Imagining a world where God doesn’t exist is to imagine nothing. Non-reality, not an alternate reality, but non-reality, where no thoughts can make sense, so there is no possibility of beginning a syllogism, in any sense. We cannot reason to God‘s existence, we can merely reason from it in order to make sense of anything. Since he is who he says he is, and has revealed himself in such a way that we know in the absolute sense he exists, we can therefore make sense of all other things, even if we haven’t yet done so in however many particular instances.
"We cannot reason to God's existence." Yes, that's the whole point of the article. Something we cannot reason to, but still believe, is an axiom, and axioms can be asserted or denied. Denying particularly powerful axioms (e.g. God exists) may vastly restrict the number of theorems you can prove, but it does not limit the possibility entirely. If denying the axiom leads to absolute nonsense (that is, a logical contradiction with another axiom), then the axiom isn't an axiom, but a theorem.
If, without the axiom, "God exists," you cannot form a syllogism, then we can, in fact, reason to God's existence, because inability to prove a known fact, in this case, "I can form a syllogism" is itself a proof (by contradiction).
In which case we are speaking equivocally about the definition of "know." I do not deny that our hearts cry out for Him, but calling that instinctive, pre-cognitive impression "knowledge" is, I think, different enough from the normal meaning of the term to be, at least, highly confusing.
I think we must define knowledge first of all as the precognitive awareness of the Almighty. All other forms of knowledge are the shimmering colors breaking onto every created surface from that original light.
Well, if that's the definition you are using, then further discussion is impossible, because that definition is exactly the point under contention. So God Bless!
Imagining a world where God doesn’t exist is to imagine nothing. Non-reality, not an alternate reality, but non-reality, where no thoughts can make sense, so there is no possibility of beginning a syllogism, in any sense. We cannot reason to God‘s existence, we can merely reason from it in order to make sense of anything. Since he is who he says he is, and has revealed himself in such a way that we know in the absolute sense he exists, we can therefore make sense of all other things, even if we haven’t yet done so in however many particular instances.
"We cannot reason to God's existence." Yes, that's the whole point of the article. Something we cannot reason to, but still believe, is an axiom, and axioms can be asserted or denied. Denying particularly powerful axioms (e.g. God exists) may vastly restrict the number of theorems you can prove, but it does not limit the possibility entirely. If denying the axiom leads to absolute nonsense (that is, a logical contradiction with another axiom), then the axiom isn't an axiom, but a theorem.
If, without the axiom, "God exists," you cannot form a syllogism, then we can, in fact, reason to God's existence, because inability to prove a known fact, in this case, "I can form a syllogism" is itself a proof (by contradiction).
Sure, but I’m saying we know God prior to the rational processes that get us to the conclusion that “without God we cannot reason” begins us on.
In which case we are speaking equivocally about the definition of "know." I do not deny that our hearts cry out for Him, but calling that instinctive, pre-cognitive impression "knowledge" is, I think, different enough from the normal meaning of the term to be, at least, highly confusing.
I think we must define knowledge first of all as the precognitive awareness of the Almighty. All other forms of knowledge are the shimmering colors breaking onto every created surface from that original light.
Well, if that's the definition you are using, then further discussion is impossible, because that definition is exactly the point under contention. So God Bless!