Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.

I didn't say my stance needed no justification. I said belief in God necessarily requires no proof. It's quite simple. And a common concept I think. A very quick google got me this: http://www.trinitychickasha.org/articles/1020f.html
Knock yourself out.

Well it took about two seconds to pinpoint the faulty reasoning in the article you provided in the link. The article deals with the rebuttal of a strong moral claim (“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”), not with the technical rules for rational argument that require justification for expressed truth claims offered as part of that rational argument. Many theologians sought rational argument and accepted that this implies a burden of proof. The belief as such does not require justification as I stipulated earlier, rational argument about it does.

ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??)

I made a new word. Hope you didn't mind. Pedant! :p

Well, I think you are fighting some personal windmills here. I am not a native english speaker and I could not decide on the right spelling of the word ludicrousy, and expressed my frustration about it between brackets. That's all. No reason for ad hominem.