You're under the illusion that you gave a concise model of your world-view to being with, in reality it's a rather jumbled collection of refutations.
"Warm fuzzy" is a joke used to illustrate how vague your presentation of your worldview is, not some serious description of your beliefs.
As for this supposed 'intellectual viability' you've claimed, let's go over what I have gotten from you previously that you believe satisfies this.
1. Rationale: For you to use rationale does not make the belief rational. A rationale is simply the foundation for a belief or a system, that alone does not make the foundation rational. The assumption that the world was created by a giant serpent is the foundation for the dream time rationale, but the belief in dream time is not rational.
2. Being able to rationalise (the other word you are fond of) your beliefs is also entirely unimportant, Andrea Yates was also able to do this
Anyone can rationalise anything to themselves potentially.
And to say I agree with your logic is misleading, when we have assumed for the sake of argument that Christianity is true to look at the theology we have agreed on some things, so what? I have never came close to believing you have any kind of valid reason for believing the massive assumption that is at the foundation of your 'rationale'.
You somewhat seem to have a 'properly basic' belief, to reference Plantinga. Is that an accurate assessment of the state of your belief system?
"Warm fuzzy" is a joke used to illustrate how vague your presentation of your worldview is, not some serious description of your beliefs.
As for this supposed 'intellectual viability' you've claimed, let's go over what I have gotten from you previously that you believe satisfies this.
1. Rationale: For you to use rationale does not make the belief rational. A rationale is simply the foundation for a belief or a system, that alone does not make the foundation rational. The assumption that the world was created by a giant serpent is the foundation for the dream time rationale, but the belief in dream time is not rational.
2. Being able to rationalise (the other word you are fond of) your beliefs is also entirely unimportant, Andrea Yates was also able to do this
Anyone can rationalise anything to themselves potentially.And to say I agree with your logic is misleading, when we have assumed for the sake of argument that Christianity is true to look at the theology we have agreed on some things, so what? I have never came close to believing you have any kind of valid reason for believing the massive assumption that is at the foundation of your 'rationale'.
You somewhat seem to have a 'properly basic' belief, to reference Plantinga. Is that an accurate assessment of the state of your belief system?
.
