>>24691808
>I was just snarking at your misuse of "heretic".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

>Again, something can only be claimed to be logical or illogical within a specific paradigm, all of which hold all sorts of presuppositions that can be easily criticized from the outside.
Well, yes, but we are in a thread about trying to prove the existence of God to outsiders by relying on their presuppositions. Specifically, you want to leverage their belief in logic to make them accept a system which actually defies their logic. Or, as you would say, it's above their logic and not bound by it. In any case, you expect someone to first follow you logically and then denounce their logic anyway. What kind of person do you expect this to work on?

>The Bible makes it clear that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was begotten by God the Father. There's no reading where that can leave room for assumptions that there must have been a human father.
Yeah, but this means that Bible contradicts common sense. When most humans first hear about Jesus, their first intuition is 'Oh, he was a human just like me, and he had a human father'. It's just a normal assumption that anyone makes when they first hear about an unfamiliar person for the first time. Then they are told that he was actually a son of God. Christians accept that, most others don't. Regardless of its truthfulness, it's a surprising and naturally confusing idea to most people and their first instinct is to assume that Jesus was a human, so it's fair to include that assumption into a meme that lists many other natural assumptions that you have to reject to avoid becoming a heretic.

>So, again, can a be simultaneously a and not-a?
Sure. Picrelated is a square, but it's not a square because it's not square.

>For the Christian, that is not an issue.
Why? You have simply declared a tiny amount of your beliefs as axioms. Most of your presuppositions are still not grounded in anything - for example, you still can't justify presupposing that the Sun will rise tomorrow. You just have this small walled garden of beliefs which are based on your axioms and seem to be consistent with each other (although the more you think about your garden, the more stuff will you have to trim from it as you discover that it either contradicts you axioms or is independent from them). Do you think other people don't have similar gardens in their minds? What makes yours superior?

>if you want to be intellectually consistent
Have you never in your life changed your belief in something? Do you plan to never change your opinion on anything in the future? Because that's the only way to stay intellectually consistent if you believe that you have achieved that state.