Me: Or the gov't could stop wasting money to the tune of $250K...
Max: Straw man, separate issue. No one is actually in favor of government waste, and everyone would agree that the government ought to spend what money it must as efficiently as possible. Given that the government cannot survive without revenue, that means taxes are a reality; so, how do we allocate tax burden in the way that is the most fair? Is it fair to raise taxes on 125 middle class people to fund a tax cut for 1 person who is already very wealthy, and would still be very wealthy even without a tax cut? I would say, "no."
Me: How do you know what is fair? This is an honest question.
Max: To avoid a teleological argument on the origin of "fairness" or at least my sense of fairness, allow me to rephrase (because, while applicable, this situation in no way hinges on "fairness"); Is it effective economic policy,which achieves its aims of maximizing overall economic prosperity, to raise taxes on 125 middle class people to fund a tax cut for 1 person who is already very wealthy, and would still be very wealthy without a tax cut? I would argue that such an economic policy is likely not effective in maximizing overall economic prosperity, as compared with other, possibly directly oppositional policies.
Me: If it doesn't hinge on fairness, why is that your reference point in your first comment? And why does The Chosen 0ne speak in those terms?
Me: (I certainly commend your desire to avoid discussions of your concept of fairness since as an atheist you literally zero chance of substantiating your opinion as valid for anyone outside yourself. I intend to press you on it, though.)
Max: I referenced fairness as a familiar concept, which most Americans will recognize and understand; it is a value commonly spoken of in American culture. Even if people cannot necessarily agree on what exactly constitutes what is "fair" or from where their sense of fairness originates, many people have an innate recognition of the concept, and similarities of thought ought to outnumber differences. But again, the matter does not hinge on fairness, it hinges on the implementation of sensible, effective economic/tax policy, and it just so happens that I expect the correct policy will also coincide with what happens to be "fair" and most equitable. I notice you haven't (yet) made the assertion that taxing 250 people more, just so that you can tax 1 wealthy person less IS more "fair," nor have you asserted that doing so would be more effective policy. So we haven't actually disagreed yet.
Me: \\it is a value commonly spoken of in American culture\\
And you don't know what is fair, do you?
You don't know how to define it objectively. You don't know whether it is objectively morally right to be fair, do you?
\\many people have an innate recognition of the concept\\
Yes. b/c they are created in the image of God.
\\ it hinges on the implementation of sensible, effective economic/tax policy\\
How do you know what is sensible and effective economic/tax policy?
\\ I notice you haven't (yet) made the assertion that taxing 250 people more, just so that you can tax 1 wealthy person less IS more "fair," nor have you asserted that doing so would be more effective policy\\
The discussion of where we go FROM HERE is not the same as where we go from zero.
In a situation where massive waste is already occurring on the part of the government, which can by definition create no wealth, far better to reduce that gov't's wasteful spending than to talk about which citizens need to be taxed more.
Max: Rhology, I know you're trying to push this, "all objective valuations are derived from god, god must exist/without god there is no objective valuation, all is meaningless," thing, but I just don't buy it, and it's not the issue I brought up in the first place. To put it simply, I think that objective valuation (or as close as is attainable by subjective beings) can be arrived at through thought experiment and application of the rational mind, and man's motivation for doing so is because that's what we have to work with, so we might as well use it; history indicates that proper application of reason, of the rational mind, has the potential to improve the quality of human life. That is the best we can manage for ourselves during our lives. Anyway, effective economic/tax policy ought to to be made apparent by its results, which we ought to be able to determine through empirical observation. Wouldn't you agree? Reducing government waste is fine, but that's not the issue because that's not a factor in this component of Romney's tax plan. Even if Romney's larger economic plan cuts overall government spending, part of which will be waste, thus reducing the sheer amount of wasteful spending, it STILL raises taxes on the average American family, in order to fund tax cuts for a much smaller number of very wealthy people. THAT is the issue. What do you think about that? Does that seem like sound policy to you?
Me: I know you don't buy it, but I am asking you the questions I'm asking so as to prove that you don't have a leg to stand on in that opinion. :-)
And it *IS* the issue you brought up in the first place. Let me quote you:
\\so, how do we allocate tax burden in the way that is the most fair? Is it fair to raise taxes on 125 middle class people to fund a tax cut for 1 person who is already very wealthy, and would still be very wealthy even without a tax cut? I would say, "no."\\
Moving on:
\\I think that objective valuation (or as close as is attainable by subjective beings) can be arrived at through thought experiment and application of the rational mind\\
How do you know?
