In Part 2 of the Witmer series, Daniel Morgan comments:
The most terrible thing I’ve experienced, and learned a lot from, is that 95% of these conversations end up placing a huge burden on the atheist to justify every aspect of his metaphysics and ontology.
Indeed, this is true but hardly “terrible.” In point of fact, atheist is not simply a rejection of something. Atheism has positive assertions as well; and as such, atheism needs to be justified. In essence, Daniel is here complaining that it’s not fair that he has to justify his position while he deamns that the theist justify the theistic position. But turnabout is fair play.
Daniel continues:
That isn’t a positive argument of any sort, and showing the atheist to be stupid or incoherent does not show that your premise (2) is correct or supported.
Actually, “my” “premise (2)” is actually a premise Daniel came up with, which is “If logic, then God.” (Despite the fact that this premise didn’t really have to deal with the point of contention I had with Witmer to which Daniel was responding, it’s still worthwhile to address it so I shall do so.) Let’s demonstrate (using general terms, as Daniel did):
1) Either God exists or does not.
2) Logic is valid
3) If God, then Logic is valid.
4) If not-God, then Logic is invalid.
5) .: If Logic, then God must be valid.
As such, demonstrating that the atheist is “stupid or incoherent” actually does establish the idea that If Logic, then God. After all, if there is no atheist position that can demonstrate Logic then 4) in the above stands.
Naturally, Daniel could argue that at some future point the problem might be sovled; but as I have argued before, I already have If God, then Logic. Why would I have to give up that premise on the blind faith that atheism might come up with a way to validate logic in the future?
Daniel says:
Seriously, though, you seem to have missed a larger point — falsification of Daniel Morgan’s ontological/metaphysical justification of logic doesn’t lead to:
1) Logic [generally] does or does not exist
2) God [generally] does or does not exist
True; but undercutting your position does demonstrate that your ontological/metaphysical justification of logic is flawed. YOU still cannot account for it. YOU are still up a creek without a paddle.
I, on the other hand, am still waiting for an atheist to actually present a claim that doesn’t self-destruct. Surely, if there was one out there, a smart atheist such as yourself would be able to come up with it, right Daniel?
In reality, Daniel, you should recognize that at this point my argument is no different than the vast majority of atheist arguments I’ve heard against the existence of God. Let’s put it in the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy.
There could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster somewhere, just like there could be an atheistic justification for logic and morality. But barring any evidence for it, why should I accept it?
In short, you want me to prove a universal negative after I have already disproven the specific concrete examples given to date. Why should I change my beliefs if you’re not going to offer any more evidence that atheism can account for these things?
Oh, and since the atheist commentators like to use this one so much, I can’t resist. Daniel wrote:
But instead, the real philosophers, like Plantinga, don’t make the same claims you guys do.
 In other words, NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN….
