I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[amw79]

---

This is where we differ, and I say that developed cultural consensus provides authority to morality from which truths are developed.

You can apply exactly the same to logic, which is an evolved, developed, human cultural phenomenon, not a transcendent phenomenon. Cultural, moral and scientific consensus are how truths are arrived at.

Sure, it may provide some subjective authority by convention. It may be authoritative in the sense of societally subjective convention, just like Christian monotheism may be authoritative in the sense of societally subjective convention. It becomes no more epistemically authoritative for that reason, which is the only kind of "authority" I were speaking of. If you were to claim that it is epistemically authoritative by being subjectively (societally) so ad populum, then ou are arguing ad populum, an informal fallacy, which could be used to support a variety of other views that you don't subscribe to.

Aside from the above clarification, I have no problem with your epistemological argument, as it's pretty much stating the obvious.

Thank you for the intellectual honesty. Sometimes atheists will simply listen to what I say, without listening, and just dispute it no matter what because it comes from me.

As I say, I think the epistemological argument has little to say. Slimpy points out differences in worldviews from which no usable conclusions can be drawn.

Your aposterioritic argument is just a theologically wordier version of "there must be a 'first cause'", but simply positing that "Goddditit" may solve the 'first cause' problem for you, but is not evidence in itself, and MUST be backed up, as it's entirely unsatisfactory for non-theists.

I don't know what you mean with it solving the "first cause" problem .... for you. First of all, my argument doesn't built on the preconception of a "first cause". Secondly, are you implying with the "for you" that I present a logically coherent theism, or that it is simply a subjective abstraction which makes no sense?

---

The aposterioritic argument seems to me to be a 'first cause argument', albeit one which uses more metaphysical language, but if you'd like to rephrase it, by all means.... I'm saying that suggesting or asserting "goddidit" (i.e. the first cause) may satisfy you, but its an unsubstantiated assertion, which must be backed up by, you've guessed it - evidence. People have said "godddidit" to explain almost everything, for which science has ended up repeatedly correctly the religious view of the day by means of data and evidence.