| This argument has two flaws.
1) Even if it were airtight, it doesn't mean anything. The existence of a god doesn't mean anything in itsself. You're just elaborating on abstract concepts to prove something which doesn't really mean anything.
2) Every truth doesn't necessarily lead to another one. Most people who have minimal knowledge of math would accept "there are an infinite number of primes" as true. That truth doesn't really lead to another truth, anything can lead up to another statement but that statement isn't necessarily meaningful. Also you assume that all truths are linked, there are truths about self, truths about math, truths about philosophy, truths about science etc, these truths are necessarily linked.
The ultimate flaw in this theory is that it pressuposes that we can know the truth, I don't think we can be completely certain about the truth. The truth is just a tool we use, we suppose something is true, then we derive other truths from it, and presumably that helps us in some way. Of course, it's completely possible that our begining truth is wrong, it has happened to many people, it's not really worth putting so much faith into any one truth unless you get something out of it. |