all of these things can exist without god.

>>25352028
>If he wasn't there, would the laws of logic not apply?
A world not created by a God as I've described Him is inconceivable, and I've offered pieces of evidence to support my claim. I don't think you can explain or account for the laws of logic in a materialistic worldview, other than to say that they're a linguistic device, case in which I recommend you read some Hume for your logical conclusion.
>And what if he chose to do something anti-logical, could he do that if he wanted to?
God can do illogical things, creating ex-nihilo for example, but what He can do doesn't say anything about what creation does and regularity in the world.
>>25352037
>Other non-Christian philosophies give coherent examples of the world and its laws, regularity etc being the creation or ongoing act/function of either an impersonal God, or a non-theistic eternal ordering principle, or a personal God who simply differs significantly from the Christian one.
Other non-Christions philosophies do, this isn't at this point necessarily a pro-YHWH argument so much as it is an argument for the existence of the type of God I've described. To find out which religion is correct, you'll have to use other criteria in your questioning.
I wouldn't try to convince a vegan that lamb is better than beef, first I'd have to convince him to have meat.
Still, if you want to show that Hinduism or Hellenism operate within a more logically sound framework than Christianity, I'm happy to listen to your points.

For all the question begging accusations, again, this is a logically sound premise. Maybe you don't agree with it but please come up with better refutations- at least better worded ones.

>>25352050
>Morals, the universe, free will, fate, all of these things can exist without god.
Interesting. Where do they exist and how can we be sure of it?

>>25352041
this really is a truke, trying to prove god with a single modus ponens in which the conclusion is baked into the first premise and which betrays an ignorance of epistemology and logic in general, is not an impressive argument.

>>25352063
No. This conversation is done. Go waste someone else's time.

>>25352070
This.
>>25351993
If you want people to give you the time of day, then at least try to do the slightest bit of work to prove your obviously contentious first premise. Don't just lay out a grand, unsubstantiated claim and say 'well it is logical, you can't refute it.' Fucking prove it, or at least attempt to. This whole conversation is about the first premise, so give an argument for it. You posted this same thread a few months ago and acted the exact same way.

>>25352055
Why is it inconceivable? Maybe you're just lacking imagination. Try to imagine with me: imagine it's a universe your god is creating. But he forbids himself to act inside the universe after it's created, for whatever reason, like a scientist running a simulation. And he creates it enforced by logic and with free will and all thee good stuff. But now imagine that the process of god creating the universe never happened, but instead it just came into being at t=0, having all the characteristics that you believe the universe to have. See, I've concieved of a world not made by god, so I've shown it not to be inconceivable

Banning and separating drugs and religion is the single biggest power grab in history.
Anybody who has experienced psychedelics can instantly understand how religions are rooted on this universal truth and each try to explain this feeling that you CAN feel yourself. Call it the presence of god, mother nature, whatever you want. All religions are trying to describe this very same and obvious experience and they’re all rooted on kernel of something real.

But because the big religions have banned you from experiencing this yourself, you will never question their interpretation and their thousands of years old take on the issue.
It is simply human greed combined with cowardice. I don’t want to try drugs, I don’t need to even seriously consider it! For I am well enjoying this smug feeling of superiority that I feel towards the druggie losers. I don’t need to question anything, for I am enjoying this defense my brain has layered around my cowardice to step beyond my comfort zone. Sure I can read a book about the issue, but I will not even consider doing something that requires actual effort or is actually scary and unknown to me.

