Origin of Articles

[Tobie]

The answer, of course, is that presuppositional nonsense isn't about understanding anything. It's about finding a reason to justify a belief that you already held before you even got started. Like most other canned apologetic philoso-babble, you start with the conclusions of your faith and try to find a way to work back to it.

The point you keep missing in your quest to invent evidence where none exists is that logical rules and scientific laws are not "things" nor are they mysterious forces that require the existence of a divine hand to maintain them. There is no magical power that prevents you from contradicting yourself nor is there some angel that stops you from creating or destroying energy or matter. They are nothing more than observations of reality and our way of measuring them. They no more shape our reality than a ruler creates distance.

Your demands that we justify why we use logic or science can be paraphrased into "I demand you figure out a reason why we figure things out without using the process to figure things out."

Why do we need to provide you an answer at all? In the first place, you've asked an absurd question, that we figure out why we figure things out without using a process to figure things out. In the second place, not all preferences require any justification.

If I were to tell you "I like strawberry ice cream" and you ask me "why" and I tell you "I like the sensory inputs it leaves on my tongue" (I like the results it produces), this is a perfectly valid reason as far as personal tastes go. If you tell me "Well, I don't like strawberry ice cream" I will tell you, "Well, don't order it then."

What you haven't realized is that everyone has a worldview through which they interpret evidence. Not too many analyze their own personal worldview or even think they have one. The origins debate is a philosophical one. That's how your lack of justification for your beliefs are being exposed.
In order to have knowledge then you must have justifications for the preconditions of intelligibility. If not then your beliefs are as arbitrary as a child believing Santa is coming down the chimney on Christmas Eve. The child acts upon their beliefs by putting milk and cookies out but has no RATIONAL reason to believe so.

The evolutionist can't give RATIONAL justification for the law of uniformity, laws of logic, morality, etc... It is then arbitrary like Santa Clause.

As far as your strawberry ice cream analogy. If science and logic worked like people's taste buds then I guess science and logic wouldn't exist. It would all be personal preference and that would destroy science and logic.

There have been a fair few rational attempts to explain morality through evolution. Also, why does it make evolution wrong if an evolutionary scientist cannot tell you exactly why the laws of logic are what they are? They are two completely different topics.

DeistPaladin did not say that his strawberry ice cream analogy was referring to science or logic at all, it was referring to personal preference.

All you've shown is that you have a love of strawman arguments, not that evolution is wrong.