What’s wrong with this argument, Sye? Which premise do you reject? Or is the logic faulty?
1. God exists
2. If God exists, the laws of logic and principles of good argument objectively obtain
3. A law of logic (or, if you prefer, principle of good argument) is that an argument containing an unargued for and contentious premise does not establish the truth of its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Sye’s argument contains an unargued for and contentious premise
Conclusion: Sye’s arg does not establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt
If you accept the laws of logic etc. and that God exists, and you say you do, it seems you must accept the conclusion.