(October 28, 2011 at 5:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It very much seems that your entire argument (in these last few posts) rests on the claim that you have given an account for the laws of logic, which you have not. It's been pointed out to both you and Ryft that the passages that you wish to use to do so are insufficient. If they were sufficient, than any god that claims to have set laws would be equally valid, which you refuse to consider (despite there being many such gods, many such texts, and enough words in each text so as to be made to say anything).
The fact that all of this has been explained to you, many many many pages ago, is why your argument is an ad naus.
Nope, this is a red herring. You are an atheist, so defend your atheism, not other people's theism. Your assertion that there are other gods who could account for the preconditions is incorrect, but even more importantly it is irrelevant since you don't even believe in these other gods. Stick to defending your worldview if you can.
