Asklemmy

48120 readers

764 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

If you do, why do you believe in God? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by sloppysol@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

195 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.zip 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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 points 9 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.