Interestingly, this also describes all of math, logic, and philosophy.
One of the more interesting axioms or assertions is whether there exists free will, which is, by any interesting definition, a supernatural entity.
Math is based on fundamental global laws which exist and can be checked from everyone and they can come up all with the same math.
We could isolate a baby and it could create the same math while it couldn't create the same religion.
Isolating a human is analogous to removing oxygen. Few would argue that someone brain dead could create anything.
My comparison is based on sciencse vs. fiction. 1+1 = 2 is a reality which works in german, africa, usa and everywhere else. There might be a difference on how those symbols (1, 2...) look like but the axiom is true and valid and is discoverable.
In religion its not.
Concept of god exists but it looks different depending on your believe. Multiply gods, one god, good god, bad god...
Even the stuff written down is based on someone who wrote it down and still people interpretate it totally different.
Never seen someone implying they are right that 1+1=3 if the interpretation of 3 is not 'next after one'.
That said, the Peano axioms seem less nebulous that the varying axioms relating to the existence of god, as that concept can change so much from person to person.
An isolated baby could derive simple math but also similarly deduce there is a greater entity out there.
Whereas the axioms of math will be substantially similar to the point that any modern mathematician would recognize it. We see this on ancient tablets where folks were calculating the square root of 2. Or any of the cultures all around the world that had no significant contact with one another that deal with pi. Sure we'll see base-12 number systems as with the Babylonians or base-20 as with the Maya, but the underlying principles and lessons are largely IDENTICAL.
The worlds of math and the metaphysical could not be more different in that regard. Rather than being a very shallow statement, it is one of the most all-encompassing and profound in all of human history. It gave rise to the principles of the scientific method: humans are biased, so multiple people performing the same steps should come to the same results and predictions made based on those results should yield their own repeatable consistent results.
I had a discussion about this topic with a more hard core christian: I said 'look if it is a good god, it doesn't even matter if i worship her right?' and he said 'nope, its written that you have to worshop'.
So one believe doesn't equal to another believe.
Your underlying base changes based on your believe.
"An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments." this is not true for two religions being created independently from each other while this is very well true for science.
https://m-g-h.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf80...
How so? I can think of at least one interesting definition by which free will is a perfectly good physical process going on in human brains, not supernatural at all.
Depends on which definition of free will you are using. Some definitions are compatible with determinism.
Also, even if we go with a non-deterministic definition of free will, "non-deterministic" is not the same as "supernatural". Quantum mechanics is not deterministic.
Which is totally fine, as long as people accept that God exists the same way math exists.
Many do accept that love exists in the same way math exists.
Like the CAP theorem, you can only have two without substantial compromise.
When ancient texts list God as Love, they note that Love is an act of (free) will (free will being considered a supernatural entity, even today).
Free will is placed high on the hierarchy, which has interesting consequences. E.g. humans are free to do horrible things, and are free to choose not to love. If humans had no free will and were all instinct, there would be no love.
Your explanation makes it out that free will is inherently prone to evil and suffering. If so, that would make free will somewhat inherently evil even though it arises from God. Strikes at the heart of omnibenevolence.
Either there's a limit to his ability or a limit to his goodness. No amount of hand waving can remove that.
If He is all good but can create creatures that corrupt his good works… You see the logical conundrum there, right?
I would understand if you don't WANT to see it. It feels wrong to see it. But it's there if you're being honest. You can ignore it. Many do. It's still there despite any aversion to it.