Someone post the Screwtape Letters /lit/ post, we've got a prime case here

>>25352081
>>25352064
The single syllogism in the OP- of course it's rather incendiary and not meant to convince anyone of anything and just as quick as I was questioned on anything I answered so long as the reply wasn't an accusation of begging the question. I could just as easily dismantle any sort of materialist philosophy but then I risk being accused of straw-manning.
To put it bluntly, again
>the laws of logic can't be anchored in anything within a materialistic paradigm, since empirically they can't be verified everywhere at all times- thus they need to be assured by a God who is in the way I've described
>universal claims can't be made in a world without regularity, any atheistic belief that the world does have regularity is as fantastical as any sort of theism you can imagine
>ethics mean nothing unless dictated by aforementioned creator
We base our lives on the belief that laws of logic exist, that universal claims can be made and that morals are objective, and the only thing which can explain and anchor those things is God. Feel free to disprove any of these claims if you like.
>>25352088
>Why is it inconceivable?
Because mine is a holistic argument, and I'm not making the claim that one can reach any conclusion without divine revelation. I haven't clarified so far but I'm not arguing for the existence of a generic creator-god. The God of Abraham does not have accidental properties- omnipresence, omnipotence and the other ones I've listed are not the only ones, either. As to your scientist god
>he forbids himself to act inside the universe after it's created, for whatever reason
With this you imply that he's created, what? Adam and Eve and Heavens and the earth and then he steps out? A ready-made earth and galaxy which takes its own course according to the scientist's designs? Myself, this morning, or maybe a second ago, and all of the memories in my head which are presumably false? These are all meaningful questions and I'm not trying to dance around the topic.
>But now imagine that the process of god creating the universe never happened, but instead it just came into being at t=0
So what you're doing, like any other post-modernist, is to take the end result of a complex system and attempt to remove everything which makes said system sound. I guess I'd be curious why it "just came into being"- at the very least it's a religious idea, sillier than even silly religions, because it doesn't make any attempts to justify anything.

>>25352121
Your "holistic' argument is not an argument at all. Either make an actual argument, or go eat a bag of dicks. I'm going to stop responding now until you do

>>25352137
Right back at you, don't feel ashamed to fuck off. I can't tell if what I've written is not enough or too much for you but what is obvious is that you're not equipped to deal with this type of discussion.

i wonder if the TAG (Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God) has ever once convinced an atheist that god exists

>>25352144
It's not a discussion. It's you making retarded unsubstantiated claims. A godless universe is not inconceivable, therefore your first statement in the OP is incorrect.

>>25352096
I might as well take the opportunity to respond to your gibberish if only to show the epistemic lacunae, not necessarily of yours since you do seem a lost cause, but of all of the clowns here shouting at me "question beggar!"
like another sillyman in this thread who claimed knowledge not to require justification or truth, you have a distorted notion of "knowledge" which in your case is liable to also come from hallucinations from hallucinogenics or brain trauma or disease, drugs or otherwise. and what I've been saying is that anons ITT claim knowledge of universals without any sort of justification, which is just as silly as justifying it with mushrooms or schizophrenia.
this is a run-of-the-mill epistemological debate rather than an aggressive theological one, despite the way most of the anons ITT approached it.
>>25352178
at the very least it's shown materialists and empiricists that their worldview is bankrupt and guided them towards a more complex paradigm, hopefully eventually Christianity. the materialists and empiricists who are not drooling window lickers, at the very least
>>25352182
welcome back.
>It's not a discussion. It's you making retarded unsubstantiated claims
claims which are premises and conclusions. it's not a discussion solely because you and your ilk choose to not engage with any of the arguments I make and would rather cry about imagined fallacies, even though I've qualified all of my statements. I've not seen you disagree with anything I've said regarding universals, laws of logic, ethics- I've not even seen you deny their existence altogether. I keep extrapolating and you keep claiming i'm not saying anything- as such I encourage you again to fuck off.

Take the smug orthobro christfaggery to your carefully moderated YouTube livechat comment section and not the LGBTQ+ friendly wizard smut literature forum Mr. Dyer

>>25352233
Not that it's the first time I'm accused of it, but I'm a Romanian Orthodox since infancy and Jay only makes basic arguments anyone who's ever even opened a book on epistemology would agree with.
He once talked about our elections and he was incredibly retarded regarding that
And don't call me smug, asshole, I try my best to facilitate discussion but none of these peanut eaters want to substantiate any of their claims

>>25352248
>I try my best to facilitate discussion but none of these peanut eaters want to substantiate any of their claims
Why discuss it? Based on your own premise, there’s no discussion to be had. It’s an argument in the same way that flipping the board is a poignant move in chess. Ultimately it doesn’t accomplish anything or even convince anyone in the same sense that the “does your mom know you’re gay?” line never actually makes someone believe they’re homosexual.

Debatefag apologetic parlor tricks should stay in the 153 live-viewer twitter space ghetto and not intrude the realm of serious intrigue. And the fact that it never has by its own merits in the decades of its tired proliferation pretty much says it all.

>>25351993
>>God is a necessary condition for the possibility of knowledge
I would agree that God is the simplest, most rational and most likely explanation for the possibility of knowledge, but I don't see how it is necessarily so. Could you explain, in precise terms, why your claim must be the case and how there cannot be any other possibility?

