Transcendental argument is cope

Why don't Christians, or theists in general, understand what they are using is redundancy (e.g., 'X god') as an axiom for truths. Why do they not comprehending identities? Is this indicative of lower IQ, or are they genetically inferior in conceiving such basic inferential conclusions?

Cope about what?

didn't read or understand what i've post

proves my point of low IQ

muzzoid nigger faggot sloppily strings a sentence together and thinks he’s god lmao. go debate jay dyer, faggot nerd.

muzzoid nigger faggot sloppily strings a sentence together and thinks he’s god lmao. go debate jay dyer, faggot nerd.

cannot refute what I've said kek, too low IQ, and relies on a faggot talking head to defend their cope kek

eat my shit or you are low IQ

If you want an intellectual battle then play me in chess.

faggot debate is beneath me. I prefer muzzoid trash to burn in hell personally.

The transcendental argument is just about making an axiom or using a redundant one, that’s literally it. It’s even laughable, because you can’t really defend it without relying on Jew Dyer. And the argument can be used in any framework, not just the Christian one, even a Hindu jeet religion, or someone from any jungle mumbo religion, could use it against you. If you claim "X god" is the axiom for everything but don’t realize that any framework could do the same, then what’s the point? For example, someone could say a banana is the axiom for everything, or a dog is the axiom, or literally any religious framework that exists today. Don’t you see it’s an argument for slow boys and dumbasses? It’s just using redundancy to explain axioms. So if God (redundancy) is necessary for these truths to exist, then why can’t those truths just be axioms themselves?

broken unintelligible ESL

Why don't you understand?

slow boys cope KEK

The Transcendental Argument means you can't know anything because in your worldview your thoughts are just chemical reactions. You are in a pitch black room, feeling things with your hands, and trying to describe what it is. You think you reasoned up with Big Bang, but really you're just reverting to Kike fairy tales. We believe God is over all, is the anchor for beliefs we hold, and provides the lightswitch to the dark room.

Religions are totalitarian sects that came to power by bloody struggle and then rewrote history to suit themselves. Arguing with the doctrine of the faith is pointless, it is the same as disproving Yakub or arguing with Aum Shinrikyo cultists.
Study history and all this transcendent bullshit will be out of your head as soon as you realize that the early Christians are literally Al Qaeda.

You are insane.

We believe God is over all, is the anchor for beliefs we hold, and provides the lightswitch to the dark room.

NIGGER You are special pleading. If you think every inferential conclusion is flawed because human inference is flawed but make an exception for your 'X god,' then you are literally coping. This again proves my point that all of you are low IQ

It's not an exception, it's the explanation of how one side can KNOW and the other side CAN NOT KNOW.

kys

it's the explanation of how one side can KNOW and the other side CAN NOT KNOW.

COPE. proves my point again too low IQ, how is reasoning process about God any different from a belief system based on other things? you are literally special pleading like a little child

pol is a downsyndrome board

clucky KANG!!! CLUCKIE KAAAANG!!

Inheriting tradition is not reasoning. And I already pointed out that you did not reason your way to Big Bang, but inherited it, as tradition, from some schizo kikes before you.

They have nothing else, so that have to try to convince people that transcendentals exist. Which they can't do.
Otherwise they'd have to talk about the Bible, and there's two problems with reading the Bible. First, they haven't read it. Second, they'd need to run failed apologetics for all the horrific shit in their dumb book.
Note: Islam is no better. Judaism is no better.

atheists are following da j00s

meanwhile please ignore da j00s that wrote my holy book

It's a simple Epistemic argument. Hilarious how it breaks you guys.

You'd need to prove that all other worldviews can't, by going through them all. Which you can't and won't.

You still don't get it. Hilarious.

Prove that transcendentals exist. It requires no interviewing of my or my worldview to do so.
That's not proving that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can account for knowledge.
Now you have two things to prove.
Stop dodging, and start proving.

You literally do not even understand the issue. Lol

Epistemic argument

circular and cope for slow boys KEK

X god equals truth every inferential conclusion is false

yet uses same inferential conclusion to conclude it's God equals truth

AGAIN trancendental argument is for slowboys and low IQ subhumans KEK

The best thing about it is that it filters pseuds before you can even begin your pilpul.

The nazi memflag is killing you in this debate. You might want to take it a bit more seriously. The constants keks and cope as responses makes you look stupid.

Fun thread

God is the idea that there is a perfect truth and that morality is the very fabric of reality. I think it’s probably right and there is an overarching power, but it isn’t the God of the Bible necessarily. I also don’t believe in heaven or that Jesus was the literal son of god, but I do believe his teachings and that he died for my sins.

