freeborn | ελεύθερος on Nostr: The argument assumes there is no one true God, therefore belief in one God (or gods) ...
The argument assumes there is no one true God, therefore belief in one God (or gods) over another is an arbitrary subjective choice ("this is MY truth"). But since there is a God, and since he has clearly revealed himself, to believe in this one God (and reject all others) is to accept what is.
I do not subscribe to all religions equally because they are not all just instances of the same class--they are not "the same universal truths speaking in different accents." They make conflicting truth claims--and only one accords with metaphysical reality (which exists whether I believe it or not).
The argument assumes that the God-who-is has *not* clearly revealed himself to us, in a way that we can understand, such that we can reject competing claims of deity. That is begging the question.
As Francis Schaeffer put it, "He is there, and He is not silent." Consider reading Romans 1 -- if not to be persuaded, then to at least understand what Christianity teaches.
🤙
I do not subscribe to all religions equally because they are not all just instances of the same class--they are not "the same universal truths speaking in different accents." They make conflicting truth claims--and only one accords with metaphysical reality (which exists whether I believe it or not).
The argument assumes that the God-who-is has *not* clearly revealed himself to us, in a way that we can understand, such that we can reject competing claims of deity. That is begging the question.
As Francis Schaeffer put it, "He is there, and He is not silent." Consider reading Romans 1 -- if not to be persuaded, then to at least understand what Christianity teaches.
🤙