\\history indicates that proper application of reason, of the rational mind, has the potential to improve the quality of human life\\
When you say "improve", you are begging the question. How do you know what is an improvement?
\\That is the best we can manage for ourselves during our lives.\\
No, it's not. We could live according to the standard God has communicated, which is by definition the highest good.
\\effective economic/tax policy ought to to be made apparent by its results, which we ought to be able to determine through empirical observation.\\
But how do you know what is effective and ineffective? How do you know what the proper goal is?
\\Reducing government waste is fine, but that's not the issue because that's not a factor in this component of Romney's tax plan. \\
It may or may not surprise you to learn that I'm no big fan of Romney. :-)
The issue raised in the poster was taxes, not "Is Romney a good Presidential candidate?" To the latter, I say heck no (though he's actually constitutionally eligible for the office, unlike his opponent). I've been responding to the former.
\\ it STILL raises taxes on the average American family, in order to fund tax cuts for a much smaller number of very wealthy people. THAT is the issue. What do you think about that? Does that seem like sound policy to you?\\
No, it is unsound. Tax cuts should occur across the board, and gov't spending programs should be cut to make room for them.
Max: Okay, so we agree then, that it is not sound policy to raise taxes on 250 just to cut taxes for 1. Good. I am also inclined to think that it, especially because it is not a sound policy, would run contrary to your definition of fairness, as well as mine. As to your questions of, "how do you know/what is effective/what constitutes improvement," come on; this isn't that hard. You're only trying to derail the matter with ontological questions that are larger than the scope of, and unnecessary to, the matter at hand. Surely we can talk about something as dry as taxes in "close enough" terms with back of the envelope sort of calculations without it turning into a debate as to whether or not god exists. Because clearly, whether or not god exists, taxes do.
Me: \\I am also inclined to think that it, especially because it is not a sound policy, would run contrary to your definition of fairness, as well as mine. \\
Oh, yes, that's probably fair to say.
I don't think, however, that your definition of fairness, taken on its own merits and foundation, has any value, though. It's just your bare opinion but you don't know what fairness really is, you don't know whether it's a good thing to be fair, you don't know what the goal of society of even individual human lives is... It's tough, given your worldview, to see how there are any duties at all, of any kind.
\\As to your questions of, "how do you know/what is effective/what constitutes improvement," come on; this isn't that hard. \\
Then you should be able to answer them readily, no?
\\You're only trying to derail the matter with ontological questions that are larger than the scope of, and unnecessary to, the matter at hand\\
Whether "fairness" even exists is unnecessary when discussing whether something is fair?
Do you think it's reasonable for someone to quote the Bible and nothing else and never substantiate their reasons for believing the Bible? Aren't you looking for them to give you a reason to think the God of the Bible actually exists? I'm doing the same thing here - asking you for a reason to think you have any idea what you're talking about when you say the word "fair".
\\Because clearly, whether or not god exists, taxes do.\\
I don't grant that. How do you know taxes exist?
Max: I can answer them sure, I just don't see any point to doing so, because: (1) these question apply to you and your position just as much as would apply to me, and (2) I know my answers will not be satisfactory to your worldview, not because they are inconsistent but because they are not "absolute," enough for you. These questions just aren't useful to an ultimately evidence/observation/experience-based discussion, because if you have to examine every possible prior assumption, you never deal with the original intended matter. For example, if I'm out to dinner with a friend, and my friend asks me, "what dish should I get," I might debate the relative merit of chicken over beef or of salad over pasta, but I won't ask, "how do you know you're even hungry? How do we know this is even a restaurant?" Asking, "how do you know taxes exist?" in a discussion about potential changes in already extant taxes which we assume exist by understanding the concept of them, paying them, and talking about them, is equally pointless. To answer your question regarding the bible, no, I actually don't really expect people who quote the bible to "substantiate" why they believe the bible, or why they trust in the accuracy of their ability to comprehend or interpret it. I don't expect these sort of explanations, because, ultimately, they all boil down to "because I was taught to, and I never thought better of that," or "because something in it appealed to my aesthetic worldview, and nothing has prompted me to stop since." But! Surely you can do better than the others, so consider this an invitation.
Me: So you don't have any way to know what's absolutely fair, right, or good; is that correct?
