Thursday, October 15, 2020

This essay has been taken down

I have problems with foot notes that require extensive repair. I will re post on monday.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

The Thomas Reid Argument, or from Epistemic Judgment


(1) we trust perceptions that work for us in navigating the world

(2) we juge by criteria RCS

(3) RE fits this criteria

(4 )enables navigation

(5) :. we are warranted to trust RE as indicative

*We assume reality by means of a Jugement

*we make such jugements based upon criteria

*Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality.

The criteria: If our experiences are:


Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality.

VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument.

A. How do we Know the external world exists?

Philosophers have often expressed skepticism about the external world, the existence of other minds, and even one's own existence. Rene Descartes went so far as to build an elaborate system of rationalism to demonstrate the existence of the external world, beginning with his famous cogito, "I think, therefore, I am." Of course, he didn't really doubt his own existence. The point was to show the method of rationalism at work. Nevertheless, this basic point, that of epistemology (how we know what we know) has always plagued philosophy. It seems no one has ever really given an adequate account. But the important point here is not so much what philosophers have said but what most people do. The way we approach life on a daily basis the assumptions we make about the external world. Skeptics are fond of saying that it is irrational to believe things without proof. I would argue that they, an all of us, believe the most crucial and most basic things without any proof whosoever, and we live based upon those assumptions which are gleaned with no proof of their veracity at all!

B. Consider Thomas Reid's Common Sense Philosophy of Foundatinalism and Fallibalism.

The point of departure here is Reid's discussion of Hume and the problem of justification of the external world. This is discussed in lecture notes of a contemporary philosopher, G.J. Mattey, in his lecture notes.

1) Skepticism about the External World

Thomas Reid, Theory of Knowledge lecture notes.G.J. Mattey
Philosophy, UC Davis

"Consider the question whether we are justified in believing that a physical world exists. As David Hume pointed out, the skepticism generated by philosophical arguments is contrary to our natural inclination to believe that there are physical objects." "[T]he skeptic . . . must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body, tho' he cannot pretend by any arguments of philosophy to maintain its veracity. Nature has not left this to his choice, and has doubtless esteem'd it an affair of too great importance to be trusted to our uncertain reasonings and speculations. We may well ask, What causes induce us to believe in the existence of body?, but 'tis in vain to ask, Whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasoning." (A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part IV, Section II) "Nonetheless, after considering the causes of our belief in the existence of body and finding them inadequate for the justification of that belief, Hume admitted to be drawn away form his orignal assumption that bodies exist. 'To be ingenuous, I feel myself at present . . . more inclin'd to repose no faith at all in my senses, or rather imagination, than to place in it such an implicit confidence,' because ''tis impossible upon any system to defend either our understanding or senses." His solution to these doubts was "carelessness and in-attention,' which divert the mind from skeptical arguments."

2) Reid's Defense of Commonsense Beliefs.

Mattey again:

"Thomas Reid, who was a later contemporary of Hume's, claimed that our beliefs in the external world are justified.'I shall take it for granted that the evidence of sense, when the proper circumstances concur, is good evidence, and a just ground of belief' (Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX). This evidence is different from that of reasoning from premises to a conclusion, however."

"That the evidence of sense is of a different kind, needs little proof. No man seeks a reason for believing what he sees or feels; and, if he did, it would be difficult to find one. But, though he can give no reason for believing his senses, his belief remains as firm as if it were grounded on demonstration. Many eminent philosophers, thinking it unreasonable to believe when the could not shew a reason, have laboured to furnish us with reasons for believing our senses; but their reasons are very insufficient, and will not bear examination. Other philosophers have shewn very clearly the fallacy of these reasons, and have, as they imagine, discovered invincible reasons agains this belief; but they have never been able either to shake it themselves or to convince others. The statesman continues to plod, the soldier to fight, and the merchant to export and ijmport, without being in the least moved by the demonstations that have been offered of the non-existence of those things about which they are so seriously employed. And a man may as soon by reasoning, pull the moon out of her orbit, as destroy the belief of the objects of sense." (Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX)

"Here Reid shows himself to have foundationalist tendencies, in the sense that our beliefs about physical objects are not justified by appeal to other beliefs. On the other hand, all he has established at this point is what Hume had already observed, that beliefs about physical objects are very hard to shake off. Hume himself admitted only to lose his faith in the senses when he was deeply immersed in skeptical reflections. But why should Reid think these deeply-held beliefs are based on "good evidence" or "a just ground?" One particularly telling observation is that a philosopher's "knowledge of what really exists, or did exist, comes by another channel [than reason], which is open to those who cannot reason. He is led to it in the dark, and knows not how he came by it" (Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX). Philosophers "cannot account for" this knowledge and must humbly accept it s a gift of heaven."

