It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well actually your axiom is the arguments and authority of your favourite book. Beyond that I'm not sure you have anything else to believe in.
"God is an axiom required for knowledge to be possible, therefor God exists."
You claim you know one absolute truth. Is that one absolute truth the knowledge that you know one absolute truth? Or is that one absolute truth the knowledge that knowledge is possible? Maybe you know two absolute truths? I don’t get it.
2. One on One - you and God alone. Share your real relationship with God.
3. What has God told you?
4. Have you met your God?
5. Anything you would like to share that God has told you?
No the claim i was referring to is "something is itself." A=A. The Law of Identity. It is always true. Therefore knowledge is obtainable. The premise we have now created for ourselves is Knowledge is obtainable. Ultimately if we had a conversation long enough we would come to the conclusion the Knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic(absolute truth statements). So our modified premise would become, "Knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic." Now this is where the argument comes in friend. A supernatural consciousness must be applied as an axiom to justify this premise.(Reductio Ad absurdum refer to the wiki post earlier). If you think otherwise please produce a justification for the premise above that is not circular or irrational that justifies your belief in that premise.
You do not know whether or not my knowledge, nor your knowledge, originates from a divine source unless you know absolute truth / divine knowledge.
If you see the truth of a thing you gain knowledge of it - knowledge which already existed, along with its objective form/truth.
If something is true, our interpretation of its truth does not create nor effect its truthfulness.
There is only knowledge of truth, everything else is bs, and the fact that truth exists outside of our minds, objectively, proves it.
Be careful with the reductio ad absurdum. A reductio ad absurdum is used to shed doubt on someone else’s argument by bringing its premises to an absurd conclusion. Make sure it is my conclusion that appears absurd, and not yours. I’m still unsure how you’ve arrived at your conclusion that “a supernatural consciousness must be applied as an axiom to justify this premise”.
To be specific, given that knowledge is a human affair, I believe knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic because that’s how humans think.
Knowledge is derived via the laws of logic, the laws of logic were derived via humans, Therefor, knowledge is derived via humans.
Implying a supernatural being or force for the grounds of human knowledge is the absurd conclusion.
. Logic is just a tool, a method. It works
It formulates and distils arguments to their base grammatical and mathematic components for ease of understanding.
I agreed with your conclusion "knowledge is derived from the laws of logic" for the sake of argument. But You have yet to show me how you got from "knowledge is derived from the laws of logic" to "logic is derrived from a supernatural consciousness". Put your argument into a logical structure so other minds can follow along
The conclusion "knowledge is derived via humans"
And no, logic does not transcend human discourse. If you think it does, by all means, show me anywhere else in the universe logic is found.
No one discovered logic as if it was buried in some treasure chest.
You have zero evidence for consciousness or logic transcending the natural world.