(December 9, 2015 at 9:47 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(December 9, 2015 at 9:41 pm)SteveII Wrote: That is not true. I would only have to consider God in the pool of explanatory options. Then you examine each topic and see what the argument or evidence indicates as a more probably explanation. I am not saying they will be conclusive. I am saying that in most cases, the preponderance of the evidence at the very lease indicates that belief in God is rational. It is only the atheist who has limited the pool of explanatory options to one thing: naturalism.
No the logical approach is to follow the evidence, your making up the answers you want to choose from, how is that not presuppositional?
Thank you for a reasonable discussion.
Putting God in the pool of explanatory options is not presupposing anything. You are free to debate the premises all you want. If you want to see them properly formatted and discussed with quotes from Dawkins etc., you can see several of them here .