/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19520011]

His argument about the effectiveness of mathematics is sublime. Best argument from design ever. This man deserves a town square named after him.
>Neither realism nor anti-realism about mathematical objects has much to contribute to the question of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world. Theism provides the best answer to this question.

[Anonymous No.19520016]

>>19520011
Where does he fully develop this argument?

[Anonymous No.19520032]

>>19520016
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/god-and-the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-mathematics

[Anonymous No.19520280]

The scholastic tendency to derive the Biblical God from natural reason alone has always been a doomed project, and even the act of undertaking that mission undercuts the idea of revelation as an epistemological source- as the primary or best source of knowledge.

Arguments for God from reason alone will succeed well enough in demonstrating a Creator, an Unmoved Mover, a Perfect Being etc. But they will never demonstrate God at Sinai or God at Calvary. They tend to produce the God of the Deists rather than the God of Abraham; the God who is cosmically distant rather than Emmanuel.

That is a massive problem and I cannot grasp why people do not see it sooner.

[Anonymous No.19520423]

>>19520011
Why are the laws of the universe considered "mathematical objects" instead of mathematics being merely a description of the laws of the universe?

[Anonymous No.19520429]

>>19520423
Because mathematics exists independently of the laws of the universe. It's its own science.

[Anonymous No.19520455]

>>19520011
Sarcasm, I assume?

[Anonymous No.19520497]

>>19520429
Science is based on empirical observation, which follows universal laws. Math can only be science insofar as it follows this method, or at the very least provides testable hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.19520519]

*invents mathematics that are not descriptory of the natural world*
wooooow

[Anonymous No.19520544]

>>19520011
>Theism provides the best answer to this question
KRD on why math being real, would be unexpected on naturalism?

[Anonymous No.19520546]

Do idiots still think it's somehow possible to prove the existence of God?
You're trying to prove or observe something outside of a closed system (the universe). You could literally smear shit all over your face and it would be just as effective.

[Anonymous No.19520559]

>>19520011
But the fact that a perfectly straight straw appears to bend when placed in a glass of water establishes Hume's skepticism beyond quibble.

This in turn, brings us to Kant, who is the only one to satisfactorily address Hume's skepticism, via his conception of the noumena.

Thus, the noumena is where truth lies; alas, inaccessible to us. But do not let your despair over this development lead you into the devil's snare presented by the illusion of orderliness found in mathematics, and the dark reality some would say that orderliness implies.

[Anonymous No.19520572]

>>19520011
Craig is a heretic sadly, believing Christ had no human mind. He also believes that Genesis 1-11 is ‘mytho-history’. Besides that he does do pretty decent apologetics. Atheists can’t BTFO him

[Anonymous No.19520620]

>>19520572
>Atheists can’t BTFO him
Why would this be unexpected if God is real?

[Anonymous No.19520686]

>>19520620
It’s not surprising, but it’s always entertaining

[Anonymous No.19520712]

>>19520280
This is because you have little conceptual knowledge of the depths of reason; alas, this atheistic tendency of the modern class of absurdity-affirming 'rationalists' is a plague let loose upon the minds of laymen and scholars alike -- if we do consider atheistic academics scholars in the first place is a point of grave importance, but a digression I will refrain from exploring in this conversation. The definition of God that classical religious thought across the board agrees upon is a necessity. Be it Allah, Brahman, Yahweh, or the Lord of Christ, and even shunya, of Ahura Mazda are inevitably narrow definitions of a logical, metaphysical and ontological necessity. No atheistic 'philosopher' or... Thinker -- to be rather loose with that term -- has ever had the broadness of sight to consider that in history. Nor there will be an atheist who can grasp that concept.

[Anonymous No.19520752]

>>19520712
It’s one of the consolations of theism that, no matter what the ‘apologists’ in their infinite mendacity say, you don’t actually have to rely on sophistic arguments like this in order to believe, nor do you have to countenance them in order to reject the atheist thesis. You don’t really hear this argument from reason among serious theologians and philosophers. Devout Catholic Elizabeth Anscombe dispensed with it a century ago

[Anonymous No.19520889]

>>19520712
Both atheistic and theistic thinkers who've committed themselves to a specific religion or faith are fundamentally wrong.

