Franc answers the "Questions for Atheists"
Since I love answering questions, why not get into the fun? The blog "Christian Skepticism" (?) asks:
Q1: Why is there something rather than nothing?
A: "Is" presumes existence, and "nothing" presumes non-existence. So asking "why is there something rather than nothing" is rather like asking "why is the elephant walking instead of flying": it is a loaded question, a logical fallacy, something which the author of the question incidentally asked us to avoid.
Q2: How do you know that you exist (without being circular)?
A: Since existence is irreducible (that is to say, cannot be reduced to prior concepts), it is impossible to justify existence without being circular. All we can do is point it out. Once again, loaded question, etc.
Q3: Where does human self-consciousness come from?
A: If we're talking about the capacity for self-consciousness in the species homo sapiens, then the answer is: it came from the self-consciousness present in the brain of our evolutionary ancestors. Since it is so trivial, I am not sure what this question was supposed to demonstrate; maybe I missed the point here and the question was just badly formulated.
Q4: How do you know that your senses are reliable (without being circular)?
A: Because any attempt to prove that the senses are not reliable is circular. Presumably, such an attempt would try to demonstrate that a given perception was erroneous, and thus that the senses are unreliable. But in order to demonstrate "how it actually is," one needs to use the senses as well.
For instance, one may argue that the senses are unreliable by showing us how a pencil looks bent in a glass of water, but in order to demonstrate that this bending is illusory, one needs to use another sense, like touch, or take the pencil and observe it outside of the water, or rely on such observations as done by other people and apply its result, the law of refraction. Thus the empiricism-skeptic accepts the reliability of the senses and, like the empiricist, is only arguing about interpretation.
Q5: What is truth?
A: A truth is an epistemically justified proposition. An epistemically justified proposition is one which describes what we observe or explains its causal relations, not going beyond what we have or omitting anything.
Q6: What is the cause of everything?
A: Entities have different causes. The cause of you posting what you did is different from the cause of this current post. The case of the existence of a star is very different from what caused my coming into being. Essentially, this question contains a hidden fallacious premise... once again, something that we were asked to avoid.
I find it quite interesting that three out of these six questions contain fallacies, when we were explicitly told not to use fallacies. Another case of typical Christian projection? You decide.