Why didn't you just start off by saying "In my completely unsupported opinion, this is not fair."
I, of course, would have replied, reminding you that according to your own worldview nobody has any duty or obligation to listen to your unsupported opinion.
So, maybe we should begin this conversation again? According to your own worldview nobody has any duty or obligation to listen to your unsupported opinion. So, and I mean no disrespect, but I'm just talking from your own worldview here, why are you talking?
\\"how do you know taxes exist?" in a discussion about potential changes in already extant taxes which we assume exist by understanding the concept of them, paying them, and talking about them, is equally pointless.\\
Then I don't suppose you'd mind if I were to say that, for example, in a discussion about any question whatsoever, Jesus is Lord and we must submit to what He said, every time, because we assume He exists by understanding the concept of Him, interacting with Him, and talking to and about Him. Right?
\\To answer your question regarding the bible, no, I actually don't really expect people who quote the bible to "substantiate" why they believe the bible, or why they trust in the accuracy of their ability to comprehend or interpret it. \\
But that's precisely what you're asking me to do with YOUR worldview. Doesn't your position render communication impossible?
\\I don't expect these sort of explanations, because, ultimately, they all boil down to "because I was taught to, and I never thought better of that," or "because something in it appealed to my aesthetic worldview, and nothing has prompted me to stop since."\\
It would appear your memory is rather faulty, for we've discussed similar questions before and that is not even close to the reasoning from my end.
Did you just forget? Are you disingenuously misrepresenting what I said to you?
Max: No no, that was not intended to characterize you, because, as you've said we've discussed this before. That was in reference to those christians who say they believe in god and the bible, perhaps even that the bible is inerrant, but turn out to know the bible even less well than I do, or obviously haven't given real thought to its contents or their ramifications. As I said, I know you can do better than the others, so if you think you can prove things by your reasoning, I invite you to do so, if you feel so inclined.
I don't think that any person can say what is "absolutely" fair/right/good. There may be objectives of those things, and we can approach them, asymptotically, through reasoned deduction, but as inherently subjective beings, we can never be completely objective or absolute ourselves. Even if god exists, and even if god's standard is the absolute truth/good, and even if god has at some point tried to communicate that to humans, I think that humans, as subjective beings, are incapable of accurately or completely understanding that communication. Additionally, even if we were capable of understanding it, or if god used his divine powers to communicate it to us so perfectly that we could not possibly misunderstand, we still, as subjective, imperfect beings, could never actually succeed in completely living up to that standard. So, whether god exists or not, all we get as humans is that which is "close enough," and that's good enough for me.
I agree with you, that NO ONE has ANY duty or obligation to listen to my opinion, supported or otherwise. I might wish they would listen. I might propose that the potential exists that they might learn something and benefit from listening. But do they have a duty or obligation to listen to my thoughts/stances/opinions? No, not at all.
And so you pose the question, "if no one has a duty to listen, why bother talking?" But, if no one is obligated to listen, am I obligated to have a reason for talking? Do my reasons to talk have to meet some sort of standard, else I ought not speak? I do not see how it follows that lack of duty/obligation renders communication impossible; that would necessitate that people do ONLY the things which they are obligated to do, which does not seem true, in my experience.
Oh, Jesus clearly exists...as a concept. Jesus exists at least as much as do Santa Claus and Batman. But few people would actually travel to the North Pole expecting to find Santa or his workshop, and few people would travel to New York expecting to find a real version of a billionaire man named Bruce Wayne who wears an anthropomorphic armored bat suit and fights crime after the sun sets. Conversely, if I meet a man named Jesus, I do not immediately assume that he can walk on water or feed a football stadium full of people with a dried fish and a loaf of bread.
**Then I don't suppose you'd mind if I were to say that, for example, in a discussion about any question whatsoever, Jesus is Lord and we must submit to what He said, every time, because we assume He exists by understanding the concept of Him, interacting with Him, and talking to and about Him. Right?**
Max: ^ Regarding the above in ** borders, isn't that what you are already saying?
Me: \\That was in reference to those christians who say they believe in god and the bible, perhaps even that the bible is inerrant\\
OK. That's not what you said, but I believe you that it's what you meant.
\\I don't think that any person can say what is "absolutely" fair/right/good.\\
Do you think this statement is absolutely right?
\\we can never be completely objective or absolute ourselves.\\
Are you sure that this statement is true?