>Be it Allah, Brahman, Yahweh, or the Lord of Christ, and even shunya, of Ahura Mazda are inevitably narrow definitions of a logical, metaphysical and ontological necessity.
The necessity is unquestionable, but the answer is impossible. We are inherently limited by a closed system of information (the universe).
Atheist thinkers dismiss the existence of the question itself, while theistic thinkers just claim their answer to be the correct one.

[Anonymous No.19520974]

The existence of "apologetics" refutes God, lmao
have some self-awareness

[Anonymous No.19521072]

>>19520572
Well he's certainly not Catholic yet but I respect him.

[Anonymous No.19521082]

>>19520974
>The Earth? Moving around the Sun? Lmao get a grip, retard.

[Anonymous No.19521260]

>>19521072
He was an important influence on me in moving towards Christianity, definitely

[Anonymous No.19521371]

>>19520011
Good books from this dude?

[Anonymous No.19521379]

>>19520974
>The existence of "discussion" refutes science, lmao
>have some self-awareness
Okay?

[Anonymous No.19521527]

>middle knowledge
Nope. That's heresy.

[Anonymous No.19521546]

Well, he think the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the provable through methods a historian would use. So he's probably retarded.

[Anonymous No.19521588]

>>19521546
Filtered by Craig. That has never been his claim. He provides an argument that the resurrection of Christ has the most explanatory power given the sources and information available and the current New Testament scholarship. Read pic related. His entire argument is basically a summary of N.T. Wright, who wrote an 800-page tome on this topic and basically showed the resurrection to be historical.

[Anonymous No.19521598]

>>19521588
800 pages. Wow! That's a lot!

[Anonymous No.19521621]

>>19521588
>jewish documents say jew thing happened so it must be true

[Anonymous No.19521629]

>>19521621
>has no better argument for what happened
Every time

[Anonymous No.19521643]

>>19521588
>he most explanatory power given the sources and information available
that's some good weasel words, probably why he doesn't lose debates

[Anonymous No.19521653]

Don't people thinks it's weird how miracles never leave any good evidence behind?

[Anonymous No.19521659]

>>19521643
Atheist cope. Explanatory power is used to make a good hypothesis or theory. Atheists have attempted all sorts of cringe theories like the stolen body hypothesis, or the swoon hypothesis, or the body substitution hypothesis, and they are all full of holes and lack explanatory power. Craig wins because he’s right

[Anonymous No.19521668]

>>19521653
>blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Imagine primarily believing because of some things that happened in one particular time for a particular group of people, i.e. specific miracles unlinked to prophecies or any other events

[Anonymous No.19521673]

>>19521588
>>19521629
>>19521659
How about the "we don't know if the Gospel sources actually describe events accurately" hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.19521695]

>>19521673
Dumb theory.
>Talmudic Jewish sources talk of jesus as being some sort of magician / sorcerer
>Talmudic Jewish sources mention that sins conveniently stopped being forgiven on their scapegoats at the temple 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple (30 AD)
>the Gospels aren’t the only source for information about Jesus (everything by Paul, and the other non-Pauline epistles)
>still no explanation for why the disciples even came to have the unique beliefs that they did without the core events of the Gospels being true

[Anonymous No.19521709]

Is it still worth reading? The book, I mean; I know he still promotes the theory, but I'm not sure if he's further developed it in later books beyond this one.

[Anonymous No.19521717]

>>19521659
>>19521695
Re-burial?
Whatever guy's tomb they put Jesus in didn't feel like having him there? Moved him.

I just think people should prefer an explanation, unless you already believe in magic, invoking miracles is a really bad explanation.
I can invent 100+ explanations, it's easy.

[Anonymous No.19521743]

>>19520011
Aristotle has the best theory of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.19521748]

>>19521695
The Talmud references (written centuries after the fact) to Jesus being a 'magician' only require that Jesus had a widespread reputation as a miracle worker, which he did. If I describe Sathya Sai Baba as a magician, that's not a concession that he actually performed miracles.
>the Gospels aren’t the only source for information about Jesus (everything by Paul, and the other non-Pauline epistles)
Paul never met the Resurrected Jesus physically, and the information he provides contradicts the Gospels on several points.
>still no explanation for why the disciples even came to have the unique beliefs that they did without the core events of the Gospels being true
What do you mean? I think the Gospels probably record more or less the contours of Christ's life (as, say, Plutarch records more or less what happened in Alexander's or Suetonius in Caesar's, but probably getting details wrong and including embellishments and falsehoods), but I think it's reasonable for me to be sceptical when they describe thousands of saints rising from the dead and returning to their communities, or the words Pontius Pilate said at a trial at which none of the apostles were present.

