>>81850884
>1. Logic, morality and science aren't "things", they're principles we use to describe the reality we have, which we know very little about
If they're just human principles, then they're subjective. But we treat logic as universally true. If all humans vanished, "A = A" would still be true.

>2. Metaphysical assumption
Yes, like assuming logic exists, or that your thoughts correspond to reality. Everyone starts with metaphysics. The question is: which worldview makes sense of it?

>3. Metaphysical assumption
Same answer, it's not a problem unless your worldview can't account for its own assumptions. Christianity can. Can yours?

>4. Metaphysical assumption + special exception fallacy
Pointing out necessary attributes for a coherent God isn't special pleading. It's defining what's logically required to ground logic, morality, and reason.

>5. Many "gods" don't disprove the religion
Sure, but they contradict each other. They can't all be true. Most don't claim to ground logic or morality consistently. Christianity does.

>6. A truly omnipotent "god" being bound to logic would make less sense than it being so
So you're saying contradictions could be true? If God isn't bound by logic, then "God exists and doesn't exist" is valid... and nothing means anything.

>7. "god" not revealing anything proves or disproves nothing
It doesn't prove or disprove, but it leaves you with no knowledge or grounding. If a god exists but never reveals truth, you're left in total guesswork.

>8. The religion I made in my head 5 minutes ago follows the same principles you've laid out here, ergo it's the truth
Cool, then prove your made-up god grounds logic, morality, and science coherently. You can't. Christianity already does.

>9. Fallacious assumption
Just saying "fallacy" doesn't make it so. Show the actual fallacy and defend an alternative that explains the preconditions of intelligibility.