Moving the discussion from the other thread to this new one, since it's gone way off topic from the OP of the original thread.
"Need evidence" for what, exactly?Ah, so presupposing does not need evidence?
-- what "evidence" led you to presuppose @Clete provided no evidence for his truth claims?You provide no evidence to back up your truth claims.
Look in a mirror.Nice try, you talk in circles.
Nice try, you talk in circles.I think within a rational framework because that is the way consciousness works (most of the time).
Indeed, because God created us that way.the rational frame work is the way the human brain is put together.
Nice try, you talk in circles.It has evolved to be that way.
Indeed, how did you?How did I assume fixed immaterial moral laws to frame a question?
You playing devil's advocate would pose far more of an intellectual challenge to me than the alternative but sadly, you're quite right, my post was intended to be aimed at Avajs.Judging from certain contextual clues, I think you may have accidentally replied to my post while meaning to reply to @Avajs.
...then, again, @Clete, maybe you did it deliberately, hoping perhaps to bait me into playing "devil's advocate" on behalf of @Avajs. But, observing through his posts the workings of the mind of @Avajs, it seems it would be more realistic to play "dust devil's advocate" for him.![]()
Saying it doesn't make it so.Nice try, you talk in circles.
People who attempt to refute the argument I've made seem to always do this. The form yours has taken is particularly silly because you just one sentence earlier accused me of talking in circles!I think within a rational framework because that is the way consciousness works (most of the time).
Saying it doesn't make it so!the rational frame work is the way the human brain is put together. It has evolved to be that way.
I explained explicitly how you did so and have done so again above. Copy/paste these posts into Chat GPT and ask it to dumb it down for you, if that's what it takes.How did I assume fixed immaterial moral laws to frame a question?
Do you even understand what the word "presuppose" means?Ah, so presupposing does not need evidence? You just presuppose because--? To paraphrase Allen Iverson "Evidence! We talkin' about Evidence!!!!
What I provided was an argument showing that evidence cannot be recognized as evidence without presupposing the existence of God. Thinking itself, the very act of cognition, including the perceived need for, investigation and recognition of evidence is a series of actions that could not happen in a universe created by the random activity of mindless materials."Need evidence" for what, exactly?
When you presupposed this "truth" claim of yours:
-- what "evidence" led you to presuppose @Clete provided no evidence for his truth claims?