[Anonymous No.19521764]

>>19521748
>If I describe Sathya Sai Baba as a magician, that's not a concession that he actually performed miracles
I mean, even if you actually thought and described him as performing actual magic. That would really be odd if you lived at a time where people thought sorcerers were an actual thing..

[Anonymous No.19521781]

>>19521717
>Re-burial?
How come all of his disciples didn’t know that there was a reburial? How come they started claiming that this dude started appearing to them physically afterwards? How come even zealous enemies of Christianity like Paul even had this dude appear before him?

>Whatever guy's tomb they put Jesus in didn't feel like having him there? Moved him
This is an ad hoc theory again with no evidence behind it. Joseph of Arimathea is depicted as being sympathetic in all four Gospels, and there’s no reason he’d undertake having Jesus’ body and burying it if he was just gonna go ‘lol jk’ after two or three days. He was a member of the council as well, though not one wholly on board with the actions of the other council-members. They would have undoubtedly questioned him. Plus, even the Gospels show the body-theft charge in them from the Jews, and it was the go-to for Jews for centuries afterwards, assuming they didn’t use some sort of sorcery explanation. Even if you were to say Joseph hid the body for some reason, and no one found it, you still haven’t explained any of the post-crucifixion interactions reported which inspired immense faith in the disciples, the appearances to enemies like Paul, and the near-miraculous spread of Christianity across the world as a result, along with the fact that Jesus’ movement outlasted His death unlike any other wannabe Messiah who was killed by the Romans like Simon bar-Giora or Simeon bar-Kochba

[Anonymous No.19521786]

>>19521764
If it was ordinary for people at the time to believe that human beings, even ones they disliked, were capable of performing supernatural deeds (in the same way today that people in third world countries attribute bad events that happen to them to the curses of their enemies), then I'm not sure what makes people believing the same things about Jesus compelling evidence that Jesus performed real miracles.

[Anonymous No.19521798]

Okay, but that story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem, fake right? Made up way later to make prophecies fit
Jesus of Nazareth OKAY, not Bethlehem

Why would the ruler of Judea command every citizen to return to their city of birth for a census
It would be massively disruptive. Cities left in chaos. Economy in shambles. Like covid lockdown, but worse.
Take months to travel. Why's there no historical record of such a massive weird event?

Are Christians just not sceptical?

[Anonymous No.19521816]

>>19521748
>>19521748
>I think it's reasonable for me to be sceptical when they describe thousands of saints rising from the dead and returning to their communities,
This isn’t even what the Bible says, for one. Matthew 27:52-53 says that *many* saints raised and went into the holy city (i.e. Jerusalem) and appeared to many people. So there’s no indication of ‘thousands’ or these people going to multiple communities. Seems very localized.

>or the words Pontius Pilate said at a trial at which none of the apostles were present.
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or to put it more mundanely, they could have just inquired around and picked up information from various sources. Both this and the first thing you mentioned are basically irrelevant to Craig’s arguments though. These are distractions.

>Paul never met the Resurrected Jesus physically
Irrelevant. Something happened.

>and the information he provides contradicts the Gospels on several points.
No.

>The Talmud references
Conveniently forgetting to address what it says about the scapegoat ritual lol. It’s not a coincidence

[Anonymous No.19521828]

>>19521798
>Why would the ruler of Judea command every citizen to return to their city of birth for a census
Because they did. Modern scholarship has confirmed the historicity of the oath-taking census of 3 BC, swearing allegiance to Caesar Augustus.

