Non-Christians and the laws of logic.

It seems as though you have assumed for the purposes of this argument that the Christian God exists. Okay, let's roll with that. " I start with God's existence. If you don't, you're reduce to using rap lyrics to try and defeat your opponent. Which is pretty hilarious. "Pro offers an abductive argument as an explanation of his observation that the laws of logic exist" Actually no I offered a Transcendental Argument. " I will provide a convincing deductive argument showing that my opponent's claim is false, then I will provide a more convincing abductive argument that accounts for the laws of logic. " This is after you evaded all the questions asked of you. "This argument's conclusion is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction, one of the laws that my opponent claims is based on the very character of God. Yet, the premises do not contradict Christian theology regarding the nature of God. " I don't reduce God down to human categories and rationality. We know humans can't be both mortal and immortal. But how about God? Jesus had the power over life and death. Jesus was immortal. The body he took on was mortal. However, After his resurrection he was raised with an immortal body. My point is God informs our rationality. We don't inform his. In spite of my objections you went ahead and attempted to use the logic you have no idea about. As we will see later from your circular non-explanation. You are going to have to show that God can't unite himself with a human body. If you want your argument to hold any weight. "Surely my opponent agrees with all three of my premises. Would he deny that Jesus is both man and God, a key profession of every Christian? Would he deny that all men are mortal? Surely not. And by no means can he deny that God is immortal. Accepting these premises, then, means he must accept the conclusion, as the valid form of the argument itself guarantees that if one accepts the premises to be true, then one must also accept the conclusion. " No, I don't agree. My postion is that God is the foundations of arguments. Therefore, I don't reduce him to mere syllogisms. "The nature of the Christian God, then, does not explain the existence of the laws of logic. In fact, the Christian God's characteristics violate the laws of logic. It would seem, then, that the non-Christian has an automatic advantage over the Christian when seeking to account for the laws of logic, because at least the non-Christian follows them. " Follow what? Something you have no idea about. As we see later from your circular non-explanation. In fact something just struck me. Here you claim to follow logic but later we see you don't. So, do you follow logic and don't follow logic? This is clear violation of the law of non-contradiction. "A more convincing abduction: "That's just the way it is. "[1] That's right. The laws of logic are the way they are because they are the way they are. This more convincingly accounts for the laws of logic because of the following:" A classic circular non-explanation. Is this logical? "It's simpler. It does it not violate Occam's razor by assuming unnecessary entities. As opposed to "God exists and the laws are modeled after his character. " Well, Occam's razor needs to be established first. Unless you take for granted that his razor actually works. "It's more testable: One can easily test whether or not the laws of logic are indeed the laws of logic. One cannot, however, test whether or not the laws of logic were modeled after God's character. One can only presupposed His existence and infer. " Ok, what are the laws of logic? "It's more likely: After all, "that's just the way it is" has been true every day for as long as anyone can remember. So, arbitrary circular non-explanations have always been true? "It's more consistent with previously well-established beliefs. It's pretty well-established that the laws of logic are the laws of logic. It is not well established that God even exists, let alone that his character was the mold from which the laws of logic were crafted. " Well, besides that you evaded all of my questions, your "explanation" doesn't explain anything. You tried to justify logic with non-logic which is quite a feat. That's my point you can't account for logic without reducing yourself to irrationality. The biblical claim is that God can't violate his nature which you claimed he did. I say he didn't because God didn't die. If God has the power over life and death, then your argument doesn't apply to Jesus. And Christians believe he does.