"If there is no philosophical account of justification of beliefs about the physical world, how could Reid claim that they are justified at all? The answer is the way in which they support common sense."

"Such original and natural judgments [based on sense-experience] are, therefore, a part of that furniture which Nature hath given to the human understanding. They are the inspiration of the Almighty, no less than our notions or simple apprehensions. They serve to direct us in the common affairs of life, where our reasoning faculty would leave us in the dark. They are part of our constitution; and all the discoveries of our reason are grounded upon them. They make up what is called the common sense of mankind; and, what is manifestly contrary to any of those first principles, is what we call absurd. (An Inquiry into the Human Mind, Chapter VII, Section 4)"

"One might say that judgments from sense-experience they are justified insofar as they justify other beliefs we have, or perhaps because they are the output of a perceptual system designed by God to convey the truth. (Of course, if the latter is what gives these beliefs their justification, the claim that we are designed in this way needs to be justified as well.)" C. In other words, We accept the existence of the external world as a matter of course merely because we perceive it.

1) Acceptance of Perceptions about the world.

But it is not merely because we percieve it that we accept it. It is because we perceive it in a particular sort of way. Because we perceive it in a regular and consistent way. This has been stated above by Reid. The common man goes on with his lot never giving a second thought to the fact that he can no more prove the veracity of the things around him than he can the existence of God or anything else in philosophy. Yet we accept it, as does the skeptic demanding his data, while we live out our lives making these assumptions all the time.

Wednesday, October 07, 2020

Answer: PX's Attack on Moral Argument

Pixie runs a site callled "on creationism and why it's nonsense." he attacks my moral argument:>

That;s the old version but I'll answer it any way, The new version is found:,

Px With regards to (1), I agree, but it must be noted that morality is not universal. We feel a sense of outrage when an atrocity is committed, but presumably the perpetrators do not. We can feel moral outrage at how the Romans would watch people being eating by wild animals at the circuses, but these were very popular events 2000 years ago. What people consider good and bad is not set in stone, but is part of their culture.

Answer:(1) I speak of universal pertaining to cultures and civilization not all individuals, (2) People do violate the code they know is right that's why we have guilt feelings.

This brings us to (2), I would say they are cultural or social, rather than genetic; again think about the Roman circuses or consider changing attitudes to slavery. That said, I do not think this greatly impacts his argument.

Answer: fine that does not change my point it just means I have less to answer, As I pointed out we need an answer that preserves the normative nature of moral axioms

Px:These are rules mankind has developed to allow him to work in a community. We find them moral because our culture has conditioned us to, and that works because moral cultures survive better than amoral cultures. By amoral culture I mean one where individuals are free to steal and murder within the community. The basic rights of an individual who belongs to the in-group is preserved across all cultures because that in-group gets to set the rules. The in-group does not want people stealing from them or killing them, so develop rules to protect themselves from that, and morality springs from those rules.

Answer: That does answer my point. My argument says naturalistic answers reduce morality to less than normative if it;s just social contract we can have a social contract that allows us to conduct a holocaust, Whose to say it's wrong?

In (3), Joe points out that genetic (and implicitly social and cultural) explanations fail to offer the basis of a morality - get cannot turn "is" into "ought". But why should we suppose there is such a basis? Maybe there is no moral foundation, and morality is merely what we all agree it is. How else can we explain the changes in morality between cultures?

That Contradicts Premise (1) which you already agreed to, Really that's giving me the argument

Or maybe there is an objective morality that exists in the abstract, just as geometry does. Again, should we suppose there is an "ought"?

Answer: moral axioms are not like mathematics you have to have a theory of what grounds the ought, there is no calculation involved.

With regards to (4), Joe says social contract theory (SCT) "offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored". What he fails to note is that that is what we observe! Morality does change, morality can indeed be ignored.

