Atheists, How do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature?

[Until you answer that question, you have no reason to trust your inductions or the uniformity of nature and have no basis to tell us what is right and wrong.]

Excuse me, but just because you choose to rant against our beliefs doesn't mean you are right. Our basis for right and wrong is simple: Do no needless harm to another being. (Not limited to persons because I also try to not hurt animals either.) There - I just defined right and wrong for you.

The rational basis for my world view is based on a few concepts.

1. There is absolutely no evidence of God's existence. But then, the Bible literally rubs our noses in the fact that there WILL be no evidence, because "only through faith..."

2. We have found natural laws that cover the things we see. Look at fractal geometry as the basis for everything from snowflake borders to shorelines to capillary patterns to muscle distribution in the heart.

3. Can YOU provide a rational basis for the things you say God does? Isn't it the "God Squad" who comes up with tripe like "God works in mysterious ways" "We are not meant to know God's purpose" "We never know God's plan" and other such statements? And yet YOU want US to provide a rational explanation for OUR worldview? Get straight!

Your answer is more of a non-answer than any answer I would ever give. But I'll toss one at you anyway. If you studied Zen Buddhism, you would learn that sometimes the question of "Why?" (why do sunflower petals follow the pattern of the Fibonacci series, for example) is a meaningless question.

Why does God do what He does? Since by your standards we aren't meant to know the mind of God, isn't that "Why" question equally meaningless? So don't you DARE think you have any better answers than we do to the questions of "Why" things are the way they are.

The natural laws existed long before mankind evolved and even longer than the first god created by man. If it were not for the natural laws would the universe even exist? Logic is a human need not a law.

Account for them? I can't. They are the prerequisite of the naturalistic viewpoint. The a priori of science. They are the fundamental.

Placing God as a cause for logic and nature is just tacking an unnecessary explanation on. God cannot be shown through laws of logic or nature, so it is a matter of faith anyway. And it doesn't solve anything because how do you "account for God"?

“How do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?”

~~~ Simple!

See if you can wrap your remaining mind around this;

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

All 'eternity' at once; Now!!

Simply put "Stuff happens" or "that's how things are". If your god were to regularly suspend or contravene the laws of nature that would prove his existence. Despite your claims otherwise, that doesn't really happen

Laws of physics are human observations about the way physics work.

The laws of logic are human observations about the way we think rational thoughts.

We have scientists working on these questions, looking for the REAL truth. What do you have, a book that thinks the earth is flat?

The laws of logic are manmade.

The laws of nature are man-made descriptions of nature.

No need for a god or gods in any of them.

These laws are our observations of an ordered system. However, that sort of order doesn't make sense without God.