Spoonseeking

This post provides some possible answers to questions raised in the last half of the article referenced in my previous blog post. Why is it that [the non-theist] assumes that there is this universal, immaterial, abstraction called  reason  which binds all men to itself? Reason is not universal.  Reason is not immaterial.  Reason is not abstract, but it does seem to be so.  Reason is a pattern of thought that can be instilled in the human brain and engaged in to arrive at useful conclusions.  The mind is what the brain does, and the brain is material.  As reason is just brain states, it is also material.  It does not equally bind all men.  When one's brain is instilled with reason well-employed, useful conclusions seem to be more possible than otherwise. How can [the non-theist] justify those reasons without first assuming the validity of the laws of logic? i Phones and toothpaste.  To refer back to the previous post on k...

Recently a fairly long article was promoted by some friends of mine as a criticism of “militant atheists”: http://highchurchpuritan.com/2015/07/27/god-is/ I enjoyed this article.  It seemed a fairly well-stated description of the epistemological basis argument for generic monotheism.  However, it was not without flaw (writing rarely is, especially my own). Believing When True Brandon writes, All truth rests on a single basic proposition: God is. This is the fountainhead of all true knowledge and wisdom. This is the bedrock of all true belief. There is no other foundation for epistemological certainty. This says that God is provides basis for knowledge.  But knowledge isn’t defined, and it has many meanings.  I think in this case it is used as: Knowledge: belief when you have good reasons to believe if the thing is true But using that we can know mutually exclusive things.  We can know Yahweh, and Krishna, and Suijin, and Thor....