Because an axiom by definition is the foundation, if something is prior to it, its not the foundation, but that thing which is prior to that thing you say is an axiom, is the real axiom

Well yes the axioms come before all other beliefs, that's how they function.

That's what I was already saying

I'm correcting your assertion

"A theologian presumes a god before the axiom"

Yes, so you'd need to necessarily believe a god is real before you could say that what they believe is right, but that's a metaphysical discussion that.

You're literally repeating what I've said.

You're not understanding how what you said was flawed

hold on

"A theologian presumes a god before the axiom"
X is god, and Y is the thing you call an axiom

If x predates y, then y would not be an axiom to begin with, X would be the axiom, as an axiom is the foundation, Y is not the foundation as there's something more fundamental to it which predates it, which is X

So what you said was a contradiction

Yeah, on the specific example I gave. No, I have my context

What?

Are you deliberately being non sensical or what

Do you wish to remove the statement from the context of the "betterment of people" I was discussing when I brought that up?

Wihch statement?

I think you and I aren't on the same page. It sounds like you got lost

Yeah because you keep on saying non sensical things lol

I demonstrated how what you said was a contradiction, and now you're talking about some statement in context of your previous example, which has nothing to do with what i demonstrated

""A theologian presumes a god before the axiom"" I simply demonstrated this statement to be wrong as its a contradiction

So first we started with a specific example

yes, and then I told you to describe the thing you're talking about yourself, since if you understood it properly, you'd be able to describe it without relying on non sensical examples. Which you did. And then i rebutted your explanation and exposed it as a contradiction

What's not clear, i dont understand

This was all in relation to the specific axiom of wanting the betterment of people. This axiom cannot be followed by an axiomatic belief in the god or else the god wouldn't be an axiom, which it neccessisarily needs to be

When you say it cannot be followed, are you saying god predates it, or comes after it?

Well wait, that's not nonsensical. This is a perfectly good example to investigate an internal inconsistency

Alright i understand what you mean now. Well, again you keep on presupposing this atheist talking point as if there is no proof for the existence of god. Which is evidently false

This now, is a clear explanation, your previous example was non sensical

It's not nonsensical, it's a specific example. If you want an even deeper example I can only dive so far

mate, did you read what I said?

"I understand waht you mean now" and then a response to your assertion

I never demanded an example, i demanded an explanation.

Regardless, as i said

This presupposes that god is an unjustifiable belief, which is untrue

Here's a deductive argument for the existence of a god

When you say athiest do you mean anti theist atheist or agnostic?

"when you say atheist do you mean atheist"

.....

Yes, when i use the word atheist, I'm referring to atheists

Its a talking point both of those types use

Change occurs
Change involves the actualization of potential
Something cannot both be in a state of actuality and potentiality in the same respect
in order for something to be reduced from potentiality to actuality, something already actual must've existed and actualized it
there cannot be an infinite cycle of change
Therefore there had to be something unchanged, pure act, absent of any potency

Here's an argument for god