Awesome And Anarchic Web T00L

I think you also heard from atheists that in order to have a theistic argument, you have to prove your thesis instead of the atheist arguer because lack of belief is not a statement; but the argument of ‘God exists’ is. Alvin Plantinga tried to put the burden of proof on the shoulders of the atheist and I will also try to do that.

There’re transcendental arguments for the existence of God, am I right? These arguments try to prove that axioms atheists also have to use in order to argue are inconsistent with atheist’s ideas when we’re dealing with justifying them.

For example, an internet forum contributor has a nickname is called ‘GooseHenry’ argues that ‘there’s no possibility for an atheist to argue that apple will taste as an apple in the next year as well’. (a) Then, an atheist can’t account for the universality of logical rules.

I want to present a set of arguments to prove that atheists should justify that there’s no another universe inconsistent with logical rules in order to argue even for the lack of belief of God.

When you argue that there can only be a universe in a way to be able to be understood logically because of the nature of the world is reflected the nature of God who has an identity wholly logical axiomatically; then there’s no need to use any other arguments to justify the universality of logic to argue.

But if you’re an atheist, you also have to account for that there can’t be another universe can’t behave, be understood or be interpreted logically to argue for the universe we live in. Here are the arguments:

1-      In order to differentiate things logically and in the sphere of logical laws; firstly we have to prove that these things can be understood with our logical abilities and rules.

2-      If there can be another universe can’t be understood and interpreted logically; then you can’t differentiate our universe’s rules and the others’ rules; you can’t differentiate inside and outside.

3-      If we can’t differentiate ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, then we also can’t use logical laws for the universe we live in.

4-      Then, in order to argue logically in this universe, we have to firstly be sure that there can’t be a universe has an illogical nature –namely has no nature in normal terms- to argue for this universe.

5-      Christians argue that there can’t be an illogical-natured universe because of the very existence of God axiomatically.

6-      But atheists also have to prove that there can’t be a universe illogical.

7-      So, to argue even for the lack of belief, the atheist has to prove that there can’t be a universe illogical.

8-      It means, the atheist also has to prove something and share some of the burden of proof of the theist arguer.

Am I right? I’m waiting for your comments…