Not sure I fully understand your questions.
but here goes -
Dg west deptford wrote:That's beautiful Brew!
You believe in truth, knowledge & universal, unchanging, immaterial logic.
Bravo & welcome to basic reality!
You'd be amazed at how difficult that leap is for many well educated dopes.
Now how do you account for these invariant laws?
By observation and repeatable results
You may say I know A. Because of B. & I know B. because of C. & I know C. because of D. & on & on...
Where does that end?
Not with Z (just ask him)
An infinity of every known thing would be required to justify any knowledge at all.
Say what?
As you & I are not all knowing. & Just one unknown issue could upend everything we think we know. How do we know things?
Truth and knowledge are not static.
I'm not saying you can't know things like Ben does. I'm asking you how you account for such absolute/objective truth, knowledge & universal unchanging logic?
It is NOT absolute truth, it is Objective truth. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.
What's your reason for reason? You can't say seeing is believing because you've seen illusionists. The hand is quick. The eye not so much.
Brewha is lost now....
Maybe you're thinking-
Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for truth, knowledge & logic apart from God.
No, not thinking that. God is not needed for truth, knowledge or logic.
Hoping that an alternate explanation for truth, knowledge, & universal, immaterial, unchanging logic can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn’t it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers say about Believers?
Brewha is lost again...
Faith is not without reason. Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason. In fact faith is demanded by reason. Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it. Professed unbelievers say that they use reason as their starting point & not faith. We must ask though, what is their reason for trusting reason? The thing is, they don’t have a reason for trusting reason, they have a ‘blind faith' in reason.
Ok, I'm starting to get it...
I have more respect for fools who can admit as much.
So is 'blind faith' why you can know things brew?
Or is there a better reason for reason?
The Season???
Your statements seem predicated on a god being required for....thought? Logic? Truth?
I would tell you that is by no means demonstrated - but if it appeals to you, go for it.
We know things to be true by repeated observation, consideration and conclusion.
The problems start when we use conclusions as observations.
This is how logic becomes a mobius loop, wraps back on itself, and looses meaning.
If you observe the world and conclude there is a God, that's fair enough.
If you use that conclusion as an observable fact, the reasoning becomes faulty quickly.
But this in nether here nor there.
Faith and logic are a fools mix.
If you have true faith, what logic do you really need?