Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

If I had simply said “God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t”, then that would be an appeal to ignorance. Rather, I said that God exists because only His existence can justify the preconditions of intelligibility. Since you have been completely unable to justify the preconditions given your worldview my argument still stands. This is an internal critique of worldviews, not an external one.

Internal or external, you're claiming that if someone can't disprove your argument (which I have, but let that go) that the argument is true. This is an argument from ignorance.

Yes you did, by pointing out supposed logical fallacies in other arguments and attempting to have a discussion indicates you believe others should adhere to your own arbitrary views on logic which is completely irrational in itself.

No, actually the logical fallacies I'm identifying are not ones I made up. These are neither mine nor are they arbitrary.

Also, I never said "you should" do anything. If you wish to be irrational, just say so and be honest enough to admit it. Then I'll stop pointing out how fallacious your reasoning is since we'll all know you're not using reason. Not that we don't already know that anyway but we can make it official.

If the laws of logic are merely conventional, I could just as easily adopt my own and they would be just as logically valid as yours. So you say one thing but behave in a manner that indicates you really don’t believe what you claim you do.

So are you saying you wish to use logic or not?

If you do wish to use logic, then use it. These rules of logic are not arbitrary. They're used because they're shown to work. Just like I keep telling you, I like going with what's shown to work.

But hey, feel free to invent you own system if you wish. Go around saying "2+2=5". People will think you're a deluded idiot and you'll come to all the wrong conclusions but if that's you bag, knock yourself out.

Why do I have to do that? Are you implying there are some laws of behavior that are not merely conventional and would actually apply to everyone? I have not seen you give account for such things, you seem to believe everyone gets to just pick their own truths.

So are we moving from "we use logic because GodWillsIt" to "we are moral because GodWillsIt"? Fine.

Because it violates the social contract. You don't want sharia laws forced on you or Wiccan school teachers having your children pray to "the goddess". By the nature of the social contract, you agree not to inflict on others what you wouldn't want inflicted on you.

We as humans are empathic and community oriented animals. Morality is an evaluation of how we treat one another and how our behavior impacts the larger community, on which we depend for survival. We do not need an invisible sky law giver nor does one help us elucidate our understanding of what morality is.

I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here. It's like I've told you all this stuff numerous times before and you keep saying "Duh, me have better answer, MeGodWillsIt".