(August 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Possibly because the proposition of this line of "reasoning" is a grim reminder that the battle for a rational society is far from over.
I don’t believe I have conversed with you on here before, nice to meet you.
You see though, right here you have borrowed from the Christian worldview, you made an appeal that people should be rational.
1. When you use the word “should” you are making a moral statememnt, where do you get your authority to make a statement telling everyone what they should and should not do?
2. There is no way to justify rationality (logic) in an atheistic universe, where did it come from? Why should we adhere to it?
Quote: So we're going to add "shifting the burden of proof" to "special pleading" and "begging the question"? The burden is on you to demonstrate how I'm "borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it".We can have the burden of proof discussion later because I do not believe you can run from it as you have done here. See above though for how you have borrowed from the Christian worldview in this very post.
Quote:[Deism] is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the [Natural Universe] is divine revelation and claims to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-[deist]. In other words, presuppositionalists claim that a [deist] cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of [Nature's] God and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that [Yahweh may exist] and Biblical revelation [is] true.
A deist would still have trouble justifying morality, logic, the uniformity of nature, and the reliability of one’s senses and memory, so I do not believe he/she can use presuppositionalism to defend their position. These things can all be and only be justified by God’s revealed word.
