crying double standard because I won't let you hide behind brute facts is hilarious. labeling your fundamental assumptions brute facts is literally just admitting that your worldview is built on completely arbitrary, ungrounded blind faith. if you can just declare your assumptions to be ungrounded brute facts that require no explanation, you have zero intellectual right to ever critique any religion's grounding ever again. this is epistemological suicide.
you are confusing the psychological act of thinking with the universal laws of logic, do I need to explain what a universal is to you? do these so called brute facts exist just as thoughts in your head? you keep contradicting yourself within your own replies, it's so hilarious.
do you need to be explained what "the possibility of intelligibility" means?
concepts are just in your mind? so the law of identity doesn't apply universally and it's just something in your mind? does this apply to other universal transcendentals like mathematical identities, truth itself? it's just something in your individual head? this is actually your worldview?
is the universal category of induction grounded inside of your personal mind?
the Triuine God is the only type of being that can ground universals and solve the problem of the one and the many, the argument is the impossibility of the contrary because this malformed worldview you are expressing does zero work grounding universals and it's hilarious every post you make in the worst contradicting attempts.
try chat gpt again, just copy what i say to you into it maybe it'll think for you. very sad.
here give this to chat gpt "so I am arguing with someone who using the transcendental argument for God's existence and my counter is to offer a worldview that has a set of brute facts that are completely unrelated, eternal and not at all unified. Is my system of ad hoc brute facts a good argument? which worldview more coherently grounds universals, and how do I solve the issue of the one and the many or the issue of multiplicity and unity within my own framework? Since my worldview is an ad hoc set of brute facts which I cannot even express the ontological status of, how do they relate to the possibility of intelligibility for the finite human particular minds? I tried to appeal to neuroscientists and thoughts, but I haven't even justified induction within my own worldview yet or explained how these universal brute facts can be relational to a particular human mind yet. how is my appeal to eternal ad hoc brute facts any different than polytheism that appeals to non-personal deities?"
The meme is paying dividends. Now you are asking me how to formulate my own questions so that I conform to your worldview instead of validating them.
I think you are not capable of defending your argument without criticizing mine. I asked to validate your god and your response is "but you cant justify your worldview"
Already told you that even if you find every secular worldview incoherent that in no way makes yours true. Internal coherence or explanatory power isn't enough to prove god you need real world evidence not reliance on failures of competing worldviews.
This post was edited by addone on Jul 12 2026 04:47pm