Atheist on David Wood blog named Don Dan refutes himself based on his own standard

An atheist who is called Don Dan  happened to post a comment on David Wood's blog, the thread is called arguement from reason. The atheist says that he only believes in things based on evidence. It appears that he hasn't taken the time to think about these issues philosophically. Since he presupposes that David Wood must have evidence for God and the Holy Bible in order for them to be true.

A problem arises if that is the case, question is does he have evidence for evidence and evidence for that evidence, which would lead up to infinite regress? And that would mean he doesn't have justification for the very evidence that he demands, he simply assumes that we must have evidence.

 Since assumptions without evidence are invalid according to his standard, then that would mean his very challenge to David Wood is invalid because it is just merely an assumption in which he doesn't have evidence for evidence.

Secondly, in light of his naturalistic worldview, how does he account for the laws of logic which are immaterial?  Because he assumes these laws of logic, while he presents his challenge to David Wood. Just curious, why in the world is David Wood obligated to be rational according to the atheistic worldview?  And if David Wood is obligated to be rational, how does Dan justify from going from what is the case and what ought to be the case?



He says that he is just like the apostle  Thomas, he wouldn't believe unless he has seen Jesus and the nails on his hands and feet. I chuckled when I read this comment, because if that is the case why isn't he demanding to see the laws of logic?


And even if he does demand the laws of logic  he has to assume these laws while demanding them or denying them, which is a self refutation.

Since Don may be reading this blog  and anticipating my evidence for God, this is my answer God is the precondition for evidence and apart from him we can't know anything for certain.

Ironically  Don every time you attempt to use evidence to refute the existence God, it is a self refutation. Kind of like arguing against air but while breathing air, aruging  against words while using words.

Sidenote: Don Dan every time you engage in science apart from the Christian God you have the problem of induction, in which I will soon demonstrate.

I recall you saying that you are similar to the apostle Thomas because just like him you  would demand that you see the nails and wounds on the body of Jesus before you would believe in his resurrection basically alluding that you are a champion of evidence.

Question on what bases do you believe that anytime someone is nailed to a cross that he would have wounds and bruises on his body and also in what bases do you deny that someone could  raise from the dead?  You would eventually argue from induction Don Dan, but you can't account for induction with out engaging in circular reasoning.  Which would mean your boast about being like Thomas is futile since you don't have any justification for what you are boasting about sir.

Another atheist bites the dust.

 I would like to thank my Lord and Savior for bringing me out of the darkness of Islam and Atheism. Lord willing my co author will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and come into the perfectly saving hands of Jesus. Nothing but love for you Derek Adams you are major influence in my life