\\Even if god exists, and even if god's standard is the absolute truth/good, and even if god has at some point tried to communicate that to humans, I think that humans, as subjective beings, are incapable of accurately or completely understanding that communication.\\
Are you expecting that I and any other reader will accurately understand your communication?
\\ Additionally, even if we were capable of understanding it, or if god used his divine powers to communicate it to us so perfectly that we could not possibly misunderstand, we still, as subjective, imperfect beings, could never actually succeed in completely living up to that standard\\
What if an omnipotent God enabled us weak creatures to be able to do so? How does capability play into the equation when we're talking about a being of limitless power?
\\I agree with you, that NO ONE has ANY duty or obligation to listen to my opinion\\
OK, I commend you on being consistent thus far. A few questions:
1) Does anyone have the duty/obligation to seek and believe the truth?
2) Why did you even bother commenting here, since you have no way to know whether you're right and since your opinion is unsupported and since nobody has any reason to listen to it?
\\But, if no one is obligated to listen, am I obligated to have a reason for talking?\\
If I have to have a reason for believing in Jesus, can't I ask you for a reason for doing what you do?
\\ Do my reasons to talk have to meet some sort of standard, else I ought not speak?\\
Do my reasons to believe have to meet some sort of standard, else I ought not believe?
\\ I do not see how it follows that lack of duty/obligation renders communication impossible;\\
I wasn't getting at that it's impossible. I'm asking you why you even bother.
\\Regarding the above in ** borders, isn't that what you are already saying?\\
Not exactly; there are a couple of differences. I *KNOW* that He exists; I don't assume it.
But what I was getting at was the futility of unsupported opinion. I'm trying to get you to be consistent in all of your interaction here, not just part of it. I mean, that you're consistent in part is already pretty good. I don't meet many people who are consistent to that extent, but it's not far enough.
Max: **OK. That's not what you said, but I believe you that it's what you meant.**
In my original wording I said "people," not "you," and then said that "you" can do better than "the others."
**Do you think this statement is absolutely right?/Are you sure that this statement is true?**
You will notice that I said, "I don't THINK that any person..." Do I think my statement is "absolutely" right as some sort of objective/divine/platonic truth? No. Do I think my statement is as correct or nearly as correct as a subjective human can get? Yes.
**Are you expecting that I and any other reader will accurately understand your communication?**
Perfectly? Absolutely not. Evidenced by the fact that between my writing imperfectly and your reading my imperfect writing, I have already had to clarify at least one issue. I'm looking for 90+% here, or asymptotically approaching 100% understanding, but not expecting or thinking that total/accurate/perfect understanding will ever be achievable by subjective humans.
**What if an omnipotent God enabled us weak creatures to be able to do so? How does capability play into the equation when we're talking about a being of limitless power?**
The issue of omnipotence brings up its own inconsistencies, particularly if god is also eternal and omniscient. If god used his powers to enable subjective humans to comprehend objective truth, why not make it impossible for us to FAIL to understand that objective truth? If humans can still be in error as to the objective truth/right/good, how can we know that it is what YOU believe the objective truth to be that is accurate, versus what a person of a different flavor of christianity believes, or a random muslim person believes, or a jewish person? What is the test, what are the criteria, how can we measure it, and what evidence is there for us to examine that leads us to a conclusion?
**OK, I commend you on being consistent thus far. A few questions: 1) Does anyone have the duty/obligation to seek and believe the truth?**
Obligated in the philosophical/metaphysical sense? No.
**2) Why did you even bother commenting here, since you have no way to know whether you're right and since your opinion is unsupported and since nobody has any reason to listen to it?**
I enjoy debate. Also, just because I do not "know" for certain that I am right in some objective way, does not mean that I cannot be confident that I am right within some reasonable margin of error which I consider to be acceptable. Just because no one is obligated to listen, does not mean that others cannot possibly listen to me. Just because my opinion is not supported by biblical verse, does not mean that my opinion is entirely "unsupported;" you just don't think that my opinion is supported by anything that matters, whereas I think that any opinion supported solely by biblical verse matters very little, if at all.
**If I have to have a reason for believing in Jesus, can't I ask you for a reason for doing what you do? Do my reasons to believe have to meet some sort of standard, else I ought not believe?**
I don't think I ever said or implied that you were required to have a reason to believe in Jesus, but form personal experience it seems as though most people do have at least some reason for believing what they do, whether they are cognizant of that reason or not.
