The Christian God VS Everyone else: Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology.

"This is a clear assertion, now can this assertion be demonstrated or falsified or it is simply an assertion without evidence or an argument?" Yes, this is the Christian presupposition, and I've demonstrated that you also have your own presuppositions. I presupposed that the God of Bible exists, and my assertion was based on that. You're presupposing that God does not exist and that morality must be man made conventions. Now what Im asking here is which presupposed worldview can make sense of moral absolutes? Mine obviously does, while yours make moral absolutes impossible. Your worldview reduces morals to mere arbitrary opinions, which we have no valid reason to impose on each other. "The question was answered quite clearly.." No it wasn't actually. You couldn't provide a ground to why you would call a rapist evil. You've even admitted on youtube that if in the future, rape becomes accepted, it will then be considered moral. Your morality is merely the current majority opinion. The fact that people can make general moral distinctions even without the Bible does not answer the question or help your argument at all. All it does is prove Romans 2:14-15. "As there is no higher standard than God, and nothing to constrain it, in fact more than that, its actions are defining in nature, then all such laws are chaotic - they can be or can not be." Only if God is a self-contradicting, capricious, chaotic God. This is not the Christian worldview at all. God is described in the Bible as the eternally good, unchanging God of order. "If God commanded you to do X, would you do it, and further would you be happy to do it knowing it was moral?". X here of course is some act which is so extreme and vile that it the answer has to be no, but yet the as held to position has to be yes. The problem here is you're mistakenly asserting that we have the ability and authority to determine what is good and evil apart from, and unaided by, the one who revealed to us what good and evil is in the first place, God. When God told us what good was, we didn't examine it first to see if God was indeed right about what he is claiming to be good. That would make us equal with God. "...Tim Holt (The Euthyphro Dilemma)" God is eternally good. He was perfectly good before he commanded anything, being perfectly good he could only command goodness. Moral laws are the expression of God's very nature. They are not random or arbitrary commands that God picked out of a hat. But again, the problem stems from the wrong assertion that we are capable of determining for ourselves if what God has commanded are good or evil, we want to use a different authority (ourselves) to judge the ultimate authority (God). Another problem is the assertion that God could and would command something evil and tell us that its actually good. In other words, the assertion that God can lie. He can't. If He is the ultimate absolute standard of good then he has to be perfectly absolutely good, in other words "omni-benevolent". "There are multiple systems of logic, they have opposing tenants, and they are utilized as noted, references have been provided for the both the direct peer reviewed application and a literature survey. It generally means classical logic, and yes, non-classical systems are illogical in a classical framework." As you can see we only appeal to ONE system of logic when we are talking about truth/reality. We appeal to the one that comports with truth/reality. Any logic that does not comport with truth/reality is false, and does not exist in reality. Now you're gonna claim that Fuzzy logic for example contradicts the law of excluded middle. I disagree with that claim. Fuzzy logic is only needed if the definitions are not specific. For example, "That is a heap of sand" one would argue that you need fuzzy logic for that, but if you define "heap of sand" as a specific amount or weight of sand then the statement could only be true or false. "Would it really be asserted that simply because an example of classical logic can be cited that non-classical logics do not exist." I was merely stating that we do know something about the universe. The main axiom of our knowledge of the universe is that the laws of logic is absolute. This is why we assume the uniformity of nature, this is how we determine what is what isnt, etc. Show me a contradicting system of logic that can't be reduced to the classical laws but can be applied to reality. ie. show me something that is self contradictory, an apple that isnt an apple. If this is true then rewrite a fuzzy logic controller using binary logic. The paper is cited. Simply making the assertion really does not advance the argument, actually bring it to implementation. I can draw a pardoxical picture, that does mean it can exist in reality. Again, this is irrelevant. http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com... The problems can not be solved with classical logic and they require non-classical systems, this is in the interpretation of observed reality. If it is abandoned that logic is absolute as it describes reality, then what is the nature of the "absoluteness"? It does not confirm to observed reality but is still in what way absolute? The laws of logic are absolute as it applies in ALL cases. Without this, order and knowledge is impossible. Furthermore, the absoluteness of the laws of logic only makes sense in a Christian worldview. "Ok, so what observation(s) demonstrates this assertion (and only this assertion to be true) and what observation(s) would demonstrate it to be false. It is trivial to make an assertion which can not be falsified (see Russell's Teapot)" http://en.wikipedia.org...... The point here is what exactly is claimed, and can it be strictly demonstrated and falsified, if it can not, then how can it claim to be true where there is no way to distinguish it from a similar competing claim." The Christian God is hypothetically falsifiable since it has very specific claims and implications that can be refuted, unlike the existence of a flying teapot. Russell's teapot is actually the problem of the unbeliever. Russell's teapot can be applied to Russell's teapot. What reasoning can validate or falsify Russell's reasoning in his assertion? and what reason validates that reasoning? The Christian worldview's claim of divine revelation is the only one that does not result in an infinite regress. It would be circular if the argument was circular : "This we know because we have obtained it from the scientific method" -and- "What is known is what is gained from the scientific method" That is circular logic. Is this not the atheist position? However that is now how natural methodology is so applied. The basic tenants go back much further and can be seen from the Dialogues where Socrates asks what does it mean to know. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu....... Theaet. Knowledge is defined as a true assertion with a locus which is just to say that an argument must be able to be made for why it is held to be true. Note this has nothing to do with naturalism, at this level of meta-analysis the locus is undefined it can be natural or supernatural, it is unconstrained. The link didnt work. Since this is the last round for the first segment of our will be ongoing debate, I will close with this. You have yet to account for the validity of your morality, logic and epistemology. With out ending up with a circular, self-refuting assertion. And you have yet to present an argument against the coherency and validity of the Christian worldview. You've claimed that I have only made unproven assertions, but my assertions are proven by the impossibility of all other assertions. Unaided reason is both impossible and arrogant. God exists and revealed Himself to us. This is how we know what we know, that we are God's creatures and that we are sinners in need of a savior.