If you’ve read the link to the discussion I had with exbeliever at Debunking Christianity, you’ll see a miracle of sorts. We actually agree on something.  Exbeliever said: “I feel that it is pointless for you to continue posting here if you are only going to attempt to evade and shift the burden of proof.”

I likewise “feel” it is pointless to post responses to someone who does not even realize what the burden of proof is in the first place.

In any case, since exbeliever didn’t “feel” like answering my challenge to him to prove that I exist, I’ll go ahead and post here what my reasoning was behind asking him to do that.  Exbeliever’s worldview is limited by his idea of where logic came from.  As his own words demonstrate, there is no universal aspect to logic.  There is only “apparent” or “seemingly” universal logical laws, which are based upon his assumption that everyone’s minds are basically the same and therefore come to the same basic conclusions regarding sensory data.

That’s all fine and dandy, but how does exbeliever know what any other person’s mind is like?  How does he know what is the “typical” mind-design by which logic arises in the first place?  According to his own statements, his beliefs are only true in the system for which they are employed–in other words, they cannot be true outside of his system of minds designed similarly.

That’s why I challenged him to prove that I exist.  In his worldview, it is utterly impossible to actually prove any other mind exists at all.  He cannot prove I exist, much less begin to question whether or not God exists, because he doesn’t have the framework possible to investigate that question.  His worldview is based on the assumption that I exist, and not only that I exist but that there are lots of minds that exist, and all these minds are basically similar in construction.  He cannot prove any of this because he must assume it to be true in order to begin his process of thought.

Again, his logic is that all minds are basically similar and therefore come to similar conclusions about what they perceive, and therefore have similar laws of logic (which he claims is objective-like).  His logic therefore depends on these things being true, which means that he cannot use his logic to question whether any of these other minds actually exist or not.  If he questions their existence, he cannot use the logic that is based on their existence to do so.  He must use a higher form of logic, one that is based on something more basic than the existence of common minds, in order to prove there are common minds.

I, for one, don’t have any problem saying there are commonly designed minds, because God made creatures, and of the creatures God made He made man in His image.  Therefore, it is certainly possible for me to use the same logic that exbeliever employs–but not to ask the question of whether or not God exists.  We only agree on logic that probes questions after the assumption of similar minds is reached.

In other words, it’s a question of axioms.  Your logic is only as good as your axioms involved, and if your axioms involved don’t allow you to question whether God exists or not your logic will be unable to delve into the question.