Tommy responded on his blog.  Here is my response to his response   We also had another go round via PM which I hope he will agree to allow me to publish.

Tommy’s words are contained within these //” ” // marks.

//”Sye, I think the problem may be in our misunderstanding of ‘uniformity’, as the way you present it. My academic science is localized to inquire about living organisms at a genetic / molecular level, using computer systems to sort through biological information. For all practical purposes, uniformity principles do not apply to my work. “//

Really, then why do you turn on your computer? Surely you expect it to operate the same way it did yesterday? Surely you expect the words in your thoughts to mean the same thing they did yesterday? Surely you expect the laws of logic to apply today as they did yesterday?

//”Or in other words, I have no need to account for uniformity to get accurate results. It is plainly irrelevant. “//

See Tommy, this is just you saying: “I don’t need to provide my pink slip in order to engage in this race.” Sure, you can race the car, but I know that you have stolen it and are racing illegitimately.

//”I do not argue against cause and effect, and patterns in nature. “//

Of course you don’t, but the point is that you cannot account for uniformity of ANY kind. Even if you could identify PAST patterns, you have exactly zero basis for applying them to the future, yet you do, once again exposing your inconsistency.

//”You should read through some of my articles and scientific journals. This is where you and I disagree. I’m only making a point about randomness in nature. I can point to many, many examples of random behavior in nature. Nature can sometimes behave like a lottery ball … Sometimes you hit, and some times you don’t. “//

I am not arguing against what YOU perceive to be randomness, I am arguing that you cannot provide the justification for ANY uniformity (again, the very foundation of science).

//”This is especially true in random mutations observed in biological organisms. Not to mention, when you get down to the quantum level it gets much worse. It appears as if the laws of physics break down all together. How do you account for this oddity in nature? “//

I do not agree with your premise, and have already explained to you that the assumption that the laws of physics break down at the quantum level is a fallacious assumption. Even more problematic for you is that extrapolating what happens at the quantum level into the macro level is engaging in the fallacy of composition.

//”It just seems that your argument about uniformity doesn’t produce a satisfactory answer. Or just maybe its not suppose to.  If you look it closely, the whole premise of the argument is circular and presents a logical paradox. “//

Well, in our latest PMs you have denied the universality of logic, so you can have no complaint against alleged circularity.

//”That is, any answer is a valid answer, by your logical standards.”//

Actually, you are defining YOUR view here. If logic and truth are arbitrary (as you claim) then ANY answer can be true and logical, not so if they are absolute.

//” Your answer to uniformity is God, but mine could easily be King Tut or Snow White. How can you prove me otherwise?”//

Well, if you chose to give up your atheism, since you recognize that it cannot justify uniformity, I will be pleased to debate you on whatever alleged deity you have adopted.

//” Plus, we have no concise definition for what God really is,”//

I have given you my definition via PM: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

//” thus, making it nearly impossible to identify in nature.”//

God is supernatural, not natural.

//” The only point of reference we have is the bible, which is inconsistent and unreliable. “//

I disagree, but you have denied the absoluteness of truth and logic, so on what basis do you call the Bible “inconsistent” and “unreliable?”

//”You see, human logic dictates that in order for something to be held credible, there must be a way to demonstrate its validity.”//

If logic and validity are arbitrary, then you have no basis for such an assertion, refuting yourself once again. I could very easily say: “Well, its’ credible, and valid to me,” and you would have NO argument.

//” Obviously, this is done by presenting physical evidence, like the way an investigator presents evidence in court against a murder suspect.”//

Perhaps you can give me an example of evidence where logic and truth are arbitrary?

//” Or the same way a scientist proves that it takes 365 for the Earth to go around the sun. The proof is in the pudding. “//

Great, then let’s see this proof with arbitrary logic, and arbitrary truth!!!

//”There is no need to side step. But where is yours?”//

www.proofthatgodexists.org.