I
IWantGod
Guest
This is merely an experimental argument.
My Argument is that we must presuppose the existence of God as an objective standard of knowledge in order to justify true knowledge, because only something like God (a perfect and eternal unchanging being that eternally wills it’s own nature) can guarantee that something is always true or that something is always false; otherwise nothing is necessarily true and our ability to truly know anything fails. Also God as i have defined, is the only being that can guarantee that the laws of physics will stay true, otherwise we have no justification not to think that the laws of physics won’t vanish at any second.
What say ye?
o
My Argument is that we must presuppose the existence of God as an objective standard of knowledge in order to justify true knowledge, because only something like God (a perfect and eternal unchanging being that eternally wills it’s own nature) can guarantee that something is always true or that something is always false; otherwise nothing is necessarily true and our ability to truly know anything fails. Also God as i have defined, is the only being that can guarantee that the laws of physics will stay true, otherwise we have no justification not to think that the laws of physics won’t vanish at any second.
What say ye?
o
Last edited: