"You're borrowing from my worldview" and "The Christian worldview accounts for..."

[Adam Blackstar]

If there was a Hell, it would be too good for the apologists who have convinced Christians that these are good arguments.

Them: "My Christian worldview is the only one that coherently accounts for Logic and Morality."

Me: "I don't care about your worldview.  A worldview is just an explanation and has no bearing on what is actually true."

Them: "Ah, but how does your worldview account for Truth?"

Me: "Truth is just a word meaning something that comports with reality."

Them: "A-HA! But your materialist worldview can't account for intangibles like Truth.  Can you fill a bucket with Truth?"

Me: "Truth is a word, an abstraction, not a substance."

Them: "Then Logic is just an abstraction?  Are you saying Logic didn't exist before humans?"

Me: "Yes, because humans developed logic, but the reality it was built upon existed before humans."

Them: "So humans can change the laws of logic according to your worldview?"

Me: "Humans can make mistakes in logic but they can't change axiomatic reality."

Them: "Whose reality?"

Me: "Is there more than one?"

Them: "My knowledge of reality comes from revelation from God.  Where does yours come from?"

Me: "How does that work?  Do you just assume all of your opinions are a revelation from God?"

Them: "NO SIR, my arguments are perfectly reasonable within the Christian worldview."

Me: "I don't CARE about your worldview.  Please answer my question of how you know your opinions equate to divine knowledge."

Them: "The absurdity of the contrary.  My Christian worldview is the only one that accounts for Truth."

Me: "Fuck you."

[YahwehIsTheWay]

List of the logical fallacies this "argument" uses:

Argument from Ignorance: You can't explain the laws of logic, therefore GodDidIt
Argument from Incredulity: I can't imagine how else we could explain the laws of logic.
Bare Assertion: Yahweh's existence accounts for the laws of logic
Circular Reasoning: By assuming Yahweh's existence, we can account for the laws of logic, which is how we reason Yahweh exists.
Tu Quoque: Everybody has presuppositions. You believe in science. I believe in Jesus. So we're even. 
Special Pleading: None of the other gods account for the laws of logic.
Shifting the Burden of Proof: You can't account for the laws of logic.
Raising the Bar: Account for why we use reason without using reason.*
Non Sequitur: You don't know everything, therefore Jesus. 

* Science delivers the goods. "That's saying it works because it works which is circular reasoning". No, independent and repeatable tests isn't circular reasoning anymore than footnoting a book is circular because you're using a book to prove a different book. 

Also, treating the "Laws of Logic" as if they were a force in the universe as opposed to observations of how reality works is a faulty assumption. 

Finally, GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodIsIt, GodVerbIt doesn't help us understand anything.

[Chad32]

I've heard this argument before. I say that just because I agree with some of the things espoused in the bible, doesn't mean I agree with all of it. Overlap doesn't really matter much, because some of the most fundamental aspects of Christianity, as well as other religions, are things I just can't agree on.

[robvalue]

I agree! I like this shortcut:

"If your worldview involves me bowing to your leader, you can keep it, whether it's true or not."