Silly Creationist

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Well, I'm not going to sit here and list things that are 'universal constants'. How about you tell me the "Laws of Logic", instead? Just kidding. The Laws of Logic that you keep referring to are simply the name (in the Language of modern English, at that) that we have given to those things. Things like the Law of Identity... a thing is what it is. That is a universal constant. An indisputable truth. The Laws of Logic is simply the name we give those things that are nothing more than the unchangeable parts of the nature of existence.

---

So far I think we agree, so you agree they are immaterial, invariant, and universal?

---

I am saying that we form our views based on certain conditions . however the fact that we an come to these positions isnt proof of God like you seem to equate them too. .

---

Ok, well then could you please give me an account of where these conditions came from if we do live in a universe that is uncreated and ungoverned by God? You can limit it just to one of the preconditions or you can try to tackle all of them, either one works.

---

Statler, I'm fairly certain that just about any creator god can stand in the shoes left empty were we to just concede that god does in fact exist. Simply stating that your god is the only one isn't a convincing argument. You seem to be under the impression that the attributes given to the christian god are unique to the christian god....they aren't.

---

Then can you point me to another God that is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, has a divine nature that cannot contradict itself, created everything, owns His creations, upholds His creation in a predictable manner, gave man dominion over the rest of creation, gave man absolute moral codes to live by, instructs man to use his mind, instructs man to investigate His creation, is all good in nature, and is all just in nature?

---

Actually, I would argue that an atheist's epistemological foundation is more honest than a theist's, because we are willing to say we don't know, rather than leap to the conclusion God must somehow be involved. That's besides the point, because again you are missing my main argument. The only justification I need to make being an atheist is my disbelief in God.

---

Hey FNM,

You don’t agree that when Christians take this same approach we get criticized? I feel like if you are going to make assumptions, and use these assumptions to gain knowledge, your worldview needs to provide a basis for these assumptions. You don’t agree?
It seems more like we all agree these things are necessary in order to know anything, but the only worldview that seems to have a justification for these assumptions is the theistic one (mono-theistic at that). When you have to borrow from someone else’s worldview in order to argue against it, it is a sign that your worldview is deficient. Remember, I am just assuming you have an atheistic worldview because you are an atheist. It might help if you clarified exactly what your worldview is.