I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

No, i directly quoted you re this diifference - re: the truth of the theory of evolution. I specifically pointed out the difference beetween my quote and and yours (describing it as trivial). Anyone can go back and check this - therefore you are a LIAR. (Thou shalt not bear false witness)

Even in your own post, you quoted it as: "JPs argument can be likened to whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds", which is obviously a straw man, since my argument was whether the conceptual content of the theory such as described in the theory actually conceptually applies to reality (e.g. independently of human minds), exists independently of human minds or only exists in human minds.

Again, you repeat your assertions without actually engaging my argument. Neither of my arguments are about explaining how humans have come to know logical truth, but about the reality and nature of logical order. My (heterodox transcendental) argument is about explaining why any logical rules, laws, patterns, behaviours, or order applies to the natural realm to begin with, and the orthodox transcendental argument is about whether the logical order is transcendent. But neither are about any specific logical laws.

Then what IS your argument about?!?!?!?!?!?!?? It seemed to me to be focusing on moral and logical laws, now you say your arguments are " neither are about any specific logical laws.

The answer is in the very post you quoted and replied to.

Again, you repeat your assertions without actually engaging my argument. Neither of my arguments are about explaining how humans have come to know logical truth, but about the reality [origin] and nature of logical order. My (heterodox transcendental) argument is about explaining why any logical rules, laws, patterns, behaviours, or order applies to the natural realm to begin with, and the orthodox transcendental argument is about whether the logical order is transcendent. But neither are about any specific logical laws.

It fucking IS a first cause argument, and again

Fine, attack a first cause argument. But then you are not attacking my argument.

I invite everyone to look up the cosmological argument

There is no one "the" cosmological argument, but a large variety of arguments, who are all in the class of cosmological arguments because they are cosmogonical, but their course of argumentation will vary according to each one.

---

Do you believe it's possible for a man to be kind, gentle, honest, loving and caring without believing in God?

Yes. As I've said, since God is himself the truth, goodness, and love, anyone who nears himself to goodness, love or truth in accepting Gods graces which he pours on all of us, by acting in accord to them in his deeds and in his spirit, is nearing himself to God from my perspective - even if they, from my perspective, are ignorant of who God is, they can still echo some of what he is and what he wants in their actions and spirit.

---

Better (I would have said) to ask if he believes it is possible to be good, kind, loving, caring and moral without a god ever existing?

There would be no ethical reality, in that case, independently of the opinion of the person (the opinion of Hitler or Stalin, for instance) and such a universe would be beyond good and evil, as Nietzsche rightly points out.

---

(1) Morality is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or Knowledge)
(2) If there is no god, morality is not posssible
(3) Therefore god.

Again, an oversimplification to the point of being irrelevant to understanding the argument. If you want some of the real expositors and persons of transcendental reasoning, read Kant, Emerich Coreth, read Van Till, Plantinga, Gordon Clark, etc., but don't dismiss it because of either me or wikipedia's version of it.