Answer: morality is taught by cultures and thus it will bear the stamp of a given time or place but it always has a grounding in universal ought or there is no moral basis Tat;s the gist of my argument, its in premise1 and you agreed to it,

When we get to (5), Joe seems to be saying that God (according to Christianity) is good and judging what is right and wrong. It sounds like he sees morality as separate to God. There is an objective morality, and, say slavery is objectively wrong. God, given his situation, is particular able at discerning that fact, and relaying that to mankind.

Answer: Morality is not separate, God is objective God's universal perspective gives morality it;s universal basis,

However, when we look at (6), it looks like Joe's position is the reverse of that. Now God is the "source of grounding", indicating that slavery is wrong because God says it is. It must be noted that Joe does not talk about objective morality, so he is not on the weak ground that Craig is at this point. For Joe, "Universal Moral Law" means laws that come from God, and are universal because God is universal.

Answer: to the comfrey I just got though telling you morality is based upon God they are not separate, it's God's judgment of what is right and wrong,

So how can we relate that to (5)? I guess what Joe means is that God chooses what is right or wrong. Slavery is morally wrong because God has arbitrarily decided slavery will be wrong. However, as per (5), as the creator he is adept at deciding what will be morally wrong, so he made a good choice to make slavery morally. Answer: not arbitrary it's based upon God's character

Good on what basis? Well, one that aligns with our ideas of right and wrong, i.e., what God decided would be good is what God decided would be good! Frankly, the argument make as much sense without (5) in my opinion.

Answer: It's not arbitrary it's based upon God's character which is love.

In summary, the argument comes down to:

People universally understand right and wrong (1)

Therefore there must be some underlying and fundamental morality (2)

God is the best explanation of that (3-6)

Therefore God likely exists

Answer: that is an inadequate understanding of the argument. There is a universal morality but argent is based upon the fact that approaches that don't embody God have basis for grounding of the axioms,

Sunday, October 04, 2020

Miracles, Proof, and Power

The "Counter Apologist'' (aka "the CA") has an argument designed to undermine confidence in the resurrection as proof of the veracity of the faith. Here.This piece by CA is extremely long and it's not divided by pagination or any markings to indicate where quotes are found. I will not deal with the entire argument but only deal with the crucial point.

the CA:

I am countering the resurrection argument in a very specific way, my aim is to debunk the argument as it is used specifically as a means to convert non-Christians into Christians, as well as to counter the idea that Christians remain in their faith due to any supposed strength that is in the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus...
 "we assume that miracles are evidence for the truth of the philosophical and theological teachings of the miracle worker"

He references  1 Kings 18:

"The idea is that like god sending fire from the sky to burn a wet alter or a person rising from the dead, it would be evidence for the truth of the teachings of the miracle worker."

The CA's point actually centers around Hume'spoint:

"This was Hume’s point - testimony in principle can’t overcome our inductive experience of the world."

Now that is his most crucial statement because it's the crux of his whole point. We never see people raised from the dead so there is no basis for assuming the reports are true because the  experience of the way the world works, He does posit that experience is universal. He actually believes no one has ever seen a  miracle.

My argument is that this is true in almost all cases,[testimony can't overcome experience] with only one exception for young children getting testimony from their parents when they are too young to do anything but accept that testimony from a reliable source and treat it as knowledge. That said, in almost all cases we are right to be skeptical when someone tells us something that wildly violates our background knowledge.

Violating our background knowledge is the point. That outweighs testimony. Meaning, we have to ignore Biblical testimony of the Risen Christ because it contradicts how we know the world works. That's a standard atheist assumption. He goes a little more in:

I want to stress that this conclusion holds even if you are a mere theist, especially a “recently convinced mere theist”. After all, a god can exist but just not interfere in the physical world. Even if a god could resurrect someone, in your inductive experience of the world how many times have you witnessed god raise someone from the dead? It’s a virtual certainty that even if a god exists, it doesn’t do that.