As far as I am personally concerned, your beliefs don't "have to" meet some standard, and you can go on believing as you like. I think there is an argument to be made however, that beliefs supported by no measurable physical evidence, with inconsistencies, contradictions, or logical flaws in their reasoning, if holding them results in some friction or conflict with what is physical and observable, "ought" not be believed, in the sense that it might be considered advantageous to the believer to stop believing, or to modify their beliefs.
**I *KNOW* that He exists; I don't assume it.**
I invite you to explain how it is that you know, objectively and with absolute certainty, that god exists. Next, I would invite you to explain how you know that your own understanding of god is wholly consistent with the true nature of god.
**But what I was getting at was the futility of unsupported opinion.**
Right, but by "unsupported," you mean, "unsupported by biblical god truth." Whereas, when I say "unsupported," I mean unsupported by physical or observable evidence, personal experience, or ball park reasonable deduction.
**I'm trying to get you to be consistent in all of your interaction here, not just part of it. I mean, that you're consistent in part is already pretty good. I don't meet many people who are consistent to that extent, but it's not far enough.**
Haha, thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. Alright, so, with your understanding of my position, what "fill-in-the-blank" do you think is required to be entirely consistent when you take it to its logical conclusion? I am curious.
Me: \\Do I think my statement is as correct or nearly as correct as a subjective human can get? Yes.\\
How do you know how close to correct a subjective human can get?
\\If god used his powers to enable subjective humans to comprehend objective truth, why not make it impossible for us to FAIL to understand that objective truth?\\
This is no argument contra omnipotence; you're merely asking a question to which you don't know the answer. Argumenta ad incredulum carry no force.
To answer your question, it's b/c His plan and purpose are perfect and b/c He wants to glorify Himself in sending a Savior to save lost people from sin.
\\ If humans can still be in error as to the objective truth/right/good, how can we know that it is what YOU believe the objective truth to be that is accurate, versus what a person of a different flavor of christianity believes, or a random muslim person believes, or a jewish person?\\
B/c God has communicated sufficient info with sufficient clarity. Exhaustive ≠ sufficient, however.
\\Obligated in the philosophical/metaphysical sense (to believe the truth)? No.\\
So there is literally no reason to believe the truth.
Can't you see how this results in total absurdity? This is YOUR position, resulting in absurdity. If I were in your shoes, it would greatly disturb me.
\\Also, just because I do not "know" for certain that I am right in some objective way, does not mean that I cannot be confident that I am right within some reasonable margin of error which I consider to be acceptable\\
Is "which I consider to be acceptable" supposed to impress anyone? Plenty of people think plenty of things are close enough, or even true, and they're flat wrong about it. How do you know you're not among them? How do you know your accepted margin of error isn't totally incorrect?
\\Just because my opinion is not supported by biblical verse\\
\\Right, but by "unsupported," you mean, "unsupported by biblical god truth."\\
Hold on a second. We've established that, on YOUR view, your view is unsupported by ANYTHING.
Let's be sure to keep that straight as we go forward here.
\\you just don't think that my opinion is supported by anything that matters.\\
No no no, my questions and your answers have revealed that YOU don't have any good, consistent reason to think your opinion is supported by anything that matters.
\\ Whereas, when I say "unsupported," I mean unsupported by physical or observable evidence, personal experience, or ball park reasonable deduction.\\
How do you know that observable evidence actually exists?
How do you know your personal experiences really happened? That they should be relied upon for forming beliefs?
How do you know your cognitive faculties function well enough to fashion reasonable deductions that actually get close to comporting with reality?
\\beliefs supported by no measurable physical evidence, with inconsistencies, contradictions, or logical flaws in their reasoning, if holding them results in some friction or conflict with what is physical and observable, "ought" not be believed\\
Why?
Preach the good news to me. How do you know they ought not be believed? Says who?
\\ in the sense that it might be considered advantageous to the believer to stop believing, or to modify their beliefs.\\
How do you know what is advantageous?
\\I invite you to explain how it is that you know, objectively and with absolute certainty, that god exists.\\
Because He has revealed it to me. He changed my heart to see that He is the truth and that if my entire worldview is not founded solely upon Him as my ultimate authority and truth, everything results in absurdity.
\\ Next, I would invite you to explain how you know that your own understanding of god is wholly consistent with the true nature of god.\\
Same answer.
