ah, so now its assumption rather than reason? this isnt a proper argument; its more like a weak attempt at dismissing the premise without addressing it. the key word here is assume, which is a shortcut for avoiding the burden of proof. youve done nothing to refute the claim that only the triune god of orthodox christianity adequately grounds the preconditions for intelligibilityuniversal logic, morality, and reason. instead, youve just disregarded it by assuming a false alternative without offering any justification for why the atheistic worldview is able to do so. but lets not forget that assuming isnt a fallacy in itselffailing to justify your assumptions is. by pretending that your assumption of atheism doesnt require a rigorous foundation, you're dismissing the very essence of philosophy. in contrast, the triune god is philosophically and theologically sound, with all divine attributes logically fitting into the framework needed for intelligibility to make sense. its not just a this is what i believe situation; the theistic worldview coherently explains these thingsatheism doesnt.
Australia