A response to this website

[KravMagaSelfDefense]

I tried my best to reply to all requests. I did get to yours on logic...you don't have to lie about me not responding, you could have just said you didn't like the answer I gave. I'm afraid I don't have a better one, it is the basis of how we think. If you don't like it, don't use it. We'll argue using dead chickens next time.

Then your "best try" has been woefully inadequate. Answering the problem of universal abstracts such as laws of logic by saying, "...it is the basis of how we think. If you don't like it, don't use it...", is just begging the question. No-one's after an example of the mechanics of laws of logic. people just want a naturalistic explanation of why there are universal, abstract, unchanging laws of thought. If naturalism has a naturalistic account for everything then you should have no problem here. Saying, effectively, that "they just are" is no explanation at all and begs the question.

A very concise and powerful summary of my thoughts exactly.

[DannyM]

Most of these can be explained through evolution. (which I don't care to get into, seeing as I'm pretty sure most people here only accept what would fit their worldview)

So then give us an evolutionary explanation for the existence of laws of logic. You accuse others of accepting things through the lens of their own worldview while you yourself are accepting things only through the lens of your worldview: you presuppose an evolutionary explanation for laws of logic, without, I might add, providing any evidence for the claim.

As for logic, it was a found method, more than a created one, was the point I was getting at (I did find it difficult to defend logic using anything other than logic, I was giving this one up when I said if you don't like it use it, you don't have to be ***** about it)

Again, saying that logic “was found” is to make a non statement. Of course, if you want to use logic to justify logic then you are entitled to do so, since you cannot really proceed in any other way; other than dropping logic altogether. That’s okay. Trouble is you can’t really have a rational discussion about logic without contradicting yourself and your worldview. Now this is a vicious circle!

The fact is, without taking the affirmative (god doesn't exist I can prove it!) the burden of proof is not on me...this is a horrible understanding of some basic lessons in logic

Again you are attempting to invoke logic, this abstract entity that you have no rational foundation for given naturalism.

You guys seems to think god is by default the logical choice and anyone who disagrees needs to defend themselves (somehow prove a negative)

Not at all. Just show how you can account for the existence of laws of logic within a materialistic universe. No need to prove a negative here. It is only those who believe that the material universe is all there is who have to struggle to find explanations within the closed system of their own making.

This entire thread has been me defending a position which is the default position which needs no defending, to people who frankly, remind me of being in high school

Default position? How do you work that out? You think you a neutral? The Christian wants to say that God is the necessary first cause; the unmoved mover. The Christian posits an efficient and productive cause which brings the universe into being. But the atheist is faced with the dilemma of positing not only an immaterial causality but an efficient immaterial causality, which just seems absurd. Who’s standing on the rational ground here? It seems perfectly rational to say that it is the atheist who bears the burden, not the Christian.