>>25352275
Alright so fuck off then for the third time you fucking idiot. I've given you plenty opportunity to engage with ideas and you'd still rather sob at my doorstep and bash on my door. Cool shit but I'm not interested.
>>25352277
Like I said, there is need for a personal, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal being to anchor these things and assure their existence. If you claim they can or do exist independently, I'll ask how or why. If you look for claims rather than rhetoric, they are here >>25352010. In this line of argumentation I'm happy to agree only that such a being is necessary at first and then iron out the kinks with regards to whether it is YHWH who is that being.
I'm operating by the way on the assumption that telos is needed for things to continue existing in the way that they currently exist in. I feel as though that shouldn't be explained but some faggots itt have called it begging the question so if you feel as though that's unfair feel free to say so, even if a literate person should not have an issue with that

File: Screenshot 2026-06-19 at (...).png (277 KB, 636x477)

277 KB PNG

>>25352007
>would it be possible for knowledge to exist in a world identical to this except for op's mom existing?

>>25351993
It's self refuting because it begs the question.

OP is trolling. He thinks he isnt, but his mental retardation ensures that he does.

>>25352416
any such accusation is refuted by the exhausting follow up explanations
>>25352424
thought i told you to fuck off but never mind that, you said yourself you would

>>25351993
>>God is a necessary condition for the possibility of knowledge
Obviously this is the problem. There is no way to show this without begging the question. Trying to solve the "brain in a vat" hypothetical with "god revealed to me in a way that I can be certain that I am in fact not a brain in a vat" is not satisfactory. Every single person, from the original calvinists who invented this apologetic like Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen to the orthobros who decided that they could steal this apologetic from the protestants like Jay Dyer is a retarded young earth creationist. Alex Malpass already refuted TAG. Pressups need to go back to 2019/2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK-rwG392Uc

>>25352304
>I've given you plenty opportunity to engage with ideas
You have no ideas retard. This ‘begging the question’ bit you call an argument isn’t cute nor compelling to anyone outside of Jay Dyer’s Discord channel. Go take your orthofag sales funnel pitch to some other doorstep.

>>25352443
>Trying to solve the "brain in a vat" hypothetical
You misunderstand it, I think. Descartes' demon and its variations, in this case, are not meant to show any sort of end or plausible explanation for the world, but rather a potent counter-argument to the ideas of empiricists and materialists- if you are a convinced relativist in the school of Hume, nothing can convince you otherwise and you'd be correct to believe those things if only you behaved in accordance with those beliefs.
Christianity- but I'm happy for now to just say "belief in the Supernatural"- can do away with those problems by providing a complex worldview in which brain in a jar type notions can be dismissed- again, unlike within atheist paradigms. You can say "oh, but that's just arbitrarily coming up with a worldview that circumvent these issues" and you might even be hypothetically correct, but then we both reach together the conclusion that no worldview is rational other than one which proclaims a Creator in the way which I've described (unless you out of nowhere spout: I believe in a specific type of naturalism wherein it's intrinsically entailed that we're not brains in vats- we can talk about that as well if you like).
While I could give a shit about Jay Dyer and I'd like it to be said that he hasn't invented Orthodoxy or apologetic or applying Greek Philosophy to Christianity, I'm happy to see that someone at least is somewhat familiar with the topic. I'm sure you'll find, by the way, that Logos and ethics has been used in apologetic since way before Calvinists came around.
>young earth creationist
I'm sure what he'd actually say is that evolution as it has been presented to us has been oftentimes at the very least misguided if not fraudulent and that upon studying philosophy of science you'll notice that a lot of theories taken for granted by laymen are in fact incongruent
>>25352477
Four replies is my limit. Fuck yourself and bark some more while I ignore you for the rest of this thread

Under the premise that you aren't trolling,
why are you starting your arguments like this?
You are clearly basing your rather slim argument of x = y thus z on some elaborate school of thought and reason. Why not just simply state your extended reasoning with a "as per st. Aggripionus argument in XYZ"?
Instead you get mad that people don't entertain your bare bones of a post extensively enough.
A bit cringe to be honest.

>>25351993
Isn't this just a simplification of Kant's possibility proof? It's not compelling to me. Meta discourses are often just empty boxes wrapped in convoluted word associations. I think Belint Bekafi wrote a paper refuting this on phipapers.
Anyways, my simple objection to all theistic argument is that none of it ever get us to a particular God. And none of their proponents use their canon scriptures to make a solid standout case for their God. Even the word "God" somehow presupposes a human like divine being when it could just be some turtle or a cheese cube floating in deep space.

