>>107791950>How do you get from A to B?Very simply: when an institution repeatedly produces miracle claims that later turn out to be false, exaggerated, misattributed, or quietly dropped, that is what a high false-positive rate means. Saying “we don’t claim perfection” doesn’t help your case, it reinforces mine.
>Of course, but it tells you something or someone caused itThat’s already an unjustified leap. Experience tells you that you experienced something, not what ontologically caused it. You then dismiss cross-religious experiences as “fake” and immediately re-admit them as “demonic delusion;” any confirming experience is God, any disconfirming experience is demons. That's just post-hoc labeling, which leaves you in a situation in which experience as you interpret it no longer has any explanatory power.
>FakeYour counterfactual mantras do not help you, they serve to deceive yourself.
>That's not metaphysicsYou keep insisting that anything short of classical theism is “not metaphysics.” That’s just redefining the word to exclude rivals. Metaphysics does not mean “ultimate justification by God.” It means ontological and epistemic commitments about what exists and how we know things. Minimal, fallibilist metaphysics absolutely qualifies, you just don’t like it because you're are too mentally weak to deal with uncertainty.
And that’s the real difference here: you demand absolute justification, not coherent justification. You claim that without God, knowledge collapses because we can’t know things “as they actually are.” But you can’t either. You don’t have the supposed God’s-eye access to reality; you have an unjustified belief that you do. Invoking God doesn’t solve the problem, it postpones it one step and then unjustifiably declares victory.
>When you reject objective metaphysics [...]You keep saying “you can’t justify X without God,” but you never show how God actually does the work. You just assert that He must. Saying “math works because God” doesn’t explain why math works, how we access it reliably, or why different cultures independently converge on the same structures. It just adds a metaphysical label and calls it done when it's not even true that's done.
When you say “you can’t know math works without God,” you’re confusing metaphysical explanation with epistemic access. I don’t need to know why gravity exists to measure acceleration. Reliability precedes ultimate explanation, not the other way around. Demanding ultimate explanation as a prerequisite for knowledge is an impossible standard that even your worldview doesn’t meet.
>You can't know that since from your worldview you just live in a world where math and logic exist and work.This objection rests on a basic category error. You are treating math and logic as if they were features of the external world that must be “known to exist” in the same way physical objects do. They are not. Math and logic are formal systems, conceptual tools developed by human minds to model, describe, and reason about patterns in reality. Confusing those tools with the reality they model is mistaking the map for the territory.
Math and logic exist as abstractions instantiated in brains and cultures. They “work” not because they are metaphysically guaranteed by a divine source, but because systems that failed to track reality were selected against, both biologically and culturally. Evolution (genetic and memetic) favored cognitive frameworks that allowed organisms to predict, manipulate, and survive in the external world. That is why these systems converge on stable structures: they are constrained by reality, not floated into existence by the actions of a supposed supernatural mind.
Saying “you just live in a world where math and logic work” doesn’t undermine this account, it describes it. We test, refine, and discard formal systems based on their consistency, applicability, and predictive success. No appeal to a cosmic lawgiver is required to explain why bad models fail and good ones persist. Claiming otherwise doesn’t add explanatory power; it just relabels the success of abstraction as metaphysical necessity and calls the problem solved.
>I'm saying that your worldview doesn't allow for justification [...]You say your worldview “justifies” things mine doesn’t. But what you actually mean is that yours declares answers at the level where mine stays provisional. That’s not superior coherence; it’s enforced closure. Finally, claiming “my worldview must be true or meaning collapses” is still not an argument, it’s a confession of dependence on things you can't prove exist.
So no, this isn’t atheism failing to justify basics. It’s you refusing to accept justification unless it comes packaged as unjustified certainty, authority, and final pseudo answers, and specifically appeals to your preconceived and incoherent beliefs.
