Sye – endgame
Well Sye said he has an argument for his premise (1). We have asked him countless times what it is. He won’t say. Indeed, he just gets weirdly evasive. So I think we are justified in concluding he hasn’t got any argument for premise (1).
(1) is, then, a contentious and unargued for premise. But then, while Sye’s argument is deductively valid, it relies on a contentious and unargued for premise, and so fails to establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
Having established that beyond reasonable doubt, we can now do a proper job of examining his endlessly repeated challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic. I’ll do that next.