Hell

[Matthew]

I would like to ask a bit more broadly on how it is you conclude that your belief in your idea of a god is a foundation for anything else, be it logic, morality, meaning, human rights, or whatever.

The understanding that God is a "foundation" comes from the notion that God is a necessary being and the Creator. Given these things, everything that exists either does so because of God's nature, character or (at least ultimately) His will. Very, very broadly, I think the categories we cannot help but think in (those of being, logic, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics...) can be shown to have a direct correspondence of some sort (which may be fleshed out in different ways) to God's attributes, who God is and God's purpose for Creation as taught by the Christian Scriptures.

As for how I come to the conclusion that the Christian metaphysic is correct, I have said before that I do not reason to God but from God. I accept the Christian epistemological account of belief in God as basic (as made possible by God's self-revelation) and from that basic belief that the Christian metaphysical account of the existence and nature of the world (contingent beings, laws of logic, knowledge, morality, beauty, etc.) is true. I would reject the Christian metaphysic if it were demonstrated either that the Christian metaphysic is inconsistent or incoherent, or if a non-Christian metaphysic adequately explained the existence and nature of the world.

---

I just can't think of any premise I could rationally believe that involves the supernatural (the invisible, unmeasurable, intangible, etc.)...

You already do, as demonstrated by your use of argumentation when discussing me. You believe that human beings have an intellectual obligation to be rational and that there are such things as laws of logic that we must abide by in order to have a rational discourse. Are intellectual obligations or laws of logic visible, measurable, tangible?

---

All beliefs must be scrutinized. Foundationalism I take to be almost certainly false because it simply falls into special pleading.

Since when is it a principle of foundationalism that basic beliefs can not be "scrutinized"?