Refuting Rand Is Simple

[ProudToBLoud]

Another great video from you, 5 stars.

[Goddoesexist]

Atheism fails to furnish the epistemic environment for that which is immutable, non-material, and universal. God alone can. To deny Him, one must presuppose Him, one must also utilize that which only He supplies. God is inescapable, hence anti-theism is self-stultifying.

[brainouty]

5/5 and fav'd on this video. I wish the self-styled atheist would stop calling himself a free-thinker or rational, when at every turn in his logic set he proves the opposite.

Start with a posit of God then work through what must 'God' mean. If you keep working at it logically, you will account for everything material AFTER you have first accounted for 'God'. It's like balancing your checkbook, no religion needed. Thereafter it's easy to see why 'God' can only be the 'God' of Bible.

[brainouty]

Right. All true logic MUST be top-down, never bottom up. You have to start with the BIGGEST set, not the smallest one. If you picked the right BIGGEST set, then all the smaller ones will (eventually) be demonstrably corollary.

[ATLpirate]

The problem here is you have not shown Christianity to be true. You go from defending the position that "God exists" to positing that Christianity must therefore be true. But that doesn't follow. "God" may be inescapable as you claim, but you have gotten no closer to establishing the truths of Christianity.

This is why I don't think "God exists" is a good first principle. Knowing WHO God is is much more important than know THAT God is. The Christian needs to start with the Bible.

[Goddoesexist]

ATL: God and His Logos are inseparable: John 1:1, as is His nature: omniscience, omnipotence, infinite diversity w/i unity, aseity, immutability, etc. One must start from above with God thru His revelation or one is left in absurdity and self-contradiction. The God lives and the contrary is self-impaling nonsense.

[ATLpirate]

Of course. But you have to go to Scripture to deduce any of that. As long as the starting point is Scripture (the Bible) then I'm with you. Otherwise you're left with an unknowable, faceless deity. That was the extent of my point.

Thanks for the response.

[Goddoesexist]

Rand's inescapable philosophical problem is a particular-based mutable worldview lacks the ontic capacity to account for and be the source for the Laws of Logic. These Laws must be utilized and presupposed in everything one ponders, speaks, and performs. Thus her error is fatal.