Now, your question asked me HOW I KNOW. If you're asking how I'd propose to explain and defend that belief to others, it's a totally different proposition, and I'd refer the inquirer first to www.proofthatgodexists.org
\\with your understanding of my position, what "fill-in-the-blank" do you think is required to be entirely consistent when you take it to its logical conclusion? \\
No worldview can be consistent outside of the true one - that the God of the Bible exists and speaks.
Max: **How do you know how close to correct a subjective human can get?**
I make an educated guess, based on knowledge and prior experience, and if my answer seems to differ significantly from observed results, I refine my definitions/formulae in an attempt to enhance future correctness, that is, consistency with observable results/evidence.
**How do you know that: observable evidence actually exists?...your personal experiences really happened?...That they should be relied upon for forming beliefs?...your cognitive faculties function well enough to fashion reasonable deductions that actually get close to comporting with reality?**
I do not know these things, in a perfect objective sense. However, I have no reason to operate as though these things were not at least "functionally" true. I can't observe or deduce that we are all actually living in, "The Matrix," and so I have no reason to act or behave as though the "reality" I experience is all a dream in which we have been imprisoned by machine overlords.
**my questions and your answers have revealed that YOU don't have any good, consistent reason to think your opinion is supported by anything that matters.**
No. Observable evidence, reasonable inference, rational deduction, personal experience ALL "matter" to me, by definition, because they are the criteria by which I make decisions and form opinions. I accept that these things are neither perfect, nor entirely objective, but I do not expect them to be. I use them because I do not have reason to believe that I have any better criteria available.
You assert that these things do not "matter" at all, simply because they are not entirely objective. I do not accept that assertion.
**So there is literally no reason to believe the truth. Can't you see how this results in total absurdity? This is YOUR position, resulting in absurdity. If I were in your shoes, it would greatly disturb me.**
There are plenty of reasons to believe the truth, or those things which appear to be true by human estimation. There are just no objective "duties" or "obligations" to believe the truth.
Max: **Is "which I consider to be acceptable" supposed to impress anyone? Plenty of people think plenty of things are close enough, or even true, and they're flat wrong about it. How do you know you're not among them? How do you know your accepted margin of error isn't totally incorrect?**
I suppose that depends on how easily they are impressed. Yes, people get many things flat wrong, sun revolving around the earth and all that for example, and at any given moment, I do not know for certain that I am not among them in wrongness, I just try to compare my expectations with results, and where they differ, revise my theories, in an effort to get a better handle on "truth" or "correctness" based on what appears to work best. But I have no universal moral duty or obligation to engage in those exercises.
**Because He has revealed it to me. He changed my heart to see that He is the truth and that if my entire worldview is not founded solely upon Him as my ultimate authority and truth, everything results in absurdity.**
How do you know god revealed it to you? How do you know you're not just imagining that god revealed it to you? Assuming that god did communicate with you how do you know that you understood it correctly? How do you know that god didn't lie to you about his true nature, as a joke? Even if an absence of god results in absurdity, how do you know that "absurdity" is not, in fact, the universe we are in? It also seems that you are assuming that the presence of god prevents absurdity, which, if god exists and is truly omnipotent, it does not, because god has the power to introduce absurdity, even mandate it, thereby enacting the contradiction, "absurdity = truth."
I have seen the "proof," that god exists thing before, but I went through it again, to refresh my memory. I have several big problems with it. The first is that it only allows for the possibility that laws of math, science, and logic are unchanging, when I would argue that we do not have proof of that, it just appears that way according to our best estimates. The second is that it clumps "moral laws" with laws of logic, science, and math, without addressing that logic/science/math all appear to be intrinsic, whereas there is no physical evidence that "moral laws" are intrinsic rather than extrinsic. Third, it does not allow for the possibility that there are no absolute morals, which may be the case. Finally, it assumes that god is the source of all absolutes, which only seems to be necessarily true if you define god as "that from which all absolutes arise," which does not necessarily indicate that god is omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, aware, communicative, caring, or in any way resembling the god of the old testament, new testament, or the god represented in the holy text of any other religion.
(At this point I sort of ran out of time, but I figure Max has more or less shot his own position right through the heart when he said "it only allows for the possibility that laws of math, science, and logic are unchanging, when I would argue that we do not have proof of that, it just appears that way according to our best estimates".)
