when I wrote the last article, I realized that there was a larger issue of logic here. I will now address that.

If you look at the Moral Argument for the existence of God and the "Sustenence" Argument. You find that there are different machanics at work here. Rather then posit God in the direct line of events. The other side takes a given, like the existence of the already-created Universe or the generally agreed-upon idea of a moral dimension to human existence and inserts God in a critical position as an agent that makes this possible or feasible.

This is much the same as a prosecutor does with the actions of the defendant in placing him at the center of criminal action to establish guilt.

The agency under debate then becomes the mainstay of the Context for the situation being referred to.

This is only valid if you have established the existence of the two main elements of the discussion. In the case of the prosecutor. you have both the crime and the defendant. The Argument from Context seeks to "connect the dots", thus drawing an irrefutable line of events from the crime to the defendant, and build part of the case: Motive, means or opportunity. Hwever. as an argument for the existence of God or anything, it falls short. Context here needs both parts, situation and agency to already be established as facts so that these facts become the premise of the argument. In the case of the Moral and Sustainin Arguments for the existence of God. God is posited as the agency.

This relies on the fallacy of using the conclusion in the proof (of the same conclusion). It takes the state of affairs and the supposed need for that state of affairs and then posits God as the agency to fill the need. The reason that it gets by, even honest persons is that the focus is on the state of affairs and the ostensible need for an agency for that need.

Now in the case of the two arguments for the existence of God. Does the Universe need a "sustaining" cause to keep it going? Does Man need an external source for a moral existence? The answer in both cases is "No", unless you can prove that one is needed. The laws of the Universe do all right by themselves and Man is perfectly capable of recognizing the need for a moral code and devising the branch of Philosophy known as Ethics by dint of his own resources and observation. So there is no need for a supernatural agency.

However, the Argument from Context does not fail by its nature. The arguments fail because they try to use the conclusion (that which is to be proven) in the proof (the line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion).