To @RealChrisLangan: Did you watch it? I argued that it can be proven definitively with math and logic.
Did you watch it? I argued that it can be proven definitively with math and logic. / I have read on it and you present yourself as a classical foundationalist (unless I misunderstood you), which I reject. So until you can demonstrate your first principles without being arbitrary, I don't see why would accept your worldview. / why would I when I run TAG? / So you’re a a foundationalist right? Why dislike an approach (TAG) that tries to respond to modern skeptical challenges to foundationalism? / You present the starting points as necessary for coherency, which is fine, but it doesn't rise to t…
Chain 5 of 5 · 4 replies
- @RealChrisLangan
The debates on God's existence are often superficial and misleading.
“these 'Does God Exist?' debates are restricted to opinionated nincompoops encouraged by the media...”
Subjects
3Jay critiques foundationalism for being arbitrary and not providing sufficient epistemic justification.
Jay argues that the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) effectively addresses modern skepticism towards foundationalism.
Jay points out critiques of the cogito, notably Kant's, which question its logical consistency as a starting point.