>>25352513
>Under the premise that you aren't trolling,
Funny, I was genuine when I was complaining about anons barking about begging whatever questions even if I did attempt to substantiate all of my claims in further replies, thus I was quite sure they were the ones who were trolling
>Why not just simply state your extended reasoning
This argument hinges on the impossibility of a contrary. I've done what you proposed in previous threads and have been accused of straw-manning.(I.e. "-well, as a materialist, you can't... -but I'm not a materialist!" if that's the case, as I've pointed out here>>25352055 , the discussion can then progress, but only then) This is par for the course, of course, since no other anon has ever in the 2 or so years I've been doing these threads, has ever even attempted come up with a worldview which can account for laws of logics ethics etc so that we might compare paradigms with internal critiques
>with a "as per st. Aggripionus argument in XYZ"?
Not only do I not expect any clown in here to have read any Church Fathers, nor would I like to quote them lest I'm accused again of this time appealing to authority, but I'm also content to quote Hume's problem of induction which no materialist can explain. See, I keep it neutral rather than force others to engage with theology.
>Instead you get mad that people don't entertain your bare bones of a post extensively enough.
Bare bones applies to the OP but I'm sure you can find some reasonable explanations of those ideas by skimming through the thread
>A bit cringe to be honest.
right back at you

>>25352550
After two years of posting the same question you expect different outcomes while offering less and less good will and decreasing content per post on a Mongolian basket-weaving forum?
Do you really expect some coherent effort-post all of a sudden or you just wasting time here?

>>25352540
>Isn't this just a simplification of Kant's possibility proof?
A formal form with some more nuance, but sure
>Meta discourses are often just empty boxes wrapped in convoluted word associations
I've barely made reference if at all to linguistics if that's what you're getting at. At any rate you'll find that most philosophical discussions are self referential and held at a meta level- you can scoff at them but it won't diminish their importance.
> I think Belint Bekafi wrote a paper refuting this on phipapers.
Link it and I'll try and address it by tomorrow night if you're interested. I've had a guy link me to Wittgenstein and present it as a refutation of classical logic to prove TAG wrong. It was a good time going through it.
>Anyways, my simple objection to all theistic argument is that none of it ever get us to a particular God
Yes, good. Again, once we reach an agreement that a worldview not supernatural is not sound, we can go on from there.
As far as Orthodoxy goes, there are plenty arguments regarding prophecy, Christology, theology, ecclesiology, which point to it being true. I'll only discount other religions when someone brings them up.
>Even the word "God" somehow presupposes a human like divine being when it could just be some turtle or a cheese cube floating in deep space.
The word "God" itself, in the generic sense, does not entail that, no.
With regards to a turtle in your hand or a piece of cheese floating in space or a dragon in your basement, I guess I'd ask what sort of evidence you have to substantiate the claim that not only they exist but that they are responsible for creation, that they are eternal and omnipotent etc. The cheese being out somewhere in space I suppose would disqualify it from being omnipresent at the very least.
It's not like in apologetic we don't use arguments from history, or like we reject empiricism or the scientific method altogether. Again, the OP modus ponens is just a starting point.

>>25352592
So far I've had ITT a couple of good exchanges and plenty of others in older threads. I think you've formed of me a weird image wherein I'm a person who doesn't like being challenged or exchanging ideas. What you don't notice I suppose is that you don't challenge anything, but really just bark at me even though I've never once been contentious or precious with my words or unwilling to respond to critique.
>Do you really expect some coherent effort-post all of a sudden or you just wasting time here?
Yea, there's been a few

>>25352605
You are right in saying I merely barked at you because it is all I did. It is so because I didn't see anything particularly worth engaging with in the first few posts. I was just intrigued as to why..
Good luck with your travels.

>>25352000
>You either have faith, or you don't.
Yeah but then that make it 50/50

>>25352596
Well, I grew up on the Bible, read it cover to cover. It's a good work of historical fiction.
>>prophecy, Christology, theology, ecclesiology, which point to it being true.
Since you're up for a debate on this, might want to join in

youtube.com/@dzdebates?si=QjHLwWjlaA90Qr6q

Is live. Give us a shoutout and let's hear out your case in detail since 2 Timothy 4:2 and 1 Peter 3:15 commands you the same.

