I would then ask "why does it make society unstable?", to which he would reply with another answer that doesn't really account for good and bad, or stability and instability.
No, I think he could give a good and valid conclusion to this line of reasoning, and a fairly obvious one to anyone who has thought about these matters.
You see, he has caught himself in an infinite regress
No, he has not. You are simply hoping that he will, as that will help make your point. Can you tell the difference?
"He would reply with..."
"He has caught himself..."
See what you did there? Yes?
This is why one must presume God or no god as a metaphysical belief.
I'm sorry, PaulK was talking about *minimal* assumptions. Could you perhaps give a definition of this thing you name "God"? It sounds rather un-minimal to me. You mention attributes of this "God", called omnipotence and omniscience. Could you please also provide definitions of these concepts, and perhaps show how they too are "minimal".
Some people will say though, that they take a "neutral" stance by weighing the evidence for both sides.
Both sides? You have introduced this bizarre concept, that sounds awfully complex, called "God", and now you are saying there are two sides defined by belief or non-belief in this "God". Can I come up with "Flibble" and define my own two sides by similar reasoning?
However, the point I have been trying to make is that everyone, whether they admit it or not, is suppressing the fact that they believe in God, because no worldview can account for everything we do and the way that we act other than the Christian worldview.
Wow, not a lot I can really say to this... yep, pretty much speechless at that.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.