Silly Atheists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe that explains why many times theists find themselves at odds with atheists. Not every question can be evaluated with only the brain's left hemisphere.

What other methods and tools do you recommend, that are as demonstrably as reliable as demonstrable evidence and valid and sound logic for evaluating existential claims?

You are trying to limit the range of questions to your tools of inquiry. To what kinds of evidence would you refer when the question at hand is the value of human life?

---

I have given up on the burden of proof debate. The debate assumes that that people gain knowledge from the ground up…starting with self-evident truths and reaching conclusions after building a tight chain of logical arguments. But people do not start with self-evident proofs. They are dropped into the middle of life and must work both backwards and forwards at the same time. The wise write life’s philosophy with a pencil. One end has a lead. The other end has an eraser.

Am I to assume you've now given up on the Ontological Argument, then? Or am I to simply chortle every time I see you praise its use in the future?

I don't think I've ever praised an ontological argument although I find them interesting. Mostly I respect the cosmological ones.