@scmike But I propose that we can eliminate some “gods” by the definitions their adherents apply.
I offered this previously, where a logical contradiction nullifies a claim. A god cannot be loving and give innocent children cancer.
I doubt we can ever totally disprove a god, but we can use logic to eliminate the gods of certain religions.
Hey Nyarlathotep, it’s nice to meet you! I am happy to accommodate your request:
P1 The God of the Bible is the necessary precondition for laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (by the impossibility of the contrary)
P2 Laws of logic, truth, and knowledge exist
C The God of the Bible exists
Hey David, it’s nice to meet you! I appreciate your response and your appeal to the laws of logic here. As a Christian, I would argue that the God of the Bible is the necessary precondition for abstract, universal, invariant laws (such as the laws of logic, for instance), as they reflect his abstract, universal, invariant nature. As such, everything He does is necessarily logical and never illogical. I am curious, though—how do you account for abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic apart from the God of the Bible?
Hey MrDawn,
It’s nice to meet you! First, I’d like to congratulate you on abandoning your atheism here. I suppose that’s a step in the right direction. I assume you’ll be updating your title in short order, no? 
With regards to your claim, though, simply provide your competing objectively verifiable revelation for Eric so we can compare. Like the Bible, such revelation should be internally consistent, comport with reality, and make sense of the necessary preconditions of intelligibility (e.g. abstract, universal, invariants such as laws of logic, morality, laws of science, truth, knowledge, etc.).
Hello scmike.
For me to accept this proposition, you must prove that a god is necessary for those conditions.
Because based on your two propositions and conclusion
this seems to be a circular argument.
What if there is no god and the laws of this universe are just the way they are? What if the multiverse theory is true and many other universes had malignant properties and laws and their conditions would have precluded any opportunity for life as we know it? It may be that we are just the lucky ones.
Since some of the stories were lifted from the Sumerian Tablets and written laws existed prior to the 10 Commandments- I go with Anu. Obviously this deity had his shit together way before Jehovah… 
Um, way before the Jehovah that revealed Himself to the very first people-Adam and Eve? Do tell!
This is an unevidenced assertion. And what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Besides, you assume as a premise the existence of the entity whose very existence you want to prove. I.e. it is a circular argument.
Pffffttttt … nope 
They were the first creation. Recorded first and everything 
For me to accept this proposition, you must prove that a god is necessary for those conditions.
I appreciate your comments here, but it is important to note that your acceptance of the proof is not in any way related to its validity. The proof of the claim is that apart from the God of the Bible, laws of logic, truth, and knowledge cannot be accounted for. For example, I could easily reverse your argument and say that you ‘must’ prove your claim that I ‘must’ do X. You see, we both hold to the existence of absolute logical laws, but only one of us has provided any justification for them. Sure, you may not LIKE my claim, but where is yours?
this seems to be a circular argument.
See what I mean? I disagree that there is any problem with the argument, but why are ‘circular arguments’ absolutely not allowed as valid proofs in your worldview? How do you account for that standard? Why does it necessarily apply?
What if there is no god and the laws of this universe are just the way they are?
Well, if you want to go on record as positing that the preconditions of intelligibility are ‘just the way they are’, then that is up to you. I could then just posit that God exists and the Bible is true because that’s just the way it is. However, I was hoping for a rational discussion.
Uhhhh 
this is your position.
You can have it. It is an irrational belief. That’s fine - BUT there are rules to logic…
Whitefire13 is right because
I read that Whitefire13 is right.
I 
circular reasoning. 
This is an unevidenced assertion.
I disagree, as the very concept of ‘evidence’ is evidence for the claim.
And what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
And, since you provided no evidence for THAT assertion…guess what? 
Besides, you assume as a premise the existence of the entity whose very existence you want to prove. I.e. it is a circular argument.
That would be like me arguing that, since you assume the very validity of the senses and reasoning you are using to make any argument, therefore your assumptions cannot be correct. We both harbor presuppositions about reality, however, not all presuppositions are justifiable. I noticed that you provided no competing account for the laws of logic or truth and knowledge. We both believe in those concepts and are using/appealing to them in this very thread. Surely you can see that the absence of any competing justification only serves to support the claim that they cannot be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible, no? In fact, so far, one atheist has had to abandon his atheism and posit a false deity in order to compete with the Christian claim, while another has posited that universal laws are ‘just the way they are’. I suppose I am pleased with that.
Not true.
I haven’t abandoned atheism. There is as much “proof” for this claim as there is for yours 
.
Sumerian claim, Jewish claim, Christian claim, Hindi claim - all the same. Unconvincing and unevidenced.
I don’t claim there is no god or deity - I’m saying you don’t have evidence to back your claim that you do.
Simple.
Btw - “straw man” assertion for my post…(makes it easier for you to dismiss, eh???)
Convince me. Please submit a rational argument.
A circular argument is a logical fallacy. It has absolutely nothing to do with my worldview, a fallacy is a fallacy whether one is debating dog breeds or religion or if the sky is blue. One can not conduct a rational dialog with another if they ignore the fallacies they are projecting.
Pffffttttt … nope
They were the first creation. Recorded first and everything
Hmmmm. Looks like another atheist has abandoned atheism. 
Now, just provide your rational justification for how any of the gods you listed accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility and we can compare our claims.
There are little green men living inside an insulated sphere in the center of the Sun.
There, I have provided a concept. Does that make it any more true that there are little green men inside the Sun? Just because I said so? Just because I have proposed this?
Because, based on your very words, there is now “evidence” that there are little green men inside the Sun.
I am happy because there is more compelling evidence in my argument than a god.
Uhhhh
Please show me where I have argued that or retract your claim.
You can have it. It is an irrational belief.
I disagree.
That’s fine - BUT there are rules to logic…
However, you did not present any competing claim for the existence of the laws of logic. Here is an exercise that might prove beneficial to helping you think through these issues: By what standard do you determine any belief to be ‘irrational’? What absolute standard do ‘irrational’ beliefs violate and why should that standard absolutely not be violated according to your worldview?
Of course, you are always free to stick with David’s blind faith claim that the laws are ‘just the way they are’, but I wouldn’t recommend that if you want to engage in rational discourse.
I
I can live with that.
That’s called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Also atheism is not a contrary claim, it is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
You’re just reeling off sweeping unevidenced claims as far as I can see, The bible, apart from being filled with errant nonsense, contains no objective evidence for any deity. That Logic as a method, and knowledge exist without any recourse the bible is axiomatic, so who knows why you’re claiming this?
