Recent content by JonF

You are rejecting my worldview based on it's first principles. Your worldview is composed of first principles just like mine, which are unproved concepts. If you wanna reject my world view based on it's first principles that is fine, but it means my belief system is just as justified, logic...

#1 is the one you really object too. You left out the key part of within my world view. It is self-evident within my world view. Logic is an existent object. So is math. You are missing the claim. God is probably uniquely a being known a priori. See irresistible grace. Observation is an...

I may have miss-stated my position here. I cannot offer justification within your universe of discourse, only mine. All I can do is explain why I believe, I can't give you reason that you should believe.

A first principle is, A proposition: that cannot be justified by other propositions in a world view, is consistent with other first principles in a world view, is foundational in a world view, and self-evident within a world view. close, did you read the article i gave you? Here is a snipit...

Look, i'm gonna sum up the points of contention in our discussion. I will state my position on them and either you give a direct answer that isn't based on equivocation, strawmans, or miss-representing the argument or i'm done with this discussion. This is my last attempt to converse with you...

again give a valid refutation of any of the beliefs in my argument. Irrelevant isn't a valid objection in deduction. Yes there are. What do you think miracles are? What do you think super natural means. Again if I said I observe God would you accept that as proof? Clearly not. For example...

You can report me all you want - I have not broken any rules. They aren't insults. You keep misrepresenting my arguments with strawmans, it is either intentional or it isn't. I have covered all the possible reasons you might be doing this. My point was I choose not to participate in a...

Belief in God is a first principle. Belief that belief in God is a first principle isn't a first principle. Belief in God violate 2, 3, 4, and 6 in special cases. This means that science can't comment on the existence of God. To remind you the argument went like this: -me:science can't...

I very specifically said it isn't scientific. This argument isn't about the legitimacy of my faith. My claim is justified belief about God (either way) can't be scientific. If you don't see the distinction (and again i'm not trying to be rude - i mean this in the most literal way) you either...

Again you confuse c1 and c2. I claim c1 is a first principle, i make no claim that c2 is a first principle like you are claiming. Are you even reading what i'm writing? I'm not talking about scientific laws or theories, i'm talking about the fundamental assumptions of science. You claim...

I just reread the end of my post there and realized you may take it as rude. Look, i'm honestly trying not to be mean there. I have no agenda here. A central belief in my doctrine is I can't offer proof for my faith because my proof is both internal and a priori. So i'm not interested in...

I showed belief in God is a first principle using deduction. There is a huge difference between these two claims: c1: I believe in God c2: Belief in God is a first principle. What you are doing is equivocating c1 and c2. Is your belief in these things based on science? If so demonstrate it...

You are choosing to ignore everything i've said about beliefs in God being a priori, synthetic, first principles. This is a misrepresentation of my position. Why do you believe any first principle?

Again you intentionally misrepresent my argument. My argument aims to show that my belief in God is a first principle. My justification for believing isn't from deduction including this argument. I believe it is by divine providence. I understand that is circular. What you don't understand...

Irrelevant isn't a legitimate objection to a deductive premiss. They are relevant by virtue of deduction. This simply doesn't address my point. I'm not saying our current set of natural laws are an assumption. I'm saying the fact that natural laws exist is an assumption of science. what do...