One thing atheists cannot deny is that they know everything. Discounting the existence of God is as arrogant as saying there absolutely is a god and he will only allow me into heaven.

does it make you mad, i clown your low IQ cope KEK

Discounting the existence of God is as arrogant as saying there absolutely is a god and he will only allow me into heaven.

I never discount its possibility, but I doubt its plausibility because it's redundant. If Christians or theists can claim that God is necessary, why can't these truths or axioms exist simply because they are necessary?

Claims with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. I don't need to entertain any imaginary things in your thoughts as real.
Otherwise you'd have to say that your agnostic to the magic unicorn who farted everything into existence. Which you're not actually going to entertain as a possibility.

he's showing my greatness

Thanks.

You made no statement indicating any understanding of what a transcendental argument is. Perhaps start properly by explaining Kant.

Kant’s transcendental argument is about how we need certain presuppositions in place in order for knowledge and experience to even make sense. It’s all about the conditions of possibility for experience, like the way we understand space, time, or causality. So, in his view, the very act of knowing something presupposes these fundamental structures

again, If Christians or theists can claim that God is necessary, why can't these truths or axioms exist simply because they are necessary?

I don't even like this life, why the FUCK would I want an eternal one.

Perhaps start properly by explaining Kant.

TAG comes from Van Til, and then popularized online by losers like Darth Dawkins(and his followers), Jay Dyer, and Andrew Wilson.
You don't need to touch Kant for TAG bullshit.

I don't even like this life, why the FUCK would I want an eternal one.

Their end goal is to be golems

OP is an obvious retard and likely a jewish shill
Watch it pretend an insult means it "won" an argument like a typical clueless teenager

this thread proves my point, most people here on pol are brown and just christians to larp KEK

Nigger you're brown.

pol had whites but then the black scourge/religious flooded here from the last place they laughed them out of. Theists you can't stay here Anon Babble is your resting place you schizo niggers

Dead thread.
Can someone spoonfeed me wtf is transcendental argument and how it's a politics or why should anyone care?

seethes because he cant refute

KEK

they are golems

No I just said that you're brown, retarded nigger. I am not invested in your topic because you didn't make it entertaining enough to make me fully care yet. At least explain what are you even arguing about.

enters the tread

didnt understand transcendental argument

AGAIN proves my point LOW IQ christcucks KEK, see

see

X god equals truth every inferential conclusion is false

yet uses same inferential conclusion to conclude it's God equals truth

Can you give some concrete example so I have better understanding of what you mean? I stopped caring what christkikes operate like 3 years ago.

herebasically they claim your inference is flawed, but they infer God is only the truth, using human inference KEK

>enters the tread

>didnt understand transcendental argument

Ok and? You know it's a fucking politics board, why should I care about such mumbojumbo bullshit. All I saw is a nigger flag and called you brown, because you are.
In this case the "god" is just filler for the unknown. Also "god" is a vague term that can mean hypothetical source of anything like for Kant the noumenon, since I believe he came up with such bullshit argument. Bit for Kant the divine didn't go beyond his own limited understanding so he did operate with brain-in-a-vat limitations. Again, still not very entertaining topic.
Give me one example of what christcucks believe that you believe is flawed, and what you believe we should believe in instead.

In this case the "god" is just filler for the unknown

exactly that's why I think it's redundant claim for axiom for truth

what christcucks believe that you believe is flawed, and what you believe we should believe in instead.

see

debate jay dyer

Matt dillahunty already beat him?

the majority of pajeets on Anon Babble hide the fact that they're pajeets. in addition to "leaving that part out" they will proactively, persistently misrepresent their true form. pajeets are all about assuming other people's roles, from today's outsourcing and replacement migration all the way back to thuggee bandits lying to travelers about who they were. pajeets are devoid of their own identity, making them the ideal globalized goyim. they don't want a home where they belong. all that means to them is "compete in squalor." much better to go somewhere nicer, built by other people, and do their jobs for less pay and live slum-barracks life in their suburbs. pajeets don't want to be home. they also don't want to be pajeets. jews know exactly how to play their insecurities and dopey ambitions like the innocent rube fresh off the bus from the cornfield. this is their new golem to replace the ones that don't love them anymore

assumes I'm pajeet, because he cant refute KEK

If Christians or theists can claim that God is necessary, why can't these truths or axioms exist simply because they are necessary?

Is English a prerequisite for your claim

Well there's definitely a shortage of either cognition, curiosity or education at play with many religious folk I've known. In fact it's the exception rather than the rule to encounter a deeply intelligent religious person in our current times.

Matt dillahunty already beat him?

They shill him here on pol, because he's the only guy they rely on, to help them defend their cope KEK