But here's the thing, it doesn't matter one lick whether you assume a god or not. So why does assuming a does does not exist bring out a contradiction, when assuming there is a god provides the exact same contradiction?
I'm invoking God because God offers a potential solution to the problem of cosmic instability. If the "default" position is no God, and we don't "assume" that God exists (which I did just as a clarification), then you're still left with the contradiction. Could you address this?
Also, now I'm curious, what exactly are your views on truth that don't assume that you exist, don't assume any form of order, and seemingly don't assume anything at all?
Truth compels us to deny truth without the presence of God, but some of us are simply more drawn to the will to truth than others. I consider myself one of these people, and I prize rational consistency (or as close as we can get to it) both because it gives me power and because it brings me pleasure. It's a perspective (in my sense), not an authoritative stake on what constitutes "reality."
Going by what you said about discrete mathematics,
Logic, not mathematics; logic precedes math.
you seem to be saying that you cannot say anything leads to anything else, but doesn't that render logic as a whole unusable?
Unusable? No. It's very useful, and logical claims are the most immediate claims we can make about experience (much more so than inductive/sensory ones). They're just not entirely immediate, and may or may not be "true."
I really, really don't understand how one could approach reality without first assuming it.
There's a difference between assuming reality, which I myself do, and "assuming that our slice of reality is the reality," which you and Touka do. I'd just like to hear why you made this leap.
--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9