>>13098258And you claim he doesn't. Where's your argument? I've provided the Kalam, for example, as an argument for theism. What have you provided other than non-sequiturs, redherrings, and goalpost shifting?
As for why Christianity is true, I'd argue that Craig's arguments for the historical resurrection are pretty strong.
You seem to be misunderstanding the Kalam argument because you don't understand basic deductive logic. There is no presupposition in the Kalam. Read it again.
>>13098259But when someone provides the Kalam, Fine tuning argument, et al., you unilaterally declare them invalid for no reason other than "muh sky fairies." You can see such ITT.
>>13098260Atheism isn't a claim? A position? Really? If atheists are so logical and smart, why do they so desperately avoid the burden of proof? Is it because there are few, if any, positive arguments for atheism? Dare I say that atheism is philosophically unwarranted?
