Alan B wrote:

Now, the French revolution on the other hand was not god focused at all. It was lead and supported by the atheists. They started arresting and beheading people simply because they disagreed.

Yeah. Then Napoleon came along and sorted them out: 'Hmmm. This religion thing is useful for controlling the masses...'
Or something similar.

Svartalf wrote:Robespierre had tried to dominate the masses through a revolutionary religion with his cult of the Supreme being and whatnot.

In apologetics it is known as a virtuous circular argument.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:A Christian apologist in response to me pointing out their argument is a circular reasoning fallacy:

In apologetics it is known as a virtuous circular argument.

I haven't managed to find that notion in any reliable philosophical source.
So far, I've only encountered it in the form of a virtuous cycle, as opposed to a vicious cycle.

Zwaarddijk wrote:I recently came across a claim that implies that one piece of evidence that the Muslims are evil and don't want piece in the middle East, is that they refuse to call Jerusalem "Yerushalalim, which is the Jewish name". This was of course a claim made by some weirdo end-times Christian, who probably is less knowledgeable about the plethora of names used for that city in Judaism, and how almost all the names used by Muslims are closer to those Jewish names than the English pronunciation of "Jerusalem" is to the Hebrew pronunciation of יְרוּשָׁלַיִם

Zwaarddijk wrote:I recently came across a claim that implies that one piece of evidence that the Muslims are evil and don't want piece in the middle East, is that they refuse to call Jerusalem "Yerushalalim, which is the Jewish name". This was of course a claim made by some weirdo end-times Christian, who probably is less knowledgeable about the plethora of names used for that city in Judaism, and how almost all the names used by Muslims are closer to those Jewish names than the English pronunciation of "Jerusalem" is to the Hebrew pronunciation of יְרוּשָׁלַיִם

Thanks for dropping by, Jason. I’d like to address your core argument and I think it’s this: “I dont really care for what one can assert, I care about what one can demonstrate.” If I may rephrase it, you want demonstrable proof, not assertions.

The presuppositional proof, if you can see it, is without God you can’t prove anything. He alone lays the foundation for all rational thought, morality, purpose, and destiny in the universe. But let’s just stay with rationality. The very fact that you are looking for proof, indicates that you’re interested in truth. I hope that’s a fair assumption.

But why? Why would you be concerned about truth? It makes no sense if you’re just cosmic happenstance floating around on a dying planet in the accidental universe. So you can enjoy your spin and eventual death and nothingness? What good is truth to grown-up pond scum?

The very fact that you’re aiming for some truth and reasonableness to the universe is proof you believe in transcendent order. And transcendent order doesn’t happen with materialistic naturalism — it cannot account for that order. Only the God of Scripture can account for such high ideals as we find in the pursuit of truth.