Proving God in 20 statements

[robvalue]

Nestor: I'm not really sure what you're asking me. I agree there are axiomatic assumptions that cannot be tested. Hopefully, everyone agrees on these when the debate begins, and they should be as few as possible.

If one party wants to put their conclusion in as a premise, then all they can do is make a case as to why this assumption is reasonable and necessary.

All I'm saying is you have to insert reality at some point when trying to learn about reality, whenever possible. We use abstract frameworks to model it, and we need to make sure our models are accurate. Otherwise you get the kind of wibbling we see on the forum constantly, which have no bearing on reality at all. (Or if they do, this cannot be demonstrated to even vaguely be the case.) Jumping back into solipsism (I'm not sure if this is what you refer to) is another tedious apologetic trick. Either we make the base assumptions together with the theist and then leave them be, or we might as well not even start.