Can any Atheist even refute this?

Can any Atheist even refute this?

>god opens up the heavens
>says "I exist" in a language everyone can understand and hear

That was easy.

>if god isn't a misntrel his opnion isnt worth as much
hes already an artist, user. Read holy texts or practically any piece of classical art

yes proof is necessarily religious. radical scepticism is the only nonsuperstitious view.

>proof is based on faith in the axiom
>hence faith in something that is not the axiom is a requirement for proof
I can scarcely believe that people can't see how idiotic these non sequitur are.

What about cogito ergo sum?

If Jordan claims that we must believe in something we may not think is true to make society function doesn't that make him a postmordenist?

...

>absolute truth

Truth is merely the best available explanation we have for a given set of phenomena

Proof is simply phenomena that seem impossible to explain with any explanation other than the one that they 'prove'

Axioms are for chumps, your senses and rational capacities are axiomatic enough to begin with.

He does accept the primary statements of the post-modern doctrine, that nothing can by itself be known to be true with certainty, but from there he also acknowledges the fact that if you want to live a life that is "good", if you want "good" things to happen, to society to function, to people not suffer needlessly, then you have to build a system on top of these things that you want. That's where he deviates from common post-modern scum.
Well, not that most of the "post-modernists" follow the basic ideas of deconstructing anything, since most of them seem to follow whatever it is that their social-marcist SJW theories is called.

>Use axioms to prove God is necessary.
>This proof does not necessitate any mythology, divine revelation, etc.
>Some random alien species 50 million light years away could be "God's chosen" and we could just be some evolutionary bloop.

Ontology is a dumb reason to be religious tbqh

Postmodernism don't have anything to do with this. He may as well be a conservative or liberal.

That is a lot of words to basically say yes

Can you really call him a post-modernist if the takes a look at what they offer and turns 360, walks away and goes with what actually works instead of hypocritical
>can't know anything
>except critical theory is totally true because we say so, ignore the first bit

>Proof itself is impossible without axioms
>which Godel proved
>using nothing but axioms
>which are necessarily dogmatic and baseless

Gee wiz, I wonder where the logical circularity is in this argument

Considering how he abuses the word post-modernist, yes. Yes it does

>if you want to live a life that is "good", if you want "good" things to happen, to society to function

> thus
The fuck? The second does not follow from the first whatsoever. Who is this charlatan?

>misusing spook-posting
>using spook-posting as a spook

I seriously hope no one here is actually something other than an agnostic

Are you unsure of whether there is a truth or what the truth is?

Some hack whose only claim to fame is triggering internet leftists.

This is the starbucks degree board. None of these retards have a real education, so of course they're religious.

This is perfectly right