[Anonymous No.19521875]

>>19521798
>Okay, but that story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem, fake right? Made up way later to make prophecies fit
Cope

>Why would the ruler of Judea command every citizen to return to their city of birth for a census
There was a census though, anon. Joseph probably was just closely connected with family in Bethlehem and made the trip to be countedZ

[Anonymous No.19521888]

>>19521781
Why isn't the spread of Islam or Buddhism also 'near-miraculous'? Regarding the post-crucifixion interactions, assuming that the Gospels are accurate records of what occurred, the apostles don't even recognise Jesus half the time he is with them. It honestly strikes me as a cope that developed among people that had given up their livelihoods and belongings to follow an apocalyptic preacher (similar to the way Seventh Day Adventism developed as a cope in response to the Millerite 'Great Disappointment', or the way the Donmeh maintained their messianic belief system even after Sabbatai Zevi had converted to Islam). It is the nature of the religious mindset to maintain belief (even to have belief strengthened) when confronted by conflicting evidence (this is borne out by psychological study and is even considered a virtue, at least to some extent, by CS Lewis). This doesn't necessarily mean religious belief is wrong, it just means that the behaviour of believers in a situation like that described in the Gospels is not compelling evidence for the veracity of their belief.
>Matthew 27:52-53 says that *many* saints raised and went into the holy city (i.e. Jerusalem) and appeared to many people. So there’s no indication of ‘thousands’ or these people going to multiple communities. Seems very localized.
In your view, am I rationally compelled to believe this event really occurred? Why don't the Gospels explain this in more detail? Why didn't the Christians use it as an apologetic tool? Why don't any Jewish historians mention it? Why don't any Christian historians mention it? If other evidence convinced me that the Gospels were inerrant, I would be fine with accepting it as part of the package, but, coming from a view of agnostic scepticism, it is a stumbling block to my ability to accept that the Gospels are reliable accounts. When I read ridiculous events in other ancient texts, I don't believe them, and you probably don't either.
>Irrelevant. Something happened.
Yes, something happened. Not necessarily a supernatural thing. Worldview-altering 'visions' are not exclusive to Christianity.
>>19521828
>Modern scholarship has confirmed the historicity of the oath-taking census of 3 BC, swearing allegiance to Caesar Augustus.
Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.19521908]

>>19521781
>How come all of his disciples didn’t know that there was a reburial?
I don't have to answer this. Whatever answer I make up is better than: Magic
Maybe Joseph of Arimathea wasn't so keen on having Jesus in his tomb, had him re-buried. But didn't feel an obligation to tell the disciples that.

>ad hoc
Have some humility about explanations being ad hoc, holy fuck. How do you think I view Christianity? (as a non believer)
What if Joseph of Arimathea changed his mind about being tightly associated with political dissenters, maybe the Bible overstates his sympathies
Maybe the tomb never was supposed to be a permanent site of burial, Jesus just put there to prevent grave-robbers/whatever, then Joseph of Arimathea had it re-buried after things had calmed down
I'm not suggesting that Joseph of Arimathea just decided to do this, it could be at the behest of someone else, but not as some weird conspiracy, just a way to safely deal with Jesus' burial
We don't even know if this guy is an historical person.
Maybe he was invented as an ad hoc explanation in the Gospels to explain why there even was a tomb for Jesus to be buried in

>>19521786
exactly

this is such a simple point, that I can't believe Christians needs it spelled out to them
they are not all stupid
it is some seriously dishonest business, apologetics that is
you need to have such a selective view of what lines of rational thought to keep, and which must be discarded
even if it's just for rhetoric effect when arguing

[Anonymous No.19521929]

>>19521888
>Why are you lying?
I'm not. Modern archeology confirmed similar oath-taking censuses took place all around the Roman outposts around the same 3 BC date.

[Anonymous No.19521953]

>>19521929
Sorry to accuse you of lying before, but do you have any sources?

[Anonymous No.19521962]

>>19521929
Where every citizen travel to their city of birth, country uprooted and on the move for months
Really?

[Anonymous No.19521966]

>>19520497
> t. doesn't know the difference between empirical and formal sciences
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19521977]

>>19521929
You are arguing against mainstream history, btw
I'm sure you can find some Christian historian with fringe views, that thinks he can produce evidence of such a ridiculous claim.
Apologists usually shirk around stuff like this, if they want to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.19521981]

>>19521888
>Why isn't the spread of Islam or Buddhism also 'near-miraculous'?
Doesn’t effect my claims either way. The prophecies give Christianity more weight. Islam was probably inspired by a demon. The Buddha, I don’t really care. The claim was never that a belief system cannot spread unless it is true.

>the apostles don't even recognise Jesus half the time he is with them.
Conveniently forgetting that (1) this isn’t in every narrative or appearance, and (2) even when this happens, he appears in his recognizable form soon after, and that (3) this is the transfiguration form spoken of earlier where Jesus again is said to change appearance.

