>>21724987>>21724989Yes, every argument starts with presuppositions. Guess what? You’re presupposing your atheism, your naturalism, and your reliance on contingent, changeable, and incomplete human reason to understand the universe. You act like it’s some kind of flaw to presuppose God as the basis for intelligibility, but in reality, you’re just displaying ignorance about how foundational worldviews operate.
We all start with something—whether it’s a presupposition or an axiom—and that’s the point. The issue is whether your presuppositions are coherent enough to account for reason, morality, and knowledge. And it turns out, atheism and materialism can’t do that. You can’t account for universal, immaterial laws in a world of mere atoms and molecules, no matter how loudly you scream about it.
Let’s address the real depth of your question: “Which God and why?” As if that somehow proves the futility of believing in God at all. Just because you can’t comprehend the complex nature of divine revelation and the reasons behind orthodoxy doesn’t mean it’s somehow invalid or arbitrary. The logical structure of theism, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity in Orthodox Christianity, is far more coherent and consistent than any competing worldview you’ll find. Your “Which God and why” question is just a lazy attempt to dodge the deeper philosophical implications that the existence of a personal, rational God provides an intelligible framework for knowledge and reason, something atheism can’t even begin to handle.
If you can’t make the distinction between having a true, rational foundation for the universe (the God of Orthodox Christianity) versus your ungrounded, self-refuting atheism, that’s not my problem—it’s yours.
