//Obviously, this is the foundation of the whole argument.
Maximus Confesses

I could well be too influenced from a protestant upbringing and understanding. And I may also be too heavily influenced from my disilliusionment of that same upbringing and my efforts in trying to find the truth and meaning that the same protestantism seems to have obfuscated.

And I won’t lie. I am beyond my intellectual and philosophical depth in this discussion, which is why I am responding, to learn. So I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Your original formulaic argument has two problems for me.

  1. There are too many presuppositions and qualifiers required to P1 which make the foundation of the argument too precarious. Mathematically speaking, you haven’t done the proof of P1.
  2. The apparent contradiction with at least Western protestant Christian orthodoxy. In addition to P1 needing to be too defined in the face of other arguments, P3 also seems a huge irrational leap of faith, before even getting to C2.

IOW, it seems to me, you still have to accept that God exists in order to prove God exists, Christian or otherwise.

“That depends on your meta-ethic”

Which seems to be exactly the point.

Thanks for your time.

Like what you read? Give Nature of the beat a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.