64
If you do, why do you believe in God?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
64 points (81.4% liked)
Asklemmy
49696 readers
735 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Just for the sake of argument... According to what standard? Yours? Why should we follow your standard?
From my other comment:
Assuming you don't believe in God...
Basically you're in no position to determine whether God is imperfect or not if you can't justify the tools you use to make that assessment.
I just did using the transcendental argument. God is the necessary precondition for universals such as logic and reason. They exist therefore God exists and these universal metaphysics are a reflection of his divine mind.
What is the epistemic justification for your world view? Make sure not to use universals or subjective experience because the former is in question and the latter is arbitrary.
What is the standard of proof for the transcendental?
Okay. What's the evidence that logic or math exists?
You can't use the thing in question to prove that it exists.
I'm not using the Bible. I'm using the Transcendental Argument.
Okay. If these things are just descriptors then they aren't universally true. If they exist and are universally true then you have no account for how that is the case. Either way you are using immaterial, metaphysical concepts to make the case that things that are immaterial and metaphysical don't exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTbIKskEjE