Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

I don’t believe I have conversed with you on here before, nice to meet you.

Thank you. You as well.

You see though, right here you have borrowed from the Christian worldview, you made an appeal that people should be rational.

I don't believe I did use the word "should" but letting that go for a moment, do I understand you correctly when you say that making statements of "should" borrow from the Christian worldview? How exactly is the word "should" a Christian word or indicative of Christian thinking?

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?

Morality and our evaluations of it are rooted in our sense of empathy for one another as social animals. We build communities and depend on each other for survival. We therefore have, as a matter of evolutionary necessity, formed a social contract with each other. The exact fine print of each contract will vary somewhat between cultures but basic concepts like prohibitions of murder, theft, and other activities detrimental to a functioning civilization, are found uniformly.

This is why the ancient Hebrews weren't killing each other willy nilly prior to Moses' alleged presentation of the ten commandments. It's also why other cultures that follow other religions seem to understand that high rates of murder are not desirable.

2. There is no way to justify rationality (logic) in an atheistic universe, where did it come from? Why should we adhere to it?

Why do we need to justify the use of logic? To whom must we justify its use? Why do we need to determine where it comes from?

As for the "should" question, we choose to because it produces results. We wish to live in a rational society because we prefer the setting to one dominated by superstition.

I'm using bold emphasis to underscore that the preference for science and reason is a value judgment and matter of taste based on the results we see. If you wish to live in a society governed by superstition, this is your choice and there are places in the world that might suit you.

See above though for how you have borrowed from the Christian worldview in this very post.

I still don't grasp how you claim Christianity has ownership of deontological views of ethics and morality. Maybe you can elaborate further?

A deist would still have trouble justifying morality, logic, the uniformity of nature,

I've offered the naturalist justification above but even using "GodWillsIt", what makes Yahweh-Jesus superior to Nature's God?

and the reliability of one’s senses and memory,

Are we invoking solipsism here? I assume my senses and memory are accurate barring evidence to the contrary. Everyone else who is capable of functioning in the real world does so as well.

so I do not believe he/she can use presuppositionalism to defend their position.

I'm less concerned about what you believe as what you can rationally argue. I haven't seen any argument as to why I couldn't use presuppositionalism and apply it to Nature's God.

These things can all be and only be justified by God’s revealed word.

What if the only revealed word is the Natural Universe?