Yes, a belief in the betterment of people would require the extrapolation of what that means, but to follow that with a god is to neccessisarily presume the god before the betterment of people, resulting in that axiom being ungrounded and being a follow if the axiom of the god. Like I said, if it were more modern and was capable of change, I wouldn't mind as much, but that's not we typically talk about when we say religion

What the hell does any of what you just said mean lol, this is an epitome of a word salad
You just basically said "if its contrary to my axiom, its not solid"

No, I used an example of an axiom being ungrounded by the religion

Your example was terrible, just describe what you mean yourself instead of bringing up non sensical examples

Is this hard to understand?

You tell me, if you understood it you could just explain it instead of bringing up non sensical examples

A theologian presumes a god before the axiom

Then its not an axiom if there is a "before", before the axiom

An axiom is the most foundational fundamental core to your belief

Which is unjustifiable

Exactly

if there's something prior to it, its not an axiom

which is my point

What??

It's not a well-grounded axiom

I just rebutted your sentence

My point is that its not an axioms

If there's something prior to it

You interrupted me

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