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.

  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    1·
    17 hours ago

    Just for the sake of argument… According to what standard? Yours? Why should we follow your standard?

    • Geodad@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      13 hours ago

      My standard is logic, reason, and evidence.

      Why shouldn’t you follow my standard?

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        1·
        12 hours ago

        From my other comment:

        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.

        Assuming you don’t believe in God…

        without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?

        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.

          • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
            1·
            6 hours ago

            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.