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

Presuppostions When I asked you what your epistemology was on youtube, this is what you said, "As for my epistemology, I would assert that truth as we know it can come from naturalism. However this is not an absolute truth and that the absolute truth of anything is unknowable. I would defend these positions based on several current theories as we understand them (evolution, quantum, etc.)" And then to clarify, I asked you If you believed that we gain knowledge from observation of the natural world, and you responded with, "Natural presupposes that knowledge is gained from observation, it can not prove or deny it. Nor can it prove or deny that the universe exists nor that even if it does we observe it as it exists. These are just presupposed, there is no way to﻿ test if the knowledge gained is absolute nor universal." All Im trying to point out is that you have your own presuppositions. You have a worldview that you didn't prove or conclude, but you actually presupposed. And that MY worldview that Im presupposing is the antithesis of yours. Morality In my worldview, the reason why morality always existed and is experienced by everyone is because everyone (even people who's never heard of the God of the Bible) has a God imbedded conscience. The written word is not the only source of our knowledge of God's moral standards. In your worldview, on the other hand, it can't be accounted for. Atheists are just borrowing the Christian worldview when they appeal to a moral standard that they think applies to everyone, either that or they are just pressing they're OPINIONS on others. You didn't answer the actual question though. On what ground can you or anyone who does not believe in moral absolutes, call a rapist evil? Yes. Anything that God has done, commanded, will do and will command is moral. Just like everything that Light has emitted, and will emit I will automatically call light. The Christian assertion is not "because this book or voice says so" The assertion is, because the God of the Bible is real. He is our creator and we are his creatures and He made a covenant with us that we are breaking. The Christian is asserting what he is claiming as reality, he is not just using scare tactics. So I boils down to either the Christian is right and God who made moral laws exists so we MUST obey him, or the unbeliever is right and there are NOT moral standards, its all just made up a lot of people who BELIEVED that this is the best way to live, so we need to press it on even the minority of the population who disagree. Logic So your view of the laws of logic are just, man made frameworks or tools to solve problems. You also claim that there are different CONTRADICTING systems that you can choose from, and there is no right answer. And you're also saying that we CREATE these system when we run into a problem that we can not solve? This is my view of the laws of logic, (wikipedia) "The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based. The rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy. They are laws that guides and underline EVERYONE'S thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc" Question, So whenever one says something or someone is being "illogical" which system of logic are they talking about? That "illogical" something or someone could just be using a different system of logic that contradicts the other one. We do know the nature of reality, that is how we've been able to make accurate predictions everyday, this is how we are able to function correctly everyday. For example, we know that if a car is moving towards you, It is CERTAINLY the case that the car is moving towards you, and if it does not stop or turn, it will hit you. You can't try to use a contradicting system of logic to deny that the car is gonna hit you. You have to abide by the ONE reality that we all know. Those who don't are called mentally insane, we don't say, "He's using a different system of logic" As you can see I nee denied that there are other systems of logic, but all they are really are systems that are claiming to be MORE ACCURATE than the classical laws. They ARE NOT alternatives. But like I said I can argue that EVERYTHING can be reduced so that these systems are not at all necessary. What I was trying to say about Fuzzy logic is that every thought or proposition can be reduced to a binary statement if we make the definitions more specific. For example. "It's cold." We can make that statement absolute if we define "cold