Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

When I asked you to justify the laws of logic you said you didn’t have to because you use them because you like the results. This is a completely arbitrary answer. What is to stop someone from giving the exact same answer if they believed in a law of logic that stated “God necessarily exists”? Your answer would do nothing more than lead to complete relativism concerning the laws of logic.

OK, maybe I went too fast.

I said I use logic, reason and science because it works. I choose rationality over magical thinking. I do not need to justify that choice. If you choose magical thinking, be honest enough to say so and go live in an Amish community or be a hermit or live some other lifestyle that better suits you.

This is not to say that I believe you can make up your own rules for logic. Rules of logic, principles of mathematics, laws of science, etc. are what they are not because someone made them all up but because they were discovered.

Are you catching the distinction yet?

I am starting to think you have missed the point of the last 42 pages. The point is that ... [long paragraph full of bullshit]

Yeah, I understand you perfectly.

I never said anything about an invisible sky daddy, if you wish to have a discussion keep the question begging epithets to a minimum.

The ancient Hebrew word for "sky" and "Heaven" are one and the same. Consequently, Genesis 1:8 can be faithfully translated either as "Yahweh called the dome sky" or "Yahweh called the dome Heaven".

The Judeo-Christian god is referred to as a "Heavenly Father" (even by Jesus no less). "Daddy" is an affectionate term for "father".

The NT says that "Yahweh is a spirit" and that faith is the conviction of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1).

Unseen Heavenly Father = Invisible Sky Daddy

Don't whine because I'm not being respectful.