Ybe an atheist

[Angrboda]

I see.  Well since it wasn't actually logical, it wasn't a very good example, was it?

OH WOW you think your note quote was powerful enough to say that? I think you need to re-think.

If you want to debate the question, have at it. Otherwise this just appears to be another opinion without any real support.

Straw man.  Sarcasm, sorry added the need to   (see underlined). You can see it should have been there as in the consequent.
not a strawman I have no intention of knocking that down.

Still a straw man. Do you even know what a straw man is?

---

Here is a proof for G.

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

R = reasoning the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
G you know G.
G is the support for R and everything:
- thinking the future will be like it was in the past
-  why we call something good or evil
- Love
- logic
Bye for now tommorrow is Friday and I have to work early and so time is up.... its 12 am here Friday

I don't find your TAG argument at all persuasive, and it has been addressed in the literature (for example, Does Induction Presume the Existence of the Christian God?).

As regards induction, we evolved in an environment in which induction was a profitable strategy, for whatever reason. Our believing it may not be rationally justifiable, but that's not the question that is being asked, is it? Our faith in induction isn't a consequence of either God or rational justification, but rather is a reflection of our past. The argument you are making is asking why we believe that induction is reliable, and Martin's comments about validation are relevant here. Moreover, positing a God doesn't in and of itself overcome the objections to the justification for induction as that problem is related to the fact of having incomplete information, not from assuming uniformity. You can assume uniformity and the problems with induction remain.