Except you keep appealing to it and saying everything needs to be justified.
I just told you there are two more resolutions to the epistemological problem (Münchhausen trilemma). I go the coherentism route where the whole system itself serves as justification. That's why my argument is at the worldview level. Ultimately it's TAG - demonstrating that the Triune God is the necessary precondition for metaphysics, logic, ethics and epistemology which is the basis of every possible worldview.
The majority have consciences that function according to God's principles, that is my point.
That's begging the question. You have to justify this belief (i.e. where do you get it from)? The point is ultimately you have to appeal to divine revelation to justify it.
So as I said you're no different to everyone else who has to argue for their views and argue against others. You didn't mention the Bible as part of this process because it doesn't prove anything unless one already accepts its veracity.
Exactly. This is a philosophical argument, not a theological one. Asserting your worldview is true is meaningless so that can't be the starting point. The starting point are those things that both sides assume by necessity and by virtue of debating (logic, knowledge, truth, etc.)
On the other hand if one believes in a creator then nature is already accepted to be from the creator and then one either has to accept the wisdom of nature or provide reasons for why they reject it.
The problem is you have to justify those assertions. Christians have direct knowledge of the Creator and His wisdom because He has revealed Himself. So divine revelation serves as justification. The creation itself can't reveal anything on it's own because it's subject to interpretation. When looking at nature you see a wise Creator but a materialist sees seemingly purposeless matter governed by laws of physics and cause and effect that has led to all this.
Christians reject it because they have a story of how nature became corrupted, but they have no evidence for this story so it amounts to an unjustified rejection.
The evidence for the Bible story is the Christian worldview itself - it's ability to justify metaphysics, epistemology, logic and ethics.
But I never argued that nature means the same thing to all these people. My argument is that the natural world or universe (planets, plants, animals and so on) was made by the creator, and almost everyone believed that before philosophy sought absolute proof of everything and found God (along with everything else) can't be absolutely proven. Therefore we can learn about God through the natural world, which came from God, rather than anything else of which we have no good evidence God is the proximate cause. Yes there are different ways of extracting knowledge from nature which lead to bad and contradictory conclusions, but this doesn't invalidate my claim and that some ways are better than others.
Many people believing somthing is an appeal to majority and it doesn't tell us if that something is true. Again, there's no such a thing as generic common denominator God - if such an entity exists it has to have certain properties that define it. Is it personal (a he, she, they/them) or unpersonal force or realm like Plato's monad. Is he/it uncreated or created (part of the creation). Did he create the world ex nihilo or out of prima materia (meaning matter preceded it/him). Is he the sole creator or are there others like him/them? Does he have providence and participation in the creation, or is the creation a wound-up mechanism that is left on its own device as deists believe? Is he moral or amoral? Did he create everything out of necessity or out of his own free will (assuming he has it)? Etc...
I'll close with this thought experiment:
Imagine you're a disembodied psychic alien coming from another realm, who's never heard of humans. You see a painting without prior knowledge of what paintings are or where they come from.
How would you come to the conclusion that paintings are produced by humans and what can the painting itself tell you about what a human is like?
Now swap the painting with the creation and the human with the creator.
I just told you there are two more resolutions to the epistemological problem (Münchhausen trilemma). I go the coherentism route where the whole system itself serves as justification. That's why my argument is at the worldview level. Ultimately it's TAG - demonstrating that the Triune God is the necessary precondition for metaphysics, logic, ethics and epistemology which is the basis of every possible worldview.
That's begging the question. You have to justify this belief (i.e. where do you get it from)? The point is ultimately you have to appeal to divine revelation to justify it.
Exactly. This is a philosophical argument, not a theological one. Asserting your worldview is true is meaningless so that can't be the starting point. The starting point are those things that both sides assume by necessity and by virtue of debating (logic, knowledge, truth, etc.)
The problem is you have to justify those assertions. Christians have direct knowledge of the Creator and His wisdom because He has revealed Himself. So divine revelation serves as justification. The creation itself can't reveal anything on it's own because it's subject to interpretation. When looking at nature you see a wise Creator but a materialist sees seemingly purposeless matter governed by laws of physics and cause and effect that has led to all this.
The evidence for the Bible story is the Christian worldview itself - it's ability to justify metaphysics, epistemology, logic and ethics.
Many people believing somthing is an appeal to majority and it doesn't tell us if that something is true. Again, there's no such a thing as generic common denominator God - if such an entity exists it has to have certain properties that define it. Is it personal (a he, she, they/them) or unpersonal force or realm like Plato's monad. Is he/it uncreated or created (part of the creation). Did he create the world ex nihilo or out of prima materia (meaning matter preceded it/him). Is he the sole creator or are there others like him/them? Does he have providence and participation in the creation, or is the creation a wound-up mechanism that is left on its own device as deists believe? Is he moral or amoral? Did he create everything out of necessity or out of his own free will (assuming he has it)? Etc...
I'll close with this thought experiment:
Imagine you're a disembodied psychic alien coming from another realm, who's never heard of humans. You see a painting without prior knowledge of what paintings are or where they come from. How would you come to the conclusion that paintings are produced by humans and what can the painting itself tell you about what a human is like?
Now swap the painting with the creation and the human with the creator.