Alright, so your responses just sort of angered me yesterday and I'm really trying hard to not respond so often when my response is more a reaction than anything else and so with that in mind, I'm going to post a new, more dispassionate response to your reaction to the argument I've presented. Here's goes nothin'....
You say that you "reject my presupposition," but rejection is not refutation. Your rejection is based on the claim that my presupposition is arbitrary, but that’s precisely what my argument
disproves. The Christian worldview is NOT just another assumption plucked from thin air; it is the
necessary foundation for rational thought. My argument demonstrates that in an atheistic worldview, logic is
necessarily circular, which is to say, irrational. But if irrationality is false, as you yourself must agree, and atheism is inescapably irrational, then atheism is false, and God must exist because His existence is the
rational necessity of the contrary. In other words, either God exists or He does not. If it is proven that the negative case is logically impossible then one must accept the affirmative case. As the fictional Sherlock Holmes would say, "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
You appeal to logic and evidence, yet you have not justified the validity of logic itself. If truth is based on logic, then tell me, on what grounds is logic valid in an atheistic worldview? How do you account for immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic in a purely material, non-thinking, chaotic universe? You cannot even begin to answer that question without
assuming the veracity of the logic you need to prove. That is
begging the question, a textbook case of circular reasoning. And if circular reasoning is irrational, which it is, then the very foundation of your argument crumbles beneath you.
Until you can answer this, which you never will (not for lack of trying but because it
cannot be done), you are borrowing from my worldview even as you try to argue against it. Every keystroke you make on your computer to type a response to my argument is one more bit of evidence against the atheistic worldview. In short, you refute yourself by virtue of showing up to argue at all.
