Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
There is already a rational proof of God that stems from His sustenance of universal motion and change. I provided that proof earlier -- the Unmoved Mover argument.That is correct. Scientific axioms, like metaphysical ones, are by definition unprovable.You could even dare to say they are articles of faith.It is not a question of theories (about which no one here has spoken) but of axioms, which are entirely different. You leap to irrelevant discussion about theories because you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of axioms.How do you prove that for every two points in space there is exactly one (and only one) line connecting them? You don't. You simply accept it as a given and work from there. Metaphysical arguments work exactly the same way.And again, there are at least five arguments (that I'm aware of) for His existence. You refuse to accept them because you've already a priori rejected belief in God. This is the problem with nearly all modern philosophers, to the extent they philosophize at all: their discomfort with the conclusions of natural law and the rational arguments for God lead them to reject reason (a la Hume) and reality (a la Descartes) entirely.
There is already a rational proof of God that stems from His sustenance of universal motion and change. I provided that proof earlier -- the Unmoved Mover argument.
That is correct. Scientific axioms, like metaphysical ones, are by definition unprovable.
You could even dare to say they are articles of faith.
It is not a question of theories (about which no one here has spoken) but of axioms, which are entirely different. You leap to irrelevant discussion about theories because you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of axioms.
How do you prove that for every two points in space there is exactly one (and only one) line connecting them? You don't. You simply accept it as a given and work from there. Metaphysical arguments work exactly the same way.
And again, there are at least five arguments (that I'm aware of) for His existence. You refuse to accept them because you've already a priori rejected belief in God. This is the problem with nearly all modern philosophers, to the extent they philosophize at all: their discomfort with the conclusions of natural law and the rational arguments for God lead them to reject reason (a la Hume) and reality (a la Descartes) entirely.