Anyways, here's the paper

philpapers.org/rec/BKEVTV

>>25352662
>grew up on the Bible
>thinks 2 Timothy 4:2 and 1 Peter 3:15 commands Christians to engage in apologetic
I don't disagree with the sentiment and I just might join the stream in an hour or too if it's still up, but the issue is a bit more nuanced and the Bible definitely does not command all laymen to randomly burst out in debate. You strike me as a maltreated evangelical somewhere in middle America and so it makes sense why you'd reject Christianity and and the philosophy adjacent to theology.
>here's the paper
From the abstract it already seems that when "inconsistency with the implications of Christian theism itself" is mentioned, what the author refers to is some type of American protestantism which I'm happy to critique as well. I promise I'll read it and write an honest reply by tomorrow night

>>25352662
Yeah I'm in the queue but it seems the guy would rather laugh at bedouins. Fair play to him to be honest

>>25351993
what if what we call knowledge is simply a word thing, a linguistic thing, formed socially on the basis of neurology and human biology? it doesn't seem to me that that requires god

>>25352804
if it's "simply a word thing", the referent would only exist when referred to by an English speaker while referring to it in English. this would also imply that "knowledge" hasn't existed prior to the English language. certainly children know things even without any linguistic capacities

>>25352010
>For a claim to be made, there must be a world with regularity created by a personal God Who is omnipotent to ensure that the laws of logic apply, omnipresent that the apply everywhere, eternal that they apply at all times
This might hold for a certain being we call God, but what of miracles? Or of a mysterious God that chooses who to appear to and who not to, such as prophets for the sake of conveying his commands?

>>25352928
We only refer to them as miracles because they're an exception to the norm. We know what sort of miracles God is liable to do and He won't reverse the laws of logic.

>>25352416
How does it beg the question? Its simply an analysis of the preconditions of intelligibility. Ur assuming we must use a neutral sort of 3rd party standard of logic, but there is no "neutral" logic floating in a vacuum. U are using logic to make your objection. so TAG simply points out God as the foundation that makes logic valid in the first place.

Without God there is no better non-circular way to prove a world view. (agrippa's trillema)

>>25353204
cheers centurion

>>25352010
This begs the question regarding the laws of logic. The proposition that God creates, anchors, or otherwise determines the laws of logic or physics already presupposes causality, which is itself a knowledge claim that hangs on universal laws.
>>25352026
"logically sound" means nothing if the nonsense is stuffed into the premises.

Total shitwit thread.

>>25353237
yeah so I've been debating retards for the past hour, here's the skjinny
>begging the question regarding the laws of logic
means what you fucking dork? that the laws of logic are merely linguistic that without observing them they would cease to exist? I have to go through an entire fucking rigamarole to have you admit that an object maintains its identity over time even without a person observing it? eat shit at another table you fucking peasant. deny causality and live in fear that when you get out of bed you'll fall into the abyss. the other anon was right, engaging you "people" is a waste of time

>sex is a necessary condition of existence
>i exist
>therefore I deserve sex

>>25353270
>means what you fucking dork? that the laws of logic are merely linguistic that without observing them they would cease to exist? I have to go through an entire fucking rigamarole to have you admit that an object maintains its identity over time even without a person observing it?
you're the one who thinks the laws of logic stop holding when there's no one to "anchor" them, whatever that means

>>25352214
You have to experience mushrooms or schizophrenia to understand what you’re talking about. The hallucination itself is merely distortion in the mind’s capability to produce reality out of the sensory signals received from other organs.
What I am trying to say is that you can literally feel the presence of god. It is direct and it is constant. How could that be an existing sensory signal distorted and misunderstood by damaged or dysfunctional brain? Our senses cannot feel the ”presence” of anything in the same way. It is completely unique, so why is this sensation even built into us? Why is it even possible?
That is the experience all religion is trying to explain.

>>25353288
Reading comprehension you pimple headed fuck. Laws of logic don't stop existing. You believe in them and it's at the very least just as silly a belief as any belief in any supernatural god since you can't test for them. You don't in fact believe in them and think that they're manmade observations? Not only are you retarded but you're also transgender.
It is the case. I'm sorry, I come off as hateful and mean but I'm sincere and benevolent when I say with devotion that this type of discourse is not for you. You are not made to for this, not made to engage with serious ideas. Don't buy what the Bolsheviks say, you ought not join the ranks of intellectuals solely because of your past misfortunes. It's not for you, you're not genetically predisposed to it. Watch from behind the palisades.