His argument is really Hume's argument, it doesn't happen enough to trust the accounts..He tries to sell it on the premise that no one would accept it if it were not tied to a religious context:
Does my moon lunch scenario become any more plausible if I amend it to say “God transported me to the moon for lunch and then sent me back home to Earth for dinner that same day”?... If I were to try and use a defense in a murder trial that my concealed carry gun levitated out of my holster and fired on my hiking companion in the middle of the woods all to the sound of a demon taunting us, would the jury accept or reject that claim? Would you want the jury to accept that claim?

His founding accusation, "we assume that miracles are evidence for the truth of the philosophical and theological teachings of the miracle worker" yes we do assume so and it is a reasonable assumption. Given that religious histories of many faiths use miracles as part of their testimony. He really offers no reason to reject the premise.

His most basic assumption, that we never see miracles, is just plain wrong, MIracles are seen more often than most people imagine, They don;thave to be resurrections oset up the notion that impossible things happen. Thinking of resurrection, however, I have known four people who either claimed to have been risen or who met others who made that claim. The one example I will defend is that of my father. He was dead for 11 minutes. He was on the operating table.The Doctor thought he was dead. They shocked his heart so bringing him back was something medical science does do. Still he was dead and came back maybe it is not as amazing as we thought?

The doctor himself said it was a miracle. He said "I have never used the term 'mirealceofmypractice eforebuthtiswa a miracle." Certainly there was prayer. I watched the Pope's midnight mass and praed for him, I dreamed God brought him to me and told me he would be well.When I woke up the next morning I expected him to be dead. We had been told he was not expected to live through the night. My brother told me he was alive and the staff in the ICU was amazed. When I went down there the first thing they said to me was "have you heard about the miracle?" The staff was actually spreading the word "God worked a miracle here last night."

The Lady who led me to the Lord had miracles occurring in her life on a regular basis. It's not something that can turn it off but one might think so knowing her. Her name was Judy Romero. She is now with Jesus. Another example of a miracle that I witnessed: this was in the convalescent period after my father came home from the previous miracle. He was having an attack of some kind. We called EMS they had him all hooked up to their equipment and monitoring his vital signs. He was clearly in danger. My mother and brother laid hands on him and prayed; the EMS guys saw the readings change before their eyes. They were all going "what the hell is happening?" One of them was really upset. He was cying and saying "it didn't happen! It did not happen, you didn't see that!" One of them told me "he's an atheist." The EMS guys said there's nothing wrong with my father and they left but there was a hush, they were in awe. The head guy said "I've never seen anything like this." The thing is my brother was not a Christian he was very negative about Christianity. He only laid hands on our Dad with my mother to humar her. He agreed with the account  I have given. He did return to Christianity eventually.

Is there a logical difficulty with extending from the small scale exampes of God's powerimouirlives to trstin theaccountsof resrurrection? Why should there be? If God can create the universe, all universes, can create all there is,  Why can't he raise one guy from the dead? My point here is that resurrection is not beyond the scope of logical extension of the power we see God exert in  our lives.

The CA winds up accusing Christians of worshipping power. The appeal to miracle is actually appeal to the greater power.That argument is a microsom of the fawin the argument as a whole. It tries to impose upon the believer a set of assumptions most believers do not make. I assume God has all power because he created the universe and I think it would take all power to do that.I don't assume he created because I first assume he has all power. I think it's the CA who is obsessed with power.

Right makes might CA assumes that Christians believe might makes right and that is evidenced by the appeal to miracles. I think it's really that right maes might. God is being itself. Because power flows out of being itself God is the basis of power just he is the basis of being. But that being the case, God is the basis of the good because he is love. Thus it is God/s goodness that grounds reality in the creative wisdom of God.Power is but a side effect. [1]The Counter Apologist, "Countering the Resurrection Argument (Full Version)," Counter Apologist Countering Christian apologetics arguments with logic, evidence, and reason.

Sunday, September 27, 2020

Morality Warrants Belief in God

Morality itself provides a rational warrant for bleief in God.


(1) The normative nature of Moral Axioms is universally Recognized.

(2) Explanations must account for the universal imperative while preserving the normative aspect.

(3) Materialist explanations cannot preserve the normative aspect because they lack a basis for moral moral judgement (they can't supply a justification for the "ought").

(4) The concept of God provides the basis for Moral Judgement since God is omniscient, just, and compassionate.

(5) Therefore,since the concept of God provides the best explaination for the normative nature of moral axioms, and since we asssume the reality of the  we  we have a warrant for beief in God as a regulartoy concept.


