Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Science doesn't just study what happened but also why. Knowing the whys of what happened in the past offers a model for what will happen in the future.

Science assumes the principle of induction is valid, so you can’t use science to justify the principle of induction, to do so would be begging the question.

Baring any discovery of other factors, the default assumption should be that what has happened will continue happen…

This would only be the case if there was an underlying uniformity in nature present; this of course is the very thing we are discussing so you are begging the question here.

(also see burden of proof, that something is assumed not to exist until we have reason to believe that it does)).

That’s not burden of proof, that’s an argument from ignorance. You contradicted yourself here, you said that we will assume the uniformity of nature exists until we see otherwise, and then here you said that something is assumed to not exist (so no uniformity in nature) until we have evidence that it does. Which is it?

On the other hand, saying GodDidIt, GodWillsIt or GodIsDoingIt offers us no understanding of the whys of it (to say nothing of the leap that this God must be Yahweh).

Actually it does give us a why; it gives a reason as to why we can assume the uniformity of nature exists. God revealed to man in Genesis that he will uphold creation in a consistent and predictable manner allowing us to make predictions and to gain knowledge. It has to be Yahweh because Yahweh is the only God that has revealed such a truth to us.

First of all, this is an argument from ignorance. We don't know and so you take that as license to say GodIsDoingIt. Why not just say we don't know. Second, proving a god doesn't necessarily prove your god.

It’s not an argument from ignorance at all, you saying that there could be some other God other than Yahweh who has not revealed itself to us is one though. My worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, yours cannot, the fact that you still assume it is true even though you cannot account for it is proof that my worldview is correct. You have to borrow from my worldview in order to even argue against it, that is not a good sign for your worldview.