>or the way the Donmeh maintained their messianic belief system even after Sabbatai Zevi had converted to Islam
This is completely different than Jesus. Jesus was scourged, crucified and then buried in a tomb. All the evidence we have shows that his followers were dejected, just like with many of the past failed wannabe messiahs. But then something happened. His tomb was found empty. People started seeing Jesus walking around in the flesh. Even enemies of Jesus Christ had experiences of some variety of Him so powerful that they renounced everything they had done before. The great dejection became a great new hope. This is not even to mention the prophetic aspects of a lot of this.

>It is the nature of the religious mindset to maintain belief
Where are the Messianic movements of Simon bar-Giora and Simeon bar-Kochba? What about Theudas?

>In your view, am I rationally compelled to believe this event really occurred?
Honestly I don’t even give this shit the time of day except for when atheists inevitably bring it up. It’s immaterial to the larger narrative. Probably something is behind the origin of those stories.

Again you’re mostly harping on irrelevant side points that Craig’s argument doesn’t even hinge on.

>When I read ridiculous events in other ancient texts, I don't believe them, and you probably don't either.
Depends what it is. Their ‘gods’ are probably real, some supernatural stuff is actually real, etc.

[Anonymous No.19521988]

>math is this universal all-powerful thing that reality obeys 100% of the time
>except miracles, though
Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.19521992]

>>19521908
>Cope: the post
what if what if what if

[Anonymous No.19521995]

>>19521988
>God, the source of the mathematical and natural laws, can’t override his laws at will
>implying God is bound by his creation
This is your brain on atheism

[Anonymous No.19522003]

>>19521981
>The prophecies give Christianity more weigh
Jews disagree. lmao
Do you think maybe Christians are a bit.. Ad hoc. In how they interprets Jesus to fulfil the prophecies of the old testament
Is a bit weird that nobody before had thought the words to mean what they figured them to mean (after the fact)

[Anonymous No.19522010]

>>19520011
Isn't this a pretty old line of thinking?

[Anonymous No.19522015]

>>19521992
you realize it's only 1: what if
right?
what if the Bible isn't 100% accurate

I think that is a more reasonable belief than magic.
Whatever, don't engage with my posts if it hurts your religious beliefs.

[Anonymous No.19522023]

>>19521995
So math does NOT work?

[Anonymous No.19522029]

>>19521995
Yeah, but how you infer God from math being successful at describing reality, that because it's so successful, therefore there must be this God-thingy that can do literally anything?

[Anonymous No.19522042]

>>19521888
The Dönmeh is probably the best counter-example. Shabtai Tzvi converted to Islam and a bunch of his disciples thought that this was fulfilling the prophecy of atonement prophecies or Shabtai Tzvi ‘bridging’ the religious worlds for the world to come. Even after Tzvi’s death Dönmeh communities were saying that Tzvi’s spirit was reincarnating into people, see

https://youtu.be/sRYF0WmDSXY

Ironically the guy the Sabbateans said Tzvi reincarnated into converted to Catholicism.

But this isn’t exactly comparable to Christianity except for these superficial comparisons. Shabtai was still alive after the monolithic event, the conversion, meaning that he could lecture them on what his conversion meant. Shabtai’s followers were extremely interested in Kabbalah and were highly educated, conversing in mystical tautologies understood by few. Meanwhile Jesus’ disciples were a bunch of fishermen, who were deserted by the messiah claimant who had just died. And unlike any other messianic claimant, they said that he actually rose again, not that his spirit was ‘reincarnated’ into another individual with similar teachings, but that he rose bodily in front of dozens of people. And even people with no prerequisite to believe like Paul or Thomas believed.

