I choose to read Del’s quote of Ronald Munson as a challenge, in part because of the disappointing quality of the fallacies on display in this thread.

Del wrote:

[snip]

>

>  How many

> times do I have to post this?:

>

> “Whoever puts forward an assertion, announces a

> position, or takes a stand must be prepared to support

> it with reasons and evidence. The person who fathers a

> claim is the one responsible for its defense, and the

> ‘burden of proof’ is his and his alone.

>

> “‘Shifting the burden of proof’ consists in meeting a

> challenge to a claim by demanding that the challenger

> disprove the claim.”  Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words.

> 1st ed., Atlanta:  Houghton Mifflin, 1976. p 299 -300

>

>  Give me one worldview other

> >than Christianity that can account for invariant, universal, abstract

> >entities without undermining the necessary preconditions for

> >knowledge.

>

[snip]

> —

> E-mail: remove NOSPAM from 
Very well, then. [Picks up gauntlet, places in belt.]
My apologies to those who are not comfortable with

mathematical language. I can only offer my assurance

that it is not used to hide anything but to prevent

my argument from being hidden by excess verbiage.
My claim:

(A) “The Christian worldview is logically necessary.”
In support, I assert:

(B) “The Christian worldview is logically necessary,

        if and only if this sentence is true.”
Consider the two cases: (1) sentence B is true, or

        (2) sentence B is false.
(1) Sentence B is true. Therefore, the first part of B

        (“The Christian worldview…”) has the same truth

        value (either true or false) as the second part

        (“this sentence…”).  But we know, in this case,

        the truth value of the second part:  sentence B

        is true. Therefore the first part is true also, that is,

        (A) the Christian worldview is logically necessary .
(2) Sentence B is false. Therefore, the first part of B

        has the _opposite_ truth value as the second part.

        Again, we know  the truth value of the second part:

        sentence B is false, hence “this sentence is true”

        is false. Since the first part of B is of the opposite

        value, it is true, thus, (A) the Christian worldview

        is logically necessary.
In either case, the Christian worldview is logically necessary,

therefore I can assert without presupposition that
(A) The Christian worldview is logically necessary. QED.
By the way, it is very tricky to apply logic to itself,

if and only if this sentence is true.
I admit I haven’t looked into this very deeply, but none of

the arguments I’ve seen for the existence, omnipotence, etc.

of God has been at all specific about whose god it was arguing

for. I would be obliged to anyone who could provide references

to arguments specifically for the Bible’s God addressed to those who

do not yet accept the Bible as true. Please, I do not consider

“Because I say so” or the equivalent an argument. Thank you.
Jim Burns