About my earlier post; ok, you do accept uniformity. My point was that uniformity is justifyable (but not provable) without god.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bnonn I don't need to. Your axioms are internally inconsistent. The supposition of rational processes without a rational agent from which they stem is itself inconsistent. You rely upon logic, yet you are unable to account for it. |
The fact that some things in physics behave in a way we can model rationally does not mean that they are rational. Also, structures can form which are a-priory not expected. For instance, formation of crystals, and emergent behavior. Like how flocks of birds, groups of fish and some computer programs behave. Indeed, it is how human cells form humans.
Your system of axioms seems to be monolithic;
-God exists, and he created the bible.(indirectly maybe, at least he determined the contents)
Since he is god, it is true. And it says a lot of things on how to live and such. and is somehow objectively interpretable.
One consequence (according to you) is that god maintains uniformity of physics. (determines what nature does)
Oh, yeah perhaps the above is not the axiom, but the axiom is:
-You can have a "relevation" from which you can objective know the above axiom is actually a fact.
Big deal, just replacing an assumption with another.
Just accept, that like all of us, your beliefs are based on assumptions. Perhaps even stronger; these types of assumptions cannot even be communicated strictly enough to assure that people with seemingly the same assumptions have the same results.
I do believe though, that atheists have the higher ground when it comes to justifying their beliefs, because their beliefs are generally less arbritrary. For instance, it does not contain a god managing a giant universe, but is interested in the surface of this small planet anyway. And this god has a book, but somehow forgot to mention why the universe is so large for so few people.