Is the existence of God axiomatic?

[McCulloch]

All too often the secularist or non-theist here challenges the Christian (or member of another religion) to offer evidence and proof for _______. This is an understandable request, but I have argued extensively on several threads here that God is trusted through faith and that particular notions of God are accepted as axioms (presuppositions, a priori truths, assumptions, etc.). If this is true, evidence cannot be offered for many of the words that fill in the above blank. This is the nature of an axiom. Many of the Christian perspectives on life are built on these axioms.

Question for debate: Is the existence of God axiomatic? Why or why not? How should one determine one's axioms?

[Woland]

...Logic is what it is and it does what it does - God or no God...

On a subjective, psychological level, I agree. But the question is, in what sense is it meaningful for one CD recording to accuse another CD recording of having committed a "logical fallacy"? Neither recording is capable of changing its contents or its analysis, so in what sense is either of the two CD recordings actually participating in "logical" discourse? We could try to say that one or the other recording better conforms to "reality as it is," and therefore more logical than the other--but given the constraints of materialistic determinism, we are all CD recordings and none of us can ever know what "reality" really is, or how our recordings came to be. We can do nothing but ride along on our predetermined causal chain, dutifully playing back our fixed recordings as if we had any say in it at all.

Even granting you the entirely inadequate and sensationalistic reductionism of using words like "CD recordings" to refer to beings that you know to be vastly more complex, how is any of this relevant in any way whatsoever to the reality of things (whatever that may be), and to your claims that rejecting materialism is a "logical necessity", and that "there are no such things as logical fallacies under materialistic assumptions"? Isn't a large part of the post above composed of appeals to irrelevant consequences? Fallacies exist regardless of whether or not it's even possible for you as a human to realize that you are committing them.

By the way, "the CD recordings" have undeniably shown an ability to modify their contents and analysis on the fly after having had interacted with other human causal entities (as an example) who also experience time linearly and subjective meaning in their actions. That you as a Christian see no value in this without a narrowly defined personal god who affords his creation "free will" is of no consequence.

"Logical discourse" doesn't require "free will" (whatever that could possibly mean) in the slightest, and the constraints justifying the use of such an expression can well be met under materialistic assumptions.

Here's what your argument seems to boil down to. Feel free to offer corrections or comments. I wouldn't want to misrepresent your position.

1. I personally as a Christian can't see meaning in things if I don't *believe* there is a God (or that we have "free will").
2. Therefore, under materialistic assumptions, nothing has "meaning" under my narrow definition of the word.
3. Therefore, logical discourse has no meaning under materialistic assumptions.
4. Therefore, materialism is self-defeating and incoherent.
5. Therefore, we should reject materialism.

It's not very convincing to me, but I'm sure that you will want to add to this.

-Woland

[Cathar1950]

...Logic is what it is and it does what it does - God or no God...

On a subjective, psychological level, I agree. But the question is, in what sense is it meaningful for one CD recording to accuse another CD recording of having committed a "logical fallacy"? Neither recording is capable of changing its contents or its analysis, so in what sense is either of the two CD recordings actually participating in "logical" discourse? We could try to say that one or the other recording better conforms to "reality as it is," and therefore more logical than the other--but given the constraints of materialistic determinism, we are all CD recordings and none of us can ever know what "reality" really is, or how our recordings came to be. We can do nothing but ride along on our predetermined causal chain, dutifully playing back our fixed recordings as if we had any say in it at all.

Even granting you the entirely inadequate and sensationalistic reductionism of using words like "CD recordings" to refer to beings that you know to be vastly more complex, how is any of this relevant in any way whatsoever to the reality of things (whatever that may be), and to your claims that rejecting materialism is a "logical necessity", and that "there are no such things as logical fallacies under materialistic assumptions"? Isn't a large part of the post above composed of appeals to irrelevant consequences? Fallacies exist regardless of whether or not it's even possible for you as a human to realize that you are committing them.

By the way, "the CD recordings" have undeniably shown an ability to modify their contents and analysis on the fly after having had interacted with other human causal entities (as an example) who also experience time linearly and subjective meaning in their actions. That you as a Christian see no value in this without a narrowly defined personal god who affords his creation "free will" is of no consequence.

"Logical discourse" doesn't require "free will" (whatever that could possibly mean) in the slightest, and the constraints justifying the use of such an expression can well be met under materialistic assumptions.

Here's what your argument seems to boil down to. Feel free to offer corrections or comments. I wouldn't want to misrepresent your position.

1. I personally as a Christian can't see meaning in things if I don't *believe* there is a God (or that we have "free will").
2. Therefore, under materialistic assumptions, nothing has "meaning" under my narrow definition of the word.
3. Therefore, logical discourse has no meaning under materialistic assumptions.
4. Therefore, materialism is self-defeating and incoherent.
5. Therefore, we should reject materialism.

It's not very convincing to me, but I'm sure that you will want to add to this.

-Woland

The straw man seems to be some form of reductionism as if we were CDs.
What about fedd-back something we can find in the simplest organisms which seem vastly superiour to CDs.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

EduChris

On a subjective, psychological level, I agree. But the question is, in what sense is it meaningful for one CD recording to accuse another CD recording of having committed a "logical fallacy"? Neither recording is capable of changing its contents or its analysis, so in what sense is either of the two CD recordings actually participating in "logical" discourse? We could try to say that one or the other recording better conforms to "reality as it is," and therefore more logical than the other--but given the constraints of materialistic determinism, we are all CD recordings and none of us can ever know what "reality" really is, or how our recordings came to be. We can do nothing but ride along on our predetermined causal chain, dutifully playing back our fixed recordings as if we had any say in it at all.

This is complete and utter non-sense from beginning to end, there is no logic here, there is propaganda, oft repeated, never verified. You cannot support this drivel.

Grumpy

This post does little more than pour several pejorative adjectives onto the quoted post. Better to specify your criticisms civilly, or simply ask for substantiation and evidence.