You haven't adopted his methodology as much as you're just regurgitating it word for word, without a true grasp of its incoherence. You even ripped off his use of the example of "sequential counting" being impossible without "universal laws" of logic. Maybe you've never heard Bahnsen answer his own question, but he's said that he trusts the laws of logic and relies on induction because "he believes in a sovereign god who controls the universe", which is a meaningless statement that provides no evidence or argument for his suppositions.
Then perhaps you can explain why professional philosophers have been writing about these philosophical problems for so long, and why do they continue to do so if the issues are altogether meaningless? Can you cite one philosopher who writes that these issues are altogether meaningless?
The way the question is phrased by theists is meaningless, because the standard that they're looking for is for a response that quotes some universal, divine mediator. No earthly or empirical answer will ever, EVER satisfy the theist, who will continue the regression until they hear something that they recognize as God.
The roots, reasons, and justification for morality are legitimate and worthwhile questions, but asking where morality comes from as if there's a single universal source makes about as much sense as asking where health comes from. Contrary to the meaningless response of the theist (morality comes from "God"), the answers are complicated.
Now here, by making a universal claim, you are tacitly assuming that you know everything.
Not at all. People are free to dismiss things when there is no evidence to back up the assertions, and there's no evidence for a universal mediator who writes down the laws of the universe (including morality and logic) and reveals them to man. All of the evidence points to these supposed revelations being man made and geographically and sociologically specific, with the universal aspects of them being justifiable without any divine influence.
The holy books are products of their time, which is why for instance Jesus is much more concerned with whether women wear hats in church rather than condemning slavery.
Have you searched everywhere throughout all time and eternity to discover that there's no central authority figuring it out and writing it down for us all to follow?
No, but I don't have to, just like I don't need to search everywhere throughout time and eternity to know that that stars are not made of cotton candy and that leprechauns do not exist. If you have evidence, then present it. But something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is Odin? Does Odin have the same unchanging, eternal nature and attributes as the God of the Bible? Is Odin both infinite and personal? Is Odin the One and Only True God? I don't read much of philosophers and theologians arguing over Odin very much. Maybe I ought to get out more.
I'll let the theists argue which one of their manmade gods is more powerful, eternal, and/or unchanging than the other. Reminds me of that scene from Conan the Barbarian where Conan and Subotai argue over which God is stronger, the Four Winds or Crom. The reason no one argues over Odin is that the Abrahamic religions became dominant in Eurasia and were spread by empire and invasion. The main reason you're a Christian is that Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. If you were born in medieval Japan, you wouldn't be a Christian. If you were born in modern India, you'd likely be a Hindu. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim.
If the Nazis had won World War II however, it's likely that if not Odin, some sort of pagan Nordic blood myths would be a part of modern philosophy.
Why do you understand and accept things you haven't seen?
I sense a little projection going on here, since I've never claimed such a thing, nor made a claim that would cause any reasonable person to come to that conclusion. It's more relevant to ask you the same thing, considering that if you're ventriloquising Bahnsen to the same degree as you do on everything else, his entire basis for believing in logic is that he believes in God, a God for which there is no evidence.
To answer your question, it is precisely because I do not accept things I haven't seen and for which there is no evidence that I'm not a theist.
it is precisely because I do not accept things I haven't seen and for which there is no evidence that I'm not a theist.
You have seen the uniformity of nature upon which all of your inductive reasoning is based? Which of your five senses have detected the uniformity of nature? If you were a consistent empiricist you would reject your own statement as un-sensed and non-empirical. You refute your own proposition by the very act of stating it.
You do accept many metaphysical things you haven't seen, such as the laws of logic that you are attempting to use to argue with me.
There are plenty of other types of evidence for the existence of God (see for example, this recent FreeRepublic thread} but you have already ruled all of it out-of-bounds as a premise - apriori - because of your naturalism and empiricism, not because it is a conclusion you reached by examining all of the evidence.
Your arguments themselves against Christianity have no consistent foundation in empirisism and naturalism.
I will leave you with the following. I doubt that you will actually read it and comprehend its philosophical subtleties and depth of insight, but then again I have been known to be wrong before.
Why I Believe in GodCornelius Van Til (1895-1987)
Cordially,