1. I'm not arguing to literally all axioms.
2. The axioms I am referring to are tautological, therefore absolute laws.
If they prove themselves then your arguing is circular and is bad reasoning.
Because tautological truths are an exception. Moreover, to get around the accusation of circularity, all one has to do is observe the necessarily absurd lengths one has to go to in-order to doubt these laws. You cannot claim to value reason and be a selective misologist at the same time.
Yeah, we accept them for pragmatic reasons. The world is hard to navigate if you assume it's absurd, so we assume it isn't because we're pragmatic.
You're simply going redundant again. You have literally
no reason to appeal to pragmatism.
Then what is that reason?
A proper understanding of the definition of law of causality, "
All effects necessarily require an antecedent cause."
Not: "
Everything requires a cause."
Sometimes truncated versions of a rule leave it open to error. . .or cheating.
Nothing. You're just taking atheist arguments you've heard before and pretending I said them. I'm an odd duck, you aren't going to hear boilerplate arguments from me. If that's all you can refute, you better give up now.
Please calm down. It's an example from two of the most famous philosophers in history, both of whom are highly respected by modern atheists. If they were capable of making that error, then anyone can.
Because you clearly stated "begin," and you can't equivocate it.
There is no "law of causality". The axioms of logic contain no such thing.
It's definitely on the list. Law of causality is simply law of identity in motion. Where was it ever refuted?
I dismiss the law because it doesn't exist. You made it up. I've looked.
You merely
claim you looked.
The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. In
Phaedo, written by Plato in 360 B.C., an “investigation of nature” is spoken of concerning causality, wherein “the causes of
everything, why
each thing comes into being and why it perishes and why it exists” are discussed (Plato, 1966, 1:96a-b, emp. added). In 350 B.C., Aristotle contributed more to the causality discussion by stipulating that causes can be “spoken of in four senses”: material, formal, efficient, and final (Aristotle, 2009, 1[3]). Moving forward two millennia in no way changed the established fact pressed by the Law of Cause and Effect. In 1781, the renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his
Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule.... All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781). Fast forwarding another 350 years, our understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in
A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:
Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (1934, p. 6, emp. added).
The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation.
A few decades later, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in
all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added). Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:
- “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
- “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).
Indeed, the Law of Cause and Effect is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.
I don't believe God exists. What do you think I do believe because of that?
There at least has to be a "why" to justify non-belief. It could be anything, such as firm belief in epistemological naturalism, or belief in the exclusivity of empiricism alone.
My
guess though is that you never even bothered to justify your non-belief, but rather you're substituting a "
flat-earther style" incredulity instead, and calling it reason, because you don't really have reason on your side here.
