[AndyTheBear]

Ender, I have noticed a repeated fallacious pattern in your logic. Again and again you start with a modest premise that is easy to accept but then change it (without realizing it I suppose) to a stronger premise when you apply it to your argument. For example:

The law of cause and effect is the most rigorously confirmed induction we have ever been able to make as a species.

Here you have a rather modest premise. Easy to support. You use the word "induction". Which is correct, as long as one means something inferred from what we can observe.

Logic can only lead you to the conclusion of an eternal and uncreated chain of causality.

Ah, but here is where you have applied the above premise. But presto-chango-re-arango now the meaning is that this causal change is an inescapable deduction of not only what we have observed...but of any possible Heavenly realm we have not. You have elevated an observed induction to a principle of deductive logic which is beyond question.

Be more careful, and you will see truth more clearly.

[EnderWiggins]

"Ah, but here is where you have applied the above premise. But presto-chango-re-arango now the meaning is that this causal change is an inescapable deduction of not only what we have observed...but of any possible Heavenly realm we have not. You have elevated an observed induction to a principle of deductive logic which is beyond question."

LOL... I have done no such thing.

I have simply used logic the only way it can be used. All deduction must begin with a premise or set of premises. Some premises are false, others are true, and the confidence we have in any of them can only be derived by some prior induction.

What you call my "modest" premise is something that you appear to explicitly agree with. Why then would you object even the tiniest bit if the premise should then serve for what actually is a rigorously deductive set of subsequent syllogism?

Rather than object to the reasoning, you pursue the (false) red herring that I have made some sort of logical leap in confidence. I have done no such thing. I have used an mutually agreed upon premise to then deductively reach a conclusion that is unassailable, if the premise is true.

If you're ready to actually address my position, then do so. If not, then just say so and move on.