Origin of Articles

[Angrboda]

The best way, imo, to deal with these kind, is to give them what they want, give them all their assumptions, and see where it leads.

Let's assume the laws of logic depend on God for validity. Can we prove that God exists? We can't assume God exists, or else the argument would be circular. And since we must be neutral in our assumptions, and since the validity of logic depends on assuming God, we must assume, therefore, that logic is unreliable. Without logic, the presuppositionalist cannot demonstrate God, or really anything.

Therefore, since the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, because all human reasonings are unreliable, we have no reason to believe in God, the bible or anything. We can believe on faith, but since human reasoning is unreliable, it's impossible to tell which God or which reality to have faith in.

Under pressupositionalism, "All is Maya." All is illusion. There is no truth. Not even for the presuppositionalist.

Right on you have to assume logic before you can use it.
The christian can account for the laws of logic while other worldviews can't. You should do more research on circular arguments.
[/quote]

Hah! I should do more research on circular arguments. That's rich.

Okay, I'll humor you. Let's accept as given that the existence of God can account for the laws of logic. (Is there anything the postulation of an omnipotent being can't account for? Sounds tautological.) Okay, God is sufficient to account for the laws of logic. But is God necessary and sufficient for the laws of logic. I will propose the existence of Thwarb. Thwarb, as a consequence of its existence, results in the existence of valid laws of logic in universes. Thwarb is not a god. Therefore, an atheist can believe in Thwarb without violating their worldview. And since Thwarb by its definition results in laws of logic, it is sufficient to explain the existence of laws of logic in this universe. Therefore, if Thwarb exists, your God is not necessary to explain the laws of logic. In order to demonstrate that your God is both necessary and sufficient to explain the laws of logic, you'll have to demonstrate that there is nothing that either is Thwarb, or functions like Thwarb. Until you do, all you've demonstrated is the sufficient part. In order for your God to be required to explain the laws of logic, you also have to prove that he is necessary.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

Not that I don't expect another bollocksed up mishandling of logic out of your presuppositionalist dogma... However if you fail to prove that God is necessary, you have failed. And suggesting that we have to demonstrate Thwarb is not adequate. I may not know what Thwarb is. I may even suspect Thwarb doesn't exist. The universe, and any Thwarbs in it, don't have to lie in my imagination. Before the germ theory of disease, people may not have known how disease was transmitted; their ignorance of the mechanism is not evidence that there was none. Likewise, my ignorance of Thwarb is no evidence against its existence, and until you disprove Thwarb, your God remains only one possible explanation. And that possibility gets you nothing. It was possible disease was transmitted by immaterial spirit plasma; that possibility doesn't make spirit plasma the cause of disease, just as the possibility of your God causing logic doesn't equate with the fact of him having caused it. And just how do you know God needed to cause logic if it weren't for Thwarb? Where's your evidence that God — and by God I presume you mean shri Kali Devi, she who destroys — what makes you think she was responsible for logic? Granted there are 1,101 names of the divine goddess, and I haven't read them all, but I don't remember anything of that sort in the Vedas. Oh well. If you tell me it was Kali's will, I guess I have to believe you.