bgz wrote:
On another note, I do envy believers over one thing... they are so certain in their mind that God exists that they just know it.
Me -No. It takes much more faith to say you know he doesn't exist, not sure He exists. Without Him there's a fatal epistemological issue to your worldview.
I don't think I've ever been so certain of something that wasn't actually 100% probability...
Me -Weren't you at least certain that the only thing you can know is that you can't know anything
To have that level of belief to just "know" you are right about the nature of everything... that's a feeling I may never know.
Me - Yet you know your current feelings?
DG talks of this as it's a bad thing... to not know something, it's bad to not know... I have no qualms saying I don't know if I do in fact not know... it's not a character flaw, it's a trait of a truthful being.
The problem is you do KNOW things such as:
absolute truth exists, that you know things to be true, that logic exists & that it is universal, not made of matter, & does not change.
Truth, knowledge & logic are all necessary to prove anything, & you assume & admit to all of them in every day life.
While you may try to account for truth, knowledge & logic without God, you can't.
My argument is that you must borrow from my worldview, & the God who makes universal, immaterial, invariant laws possible in order to prove anything.
This type of logical proof deals with “transcendentals” or “necessary starting points,” & is called a “transcendental proof.” Any contrary view to the God being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God, in order to argue against Him.