Even though the mores may vary, all civilizations and cultures have a strong sense of moral outrage at gross injustice and a sense of fairness and desire for the right to win out. This seems like an innate sense. The real trick is not explaining how this innate sense came to be  but explaining it in such a way that we can still take it seriously as a normative value.

Materialistic and naturalistic explanations can easily explain how the need for the moral dimension arose from naturalistic sources but they cannot explain why we should take it seriously as moral.

The Apostle Paul tells us that there is a universal moral law written upon the human heart (Rm 2:6-14). We can see evidence of this universal law throughout the world. Now social science is quick to tell us that moral codes of all cultures differ throughout the world; some are so drastically different as to allow for multiple mirages, in some cultures gambling and even cheating each other are expected, and in a few cultures there doesn't seem to be any notion of right and wrong. But we shouldn't expect that all the moral codes of the world would be uniform just because there is a moral law. The evidence of a universal law is not seen in structured belief systems but in the humanity of humans. People in all cultures have concepts of right and wrong, even though they may attach different kinds of significance to them. There are a few cultures that are actually pathological examples, but in the main most people are capable of being good, exhibit a basic human compassion, and feel moral outrage at cruelty and injustice.

It is this sense of moral outrage and the ability to empathize and to feel compassion that marks the moral law best of all. In Nicaragua in the 1980s members of the contra army fighting the Sandinistas conducted a campaign of terror to prevent the people from supporting the revolutionary government. To enforce a sense of Terror they cut off the heads of little girls and put them on polls for all to see  [1] The modern equivalent is Issis. People are also repulsed by their doings. There is something about this act, regardless of our political affiliations which fills us with anger and revulsion; we want to say it is evil. Even those who believe that we must move beyond good and evil are hard pressed not to admit this sense of outrage and revulsion, yet if they had their way we would not be able to express anything more than a matter of taste about this incident for nothing is truly evil if there is no universal moral law.

Answering objections

(1) Genetic explanations only provide an understanding of behavior, they do not offer the basis of a moral dimension (trying to turn "is" into "ought").

(2) Social contract theory offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored in the shifting sands of social necessity and politics (this is both a practical issue and a matter of meta ethical theory).

(3) matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective (the atheist dread of the subjective).

(4) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rational on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good  into moral values.


[1] Noam Chomsky, Turning the Tide:U.S. Intervention in Central America, South End Press; First Edition edition (July 1, 1999)

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Restructuring of my Moral Argument for God

Dixcussion with pixie on CADRE hadled meto think I can improve my moral argent,

(1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

(2) Such moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as "ought's."

(3) Genetic explanations only provide an understanding of behavior, they do not offer the basis of a moral dimension (trying to turn "is" into "ought").

(4) Social contract theory offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored in the shifting sands of social necessity and politics (this is both a practical issue and a matter meta ethical theory).

(5) In Christian understandng God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

(6) Therefore, God is the only source of grounding which works as a regulative concept for our moral axioms and at the same time actually explains the deep seated nature of moral motions. Universal Moral Law.

Saturday, September 19, 2020

Why God's love is Universal Truth and Other Issues

Anonymous said... Pix: "I would love to know why he thinks God's love is a universal truth - but of course when Joe makes a "very swaggering claim" he sees no reason to support it. He is a Christian! He does not have to prove anything! It says it in the Bible, and we are all to assume the Bible is true.

God is love! That is the character of God, the image in which man is created; our ability to love is an outgrowth of God's character, God is eternal and therefore universal thus his love is universal. God's love is the principle upon which the universe was created, upon which morality is based.Those are logical extensions from basic Christian assumption.

when I complained about his assumption that Christians must prove God every time we talk about God he asserts that I am complaining about the questioning of God itself, as though Chritians can't stand for others to question their religion:

Px: Of course, when YOU are asked to support a claim about your religion it "is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid". Heaven forbid a Christian should ever have to do such a thing!And THIS is why religion is unreliable.