>>25353404
Why are you so angry? I never said that the laws of logic are "manmade observations" (an oxymoron). Even if the laws of logic were as silly as any other unsubstantiated belief, it wouldn't support your argument more than one for any other being.

But this is besides the point I made, which you still haven't understood. The OP is circular because in order for God to have any sort of "grounding" relation with the laws of logic, the relation is only meaningful if some laws are already presupposed. Your argument requires that God be prior to all of these laws.

>>25351993
Could you prove that God is necessary for Knowledge without already assuming He exists?

That knowledge requires all the things the theist says it requires; transcendental grounding, necessity, etc. is just something the atheist can deny and still have logic “work”. The presup can bring their own measuring stick to the party and demand we meet it all they like, but they first need to show why it is the case that the measuring stick is a valid requirement for knowledge at all.

Let’s say we agree that knowledge needs all the things the presup says it needs. It’s also not obvious how God solves this problem. If we just postulate that there’s this supernatural personality capable of sustaining the regularity of the universe we might be justified in asking where how it is that he can justify his own claims and thoughts. Why do you get to stop at God but we don’t get to argue, for example, that logic is just a necessary brute fact built into the universe?

>>25351993
I am on the theist side, but OP, brother, why do you not be like the mustard seed?
Do you not find it would be more fruitful to be a little more patient and kind?

>>25351993
False premise

File: romans-1.png (454 KB, 566x682)

454 KB PNG

>>25351993
read Rom 1 for a sense of what argument God wants

>>25351993
>Retardation is a necessary precondition of making TAG arguments.
>This thread makes a TAG argument.
>Therefore, OP is retraded.
Q.E.D.

>>25353877
>*retarded
The thread's retardation is spreading!!!

OP, everyone wants your butt hole.
How will you respond?

>>25353882
Depends, if they are fem or fem passing then I'd be open to some stuff, only tongue and fingers tho. But let's get back to my argument. Where do you think it fails?

>>25351993
You're not wrong. The secret for why you are correct rests in the identity of God.
God is the Universal Consciousness. There can be no knowledge without consciousness being present.

>>25354689
This makes the eternal an ever present condition in the eternal now where consciousness only appears and exists, the past and the future become playthings for observation, manipulation and discovery.

>>25351993
this is fine as an argument for metaphysics, but the problem is people who use it and then think it means their entire religion must be true. its always christians using this argument and it always conveniently leads up to their flavor of christianity being the only solution.

>literally begging the question in one image

Circular reasoning anyone?

fool

>>25351993
Yawn. Here's my simple refutation

> I believe premise1 is true for Allah
>[points at the many medical, biological and methodological Biblical errencies]
>Therefore, Allah grants us knowledge that Christianity is false.

Now you have 3 ways here.

>not engaging in the argument and running counter apologetics on Islam
but then I can do the same for Christianity and now we're in a stalemate.

>reject my premise1 by invoking your own premise1 on the basis of your faith being more [internally rigorous] than Islam
this gets us back to [First]. And also, if you invoke this card then to a pantheist 3rd observer, premise2 above negates your entire argument in favor of his pantheist god anyways.

>reject my premise2 entirely
now you're just a young earth divine command nutjob, not worth my time.

It's simple really, if your argument can prove multiple distinct things then the entire argument is bad. This is just logic 101.

Presupposes created creator distinction over against immanent nonlocality of form/quality/idea/gods.
As in, it says
X>Y
Rather than
X=Y

>>25355376
The easy, clean refutation is to question premise 1, not this strawman shit. You are retarded.
>points at the many medical, biological and methodological Biblical errencies
Roflmao go back to plebbit and learn to speak English

>>25353122
>We only refer to them as miracles because they're an exception to the norm.
But that's the point and the difficulty, a miracle isn't a regularity. A man being brought back from the dead, or the sun standing motionless in the sky for a length of time, the collapse of city walls by following a command to march around them, and so on, are all eruptions in an otherwise rationally intelligible cosmos, and as particulars (because you can't universalize "marching three times makes city walls collapse"), they don't seem to be susceptible to rational laws or accounts.
>We know what sort of miracles God is liable to do and He won't reverse the laws of logic.
I don't think we do know that, or if we did, it would only admit of Aristotle's god. The only throughline between all the miracles is god making himself known by his powers, but how that manifests seems to be variable.

>>25352081
>You posted this same thread a few months ago and acted the exact same way.

He has been posting this thread for four years now as far as I am aware. I stopped replying to these two years ago