There's only one kind of axiom. You can have axioms in all sorts of fields, but they're all axioms.
^ More equivocation. There are
actually three definitions of that one noun alone. Words have meanings, learn them.
I just gave the pragmatic reason.
It failed on account of no deductive reason. That's the problem with pragmatism, which dictates that you'll have to go with something else that works instead.
Well of course effects have causes. You're trying to prove that something that began to exist is an effect then. Go ahead.
"Something that began to exist" is just another way of saying "effect." It turns on the same hinge.
Not sure what you mean. This is what it looks like when I'm having fun.
Then there's no reason for you to whine or protest.
So what? Why does anything that began have a cause?
"Anything that began" refers to anything contingent. To propose a "causeless beginning" is a logical contradiction. You're just embarrassing yourself. You can't even come up with a rational example of a "causeless beginning," because you err at the point of contradiction.
Yep, looked there too. No mention of a "law of causality". The only mention of a "law of cause and effect" is in Buddhism. Are you claiming that Buddhists are the arbiters of the laws of logic now?
Why not? It's discovered, so it's not contingent to any culture or society.
Aristotle's four forms make creation ex nihilo impossible.
So you
assert without evidence. You can't substitute explanation with your own perceived authority. lol.
I don't deny that cause and effect seems to work how we describe it here in the universe. But "outside" or "before" the universe without things like time and space are incomprehensible to the human mind.
It's incomprehensible only to the naturalistic mind i.e. your materialistic confirmation bias. "Before" a finite and contingent universe is still a logical appeal that cannot be denied. The universe is finite, and thus begs the question of its own cause. If one wishes to remain rational, then one is forced to take it one logical step further. The universe is math-dependent, therefore, it is dependent upon (and contingent to)
a rational form of supernaturalism. <-- Don't forget that math is unfalsifiable.
BTW, there's your on-ramp to theism. The laws of logic are absolute proof of supernatural force on reality.
Yeah, all the evidence is bad. That's why I don't believe.
Because your magical assertions magically make it so?
On the contrary, flat-earthers believe there's evidence the Earth is flat.
Based on their initial
forced skepticism that the earth is an oblate spheroid. No evidence presented will convince them, because they are convinced this is about their confirmation bias instead of the evidence for a round earth. Therefore, all evidence for a round earth is denied based on sheer incredulous will; not anything rational.
I never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that there is no god. I don't know, no one does, and no one ever will.
^ Then you're making that claim for everyone else
universally, which is pretty much the same thing. How can you force such a
faux-certainty as "
no one does, and no one ever will," without even explaining how that is indeed the case?
It doesn't matter what anyone (anyone)
wants to believe.
Only justified belief counts. Period.
