I suppose you have to keep telling yourself that.
I suppose you have to prove argument 18 is false.
I have no idea who these Xtians are.
Who cares. I am under no obligation to provide evidence from only xtians you know personally. The fact is I made a statement and it is directly supported by 2 very well known xtian authorities.
However you cite a US based protestant Christian websites and make a broad and sweeping claim about these Xtian characters.
The sources I cite are impeccable.
Getting past the fact that you can't tell the difference between Xtians and Christians
I abbreviate for efficiency.
you cite Got Questions which takes the sane approach and makes an evidentiary based conclusion, that does not impose a rule:
In the absence of independent philosophical and/or scientific evidence for the existence of a universe-ensemble, the concept remains nothing more than radical metaphysical conjecture.
They seem to be taking a very rational approach without declaring non-existence.
You intentionally mislead. The quote I gave said
There are several fundamental problems with this proposition, the key problem being that it is both unnecessary and ad hoc. There is no good scientific reason to think that we reside in one universe within a multitude of parallel universes. There is also no reason to think that there should be a mechanism for generating such universes, each with its own fundamental constants and values.
post #49. Got Questions says flat out there is one universe.
Answers in Genesis, which you intentionally left out because it directly contradicts you said
There is no “multiverse.” This idea is based in atheistic, naturalistic beliefs about the origin of the universe, not on the eyewitness account of history God has given us in his Word.
In proposition 5 you assert a different universe than the one we live in for the sake of your argument as you state:
If principles of logic are not logically necessary, then God could have arranged matters such that the principal laws of logic were different.
Since you are entertaining the idea of what God "could have" done, you are supposing a different universe than the one we live. For example: on what basis do you affirm that the laws of logic remain the same if if time jumped randomly and didn't flow smoothly, or in a uniform direction, or if the speed of causality slowed down over distance traveled, or if there were more than the 4 dimensions as the string theory proponents theorized back in the day?
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. NOWHERE in the argument, not in P5, NOWHERE do I ever explicitly say, nor do I imply a different universe. Omnipotence, remember that load of nonsense? If god created logic he could create whatever logic he wanted in this current universe. Thus the current basic principles of logic, if god exists, could have been different from what they are. But no one wants to admit this, because no one can even in theory, think of how they could be different. Thus the contradiction between what xtians claim god is and does and what reality we see with our own eyes. The conclusion is fully supported: "Hence logic is not dependent on God, and any God said to obtain such a property cannot exist."
If God arranged things differently (or if random chance arranged things differently), there is no reason to assume the laws of logic would be the same. Your claim is false regardless of the origin of the universe.
The argument talks about the laws of logic in this universe. It even gives examples, China and New Zealand. Did you think they were in other, unmentioned universes?
We have a new batch of logic, that appears to be equally bad.
I have a new batch of your observations, that appear to be equally bad.
The logical leap from the idea that if things can't be "known with certainty" to therefore "human knowledge is impossible" is rather preposterous and in defiance of observed reality.
Human knowledge is based on logic and reason. When a proposition is considered, and you are determining whether it is true or not, you use logic. For example if someone said "I was in London and Paris simultaneously" logic would say no and the proposition denied as truth. If god created logic and logic is simply the whim of god, then of course the validity of logic is unknown and all human knowledge is impossible, as we are all potentially using false logic to determine truth values of propositions.
You want "observed reality". Excellent. I want it too. You tell me how this could ever be false. I'm not asking for an actual example. I'm making it easy on you. Just in theory tell me how this could ever be false:
"If A=B and B=C then A=C"
There you go, observed, self evident reality. Explain it.
The fundamental assumption of the scientific method is that we know nothing with certainty even if "the basic laws of logic are true".
I am not doing science. This is an argument. A fundamental tenet of epistemology is that things can be known with certainty. Like I am certain you are wrong.
In this universe Human knowledge is doubling every 13 months (according to IBM) and contrary to your assertions, Human knowledge is demonstrably possible and is simultaneously propelled by the assumption that we know nothing with certainty.
If the evidence of something reaches the threshold of good standards of knowledge you believe it is true. If it easily surpasses the threshold then you believe it is certainly true.
