Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

Oh, I get it. Forgive my newness to this whole philoso-babble defense of Christianity. This is another variation on the "why use reason" argument. I'm seeing a pattern in all these apologies:

• "You can't account for morality but we can because GodWillsIt"
  
• "You can't account for why you use logic but we can because GodWillIt"
  
• "You can't account for how life began but we can because GodDidIt"
  
• "You can't account for induction but we can because GodDoesIt"
  

Same crap packaged in a slightly different way.

1. Ask an abstract question with no easy answer
   
2. Invent a contrived definition of your god, regardless of what scripture says
   
3. Use the contrived definition to answer your own question
   

I've already been all over why this is crap philosophy specially designed to work toward the preconceived conclusion that Jesus is Lord because you need to logically justify a belief that supposedly eschews the need for logical justification.

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?

Yes.

Other yet unknown factors are what must be proven to exist. Not that other yet unknown factors don't exist. You are playing the game of shifting the burden of proof and demanding your opponent prove a negative.