If knowledge is ultimately derived from a set of basic axioms and postulates...

You study His Word.

And how do you distinguish what is his word from what isn't hist word in the first place?

then how do you account for axioms that cause people to sacrifice their biological existence?

His sheep know His voice.

For example? If you're talking about suicide, the axiom necessary to justify nihilism and self-destruction is that there is no "good order" or meaning in the world that would qualify living. This can actually change brain architecture, as can fundamentalism. These can override or bypass self-preservation instincts

So according to you, a believer can rationally come to know the truth, but an unbeliever cannot ever rationally come to it?

no i mean like someone who chooses martyrdom rather than renounce an axiom

No because all believers were once unbelievers.

But in any case, those who are not called have no rational reason to accept the truth when they are presented with it, so how can they be held morally culpable for rejecting something irrational?

Because rationality is not the standard by which human beings are judged.

As I said, radicalism changes brain architecture. Threat response + pleasure response stuff - I'm oversimplifying bc its late for me but theres good literature out there if you're interested.

The thing is, once they've ingrained those thought patterns into themselves and created a strict worldview, they would literally rather die than have it questioned or blown apart

So it is morally acceptable to punish someone for correctly rejecting something irrational presented to them?

Are you talking to yourself? Like, are you asking yourself questions but just trying to make it seem like two people by only giving one side of the convo a sort of face-picture?

OP here. No, the person who posts the pictures is someone different from me.

then my question is if the human brain is supposed to preserve itself why would 'radical' axioms even get developed in the first place?

Yes because a rational response is not always correct; mercy is a good example of this.

So god can punish people for doing what is right (i.e. correctly rejecting something given without a good reason to accept)?

God decides what is right.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

How is that any different from a simple 'might makes right' ethical system where whoever has the most power gets to make all the rules?

>a rational response is not always correct
>not always correct

Sometimes a rational response is correct.

Because God is perfect and humans are not.

your god sounds like a thug

>God is perfect
>we know this because he says so

But it's not just a case of something that isn't rational, but something that flat out contradicts reason.

He's not.

Just because reason isn't infallible doesn't mean it isn't useful.

If you believe that something which is demonstrably proven to be true can in fact be false, then it is impossible to know anything at all, including the existence of god in the first place, because even if reason shows he exists, reason can still be wrong.

>He's not.
he's a powerful being that uses that power to enforce his will upon the less powerful. seems like if we applied this criteria to anything else you could reasonably use the word "thug".

Self-preservation is a central goal but it is negotiated. Maybe the best way to phrase it is this: the human brain is an axiom-maker, and we come pre-packaged with a self-preservation axiom, but that axiom can be negotiated and even overwritten by new axioms.

Which is why we live by faith.

God is unlike anything else.

>God is unlike anything else.
not an argument. if he can be described in those terms, he is a thug.

why did our brains develop the ability to be 'negotiated' when it goes against the axiom of self preservation?

Using big words does not equate intelligence. In fact using simpler words to convey your thoughts is more meaningful.

That said. Shut your idiot mouth you dumb cunt.

I'm not arguing, I'm just letting you know.

Yeah, we're approaching the point where we look at nature and have to ask "why in the fuck would you do this"

I have some research that slightly aligns with my theory, but I think what happened is that the TYPE of evolution we experienced enhanced cerebral capacity over robust instinct. This allowed us to do things AGAINST our natural inclinations / immediate desires (good for instances like rule of law or rigorous self-cleaning in face of disease). The downside is that we became beings which operate on ideas moreso than material reality. The upside is that ideas have a much more rapid evolutionary process than biology. But again, I'm still looking into this stuff.

that is an interesting theory user and i agree that we definitely operate on a more than material reality

Why should I accept that I should accept things on faith?

Ye, def not saying we're separate from material reality (as I contend its all biologically manifested and we definitely have a functional idea of real things) but we're more concerned with the IDEAS we have about those materials. Thus if you have a society thats like "god wants you to die on an alter for the spring crops" and you've been raised to find that reasonable your whole life, u bes believe u gonna march up to that altar

Cultures which pampered their human sacrifices are a good example of combating the death drive

This is an important epistemological question that any serious philosopher has to grapple with. It's not a pseudo-intellectual question.

That's up to you.

but if youre contrasting ideas and materials then doesnt that mean ideas arent material?

You know you'd piss me off less if your rhetoric wasn't so fucking mediocre
Go find someone who's a little better spoken. You're dragging down the quality of this board and you sure as fuck aren't convincing anyone

You're like that guy in the Walking Dead. Eugene. You use big words your ass can't cash the checks tho.

So there's really no particular reason why I should accept the truth? It's purely a matter of whim and personal preference?

Presuppositional theism is the new relativism by the sound of it.

You haven't addressed the question. By what criteria do we decide on one set of axioms over another?

Ok we don't have to keep going if it upsets you.

Thank you. If there really was a God he'd probably strike you down for being such a lazy, shitty excuse for an apologist

Just shut the fuck up dude.

Want criteria? I'd beat the fuck out of you but you're online.

In other words, you're just interested in raving and making threats instead of actually talking about the topic at hand.

>rational=utilitarian
Kill yourself

Stop LARPing as a Christian

Well the solution to that problem in the West is consequentialism OP.

E.g you decide the best axioms by the effects they produce in the world.

always a pleasure to have you on board, wolfo

Refer the incompleteness theorem by godel.

Aren't those self-evident?

You're not deciding "best axioms" as if they're wholly subjective. You're governing your life on the basis of said basic principles. OP is wondering by what basis do we come to grasp that said principles are known.
Reason. We don't have much else to go on.

Its kind of interesting
I was talking with a friend yesterday about these online MMO's and how they apply to the academic concept of complexity.

If you arent aware, complexity is when rules and axioms can be derived from the rules and axioms contained within the system.
Like if you are familiar with magic the gathering and how many rules and card interactions that make interesting combos.

So the point about knowledge and complexity im trying to make, is that if all knowledge is based of a set of axioms and rules, how do we know if these rules arent derived from an even more basic or deeper foundation.

In that respect i like to look at knowledge as a contextual web, even possibly a giant sphere, rather than something that has a beginning and end.

I mean in te relm of ideas. Do you believe they are discovered or are they created?

>If knowledge is ultimately derived from a set of basic axioms and postulates

Knowledge is experience. The only axiom needed is to assume reality is more or less consistent over time.