I’ve been thinking lately, about the idea of the Absolute, you know, in an abstract sense: the Origin of all, the monad, the axis mundi, the metaphysical first cause; God, if you will.
I have this notion that if one embraces the idea of an existing absolute with enough conviction they may very well realize the presence of such an entity, perhaps, even, on a daily basis. In which case, one questioning such an existence would have to concede that for the believing individual the Absolute does, indeed, exist.
I suppose if I were to assume the position of the doubter, I could argue our believer is mistaken and has deluded herself into believing something that isn’t real, that simply doesn’t exist. But, since proof of such a position is not to be obtained, the ensuing argument would be futile, because the fact is the believer believes absolutely in the Absolute. And, as vehemently as I might point out the lack of empirical or logical justification for their belief in an Absolute the more vehemently I will become absolutely convinced I’m right in my denial of the Absolute.
But, then, doesn’t my belief that absolutely there can be no Absolute become a belief in an Absolute?
I wonder if that’s the game the pre-suppositional apologists play.