One would think its because it's not scientific now we find it's because Christians get tired of arguing for God every time they mention God. In fact he's ignoring the answer I gave pretending like I did not give it. Apparently pixie can't follow a simple sentence and he's always reading the worst motive into any Chritian statement.In response to the assertion that I never defend my belief in God I wrote:

Joe: Most of what i've said is about that,I've made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don't have to prove God every time I talk about Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,

To which he responds: "Which of those arguments is PROOF?" I am having a bit of trouble seeing this, First of all I never said I can prove God,I said I don't have to prove it. He takes that as a challenge that i can prove it; He asks which of my arguments is proof? Then he says:
I seem to remember you making a big deal about ration warrants. Why would you do that if you have PROOF? You would not. The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion.

"Ration Warrant" (Rational warrant") essentially means a good reason to believe something. The point I've made many times in the past is that we don't have to prove the existence of God as long as we can provide a rational warrant for belief. The problem is atheists refuse to recognize a real reason. They can never be honest about facts or about logic. I never said I do absolute proof and never denied  about rational warrant.

Now we come to an issue we have been dancing around through this whole week. Pix assumes that modern laws of physics were founded upon hypotheses that were later validated by scientific observation thus proving that only the scientific method can establish facts and prove theiries about the world.My argument was that the assumptions upon which laws were already accepted as proven when the were chosen as assumptions and thus they were not validated by science until after. That means other methods were used to select them. Pix never answers this argument instead he changes his position.

Joe: No they only base laws on established assumptions not unestablished;you are confusing the method that evolved out of science with the history of scientific thought. Scientific method had to evolve,Read the Burtt book.[2]br>
Instead of giving a rational answer he storms:"Can you actually make an argument? All you have is this insinuation, but to me it looks empty." I don't know what "insinuation" he's talking about; I made a clear argument that the basic assumptions that led to the development of the scientific method were not themselves validated by science when they were assumed. They used other methods such as logic and so might we. He takes my argument to mean that we can trust unproven methods:

"If you think Newton's laws, say, are based on an unproved assumption, say what it is. Say exactly how it is bad science. Present the reasoning." He's apparently tacked on to that misconstrued assumption that I'm saying that laws of Newton are bad science. Where he got that I do not know.

My argument is clearly that modern science is built upon assumptions that were not put in place by science since they were building blocs  that led to science.They were understood before science evolved.Thus there must be some pre scientific methods that can be trusted:

Joe: Do you really think Newton said I;m going to write some stuff and call them laws and someday someone will prove them and they will really be laws? Do you think Newton was an idiot? He did not make up bull shit then try to prove it he didn't call it laws before it was proven. You need to read Leviathan and the Air Pump.That is a book that gives us a good understanding of the process through which modern science evolved.[2]
Pix responds
"I think Newton's laws were a big part of establishing the assumption that the universe follows laws (if it was not done earlier). Newton established that at the same time as he established his laws." Good God. He thinks Newton had something to do with it. We need to contact the Smithsonian at once.Newton established  that the universe runs on laws at the the time he established his laws? Good timing, I;m going to make some laws then I'm going to establish that laws are important. if this guy really knew anything about ewton hewoudknowthahe was a Chritian,so he assumed God created laws to run the universe that had been assumed for 2000 years.
Then he mysteriously changes his position and wants to assert that he always asserted that the assumptions were proven to begin with.

After: "As long as we agree 'they make laws from proven assumptions', that is fine with me." Hey what does it matter what we say as Long as you say I'm right?

  he then cocedes:
"I do not know when they were established, but I guess before or by Newton. However - and this is important - I invented a hypothetical situation where it happened afterward. Do you see where I said 'Let us suppose'? That indicates that what follows is hypothetical." But he's still ignoring my point, Apparently he really can't follow a discussion,
He explains: "Even in the hypothetical situation in which the assumption was established later, the fact that it was established at some point means his laws are good, reliable science."
  I can see his point but there are problems. First he was not arguing hypothetically,we clearly had a dispute going about history not hypothetical.  I can see his point that it doesn't matter as long as they were validated later, but that does change his argument, because if they were validated first by other means and proven later by science that at least partially  validated  the other means as well

I want to go back to one thiung he said:"The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion" I do not advance a rational process that onvert sugestions to certain nor do I advocateone, Taht rocesshas been workedin ne,I havegone fronsuggestiontocertaindduetomy own experinces of God. God is realso myxperinesof God are real. [1] [2] the Birtt book