Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

This is the fallacy of argumentum ex silentio, concluding that I cannot answer from the fact that I have not answered. Your affinity for fallacious reasoning is continually substantiated.

I see you still refuse to answer the question. Don't worry about it. We all know you can't because if there was any proof that your god existed, we'd have no need for either faith or apologetics.

Since you can't prove God exists, you simply assume that which needs proof in your attempts to "argue from God to logic", which is called begging the question.

You were right: you do not understand the fallacy of begging the question (Msg. 134). And the fact that you keep demanding proof that God exists demonstrates that you also do not understand the very arguments made in the presuppositional apologetics of Van Til, et al.—which in a thread dedicated to that makes your contributions a form of comedic relief. "Prove your axiomatic presupposition!" That is awesome. But nothing will stop you from hurling accusations of fallacies, not even when you mishandle fallacies or even fail to understand the very subject at issue. I appreciate the entertainment you bring.

Oh, I understand it quite well. Let me break it down how the mental shell game works.

Step 1. Start with a belief in your god and realize you need to invent some kind of proof or justification to support that belief.

Step 2. Ask some unanswered or abstract philosophical question like what is morality, why do we use logic, where did life come from, or how did the universe begin.

Step 3. When the skeptic doesn't know, say "GodDidIt" or "GodWillsIt".

Step 4. Define your god in such a way as to answer the question. "The very essence of morality is grounded in the very nature of God" or some such flowery but unsubstantiated bs. (Create your definition to suit your needs in order to arrive at the desired conclusion).

Step 5. Dismiss all the other manufactured gods and religions. Don't apply the same skeptical thinking to your own god or your own religion.

Step 6. Declare that you don't need to ask similar questions about your god that you've asked about the universe, such as "OK, what created God?" or "How do we know what your god wants or does is moral?". You can escape this scrutiny by once again making use of your contrived definitions specifically manufactured for this purpose. "Because God is the uncreated creator so obviously God doesn't need to be created because God is uncreated" or "Because the very nature of morality is grounded in the substance of God so obviously God can't be immoral because that would go against the nature of God."

Step 7. If the skeptic is annoying enough to pull out the Bible and start to expound on the irrationality and immorality of your god, you can create your own flimsy rationalizations, ranging from "taking it out of context" or as StatWal does, asking essentially "who are you to judge God".

The fallacious reasoning here is overwhelming.

• Preconceived idea with a search for justification to support it
  
• Contrived definitions of "God" created to suit the purpose of the argument
  
• The unsatisfying "GodDidIt" or "GodWillsIt" which really doesn't do anything to elucidate our understanding of what morality is, why we use logic or what our purpose is in life.
  
• Special pleading, in that the same critical thinking that dismisses other religious claims aren't applied to yours. Why couldn't this "god" just as easily be Zeus, Odin, Allah, Shiva or Nature's God?
  
• Special pleading in that your god is insulated from the same questions you ask about the universe. If Yahweh doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?
  
• Circular reasoning: "We know that Yahweh is good because Yahweh is good. Goodness is grounded in the nature of Yahweh so we know that Yahweh's nature is good. Goodness is defined as consistent with Yahweh's will so when we say "Yahweh is good" we mean "Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills."
  

You can type all the latin phrases you like. It's still merde torus.

---

Special pleading in that your god is insulated from the same questions you ask about the universe. If Yahweh doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?

This line of argument is a series of variations on a theme (what is morality, what is our purpose in life, why do we use logic, etc) but to cite an example specific to this application:

If you've decided that your belief in a god who justifies the use of logic doesn't need to be logically justified, why don't we save a step and simply say that the use of logic doesn't need to be logically justified?

-paraphrased from Carl Sagan