[Anonymous No.19522072]

How come there are 4 conflicting accounts of the resurrection in 1 book? lmao

[Anonymous No.19522080]

You know, this thread would have been a lot better if someone had bothered to sketch an outline of Craig's argument in the OP
So there actually was a topic to talk about

[Anonymous No.19522124]

I remember watching Craig debate Lawrence Krauss when I was younger and at the time thought Krauss won them all, but I now realize that not only did Craig btfo Krauss on a rational level, he also mogged him in in frame, decorum and overall physiognomy. Craig is based

[Anonymous No.19522139]

>>19520889
based self-replying kek

[Anonymous No.19522661]

>>19521966
>Thinks formal "sciences" are science

[Anonymous No.19522687]

>>19520572
Blocks you're path

[Anonymous No.19522711]

>>19522124
Childhood is thinking Krauss won. Adulthood is realizing Craig won

[Anonymous No.19524124]

>>19520011
This is just an enormous argument from ignorance. Aside of course from the fact that mathematics depends heavily on your axioms. Good luck explaining that to a christian midwit though

[Anonymous No.19524131]

>>19522711
>adulthood is unironically believing that debates are le ebin competitions where someone COMPLETELY OWNS someone else USING FACTS, LOGIC BOMBS and INTELLECTUAL GENOCIDES

ok zoomer

[Anonymous No.19524141]

>>19522687
your

[Anonymous No.19524157]

>>19520280
we have faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob &c; but we know He exists by reason.

[Anonymous No.19524164]

>>19524157
That doesn't make any sense. Faith is believing despite a lack of evidence, while reason is believing because of it. The two don't mix, have never mixed and never will mix, and if you wait long enough, the religious usually prove this point for you

[Anonymous No.19524171]

>>19524164
i named two different things (faith IN God vs. ratio for His EXISTENCE)
r u retarded nigga??

[Anonymous No.19524177]

>>19524171
Well, I do agree that God and existence are indeed separate, but you still don't adress my point, so I'll just ask it, what evidence do you have for your god, besides just a book that says so and language games

[Anonymous No.19524195]

as if he'd pass an intro to mathematical proofs freshman class

[Anonymous No.19524205]

>>19524195
Craig is like 140+ IQ and charismatic

[Anonymous No.19524224]

>>19524205
And IQ is completely useless when it comes to determining intelligence. All an IQ test will measure is how good you are at taking IQ tests

[Anonymous No.19524236]

>>19524224
Maybe there's a correlation with the ability to pass freshman math

[Anonymous No.19524251]

>>19520011
Awwwww yeah based Craig posting

[Anonymous No.19524262]

>>19524236
yeah, or maybe there isn't, considering some of the biggest experts in most fields learned simply by making a lot of mistakes and some of the biggest leaps in technology were the result of trail and error, which requires remembering what went wrong last time around. Not that sophists would know, they think we develop everything through word games and fart smelling

[Anonymous No.19524322]

>>19521888
>Why isn't the spread of Islam or Buddhism also 'near-miraculous'?
Ashoka using Roman robots to guard the relics of the Buddha is pretty kino

[Anonymous No.19524331]

>>19524262
Why do you think Craig is bad at math?

[Anonymous No.19524408]

>>19524177
we don't, we have faith.

[Anonymous No.19524431]

>>19524331
If you insist on Platonic horseshit that makes the average mathematician's eyes roll harder than Joe Rogan talking about fractals and Jordan Peterson talking about Gödel, you can't be too good at math.

Those are by the way always the same three mathematical concepts that midwits build their mediocre math takes around, Plato, Mandelbrot and Gödel. The occasion reference to the Fibonacci sequence as well. And how bitcoin and Elon Musk will change the world in two weeks bro

[Anonymous No.19524440]

>>19524408
So you don't have evidence, then?

[Anonymous No.19524459]

>>19520497
You can think of it as a science of logical consequences

[Anonymous No.19524512]

>>19524459
Which will never be as important as actual consequences

[Anonymous No.19524763]

>>19524440
WLC has multiple books full of evidence that God exists

[Anonymous No.19524777]

>>19524157
There is a difference here to be unwrapped.
I (as a Catholic) believe in God.
I also have the belief that God's belief is rational.
I do not, however, have a 'proof of reason' for the existence of God, rather, His Revelation and subsequent interactions with us are consistent with each other and the world at large, therefore our Logos doesn't rebel against it.

[Anonymous No.19524994]

>>19520712
>The definition of God that classical religious thought across the board agrees upon is a necessity. Be it Allah, Brahman, Yahweh, or the Lord of Christ, and even shunya, of Ahura Mazda
Is funny to see you calling others uncultured and then instantly outing yourself a pseud by putting together the most contradictory list of metaphysical concepts that surely sound similar im your narrow mind.

[Anonymous No.19525024]

>>19522687
>responds to every criticism and argument with "I can make a model of that"
Even cosmicskeptic put up a better fight than this clown