Well, we are getting somewhere. For example, Sye has given up using these strategies:<\/p>\n
(i) insisting that all atheists are crude reductive materialists.
(ii) Telling us we can\u2019t fault his arguments logically because, as atheists, we are not entitled to use logic.<\/p>\n
Sye, you have just stopped doing these things because I have, very patiently, I feel, explained why you are not justified in doing so. But you have not been gracious enough to acknowledge any error on your own part, or that I was right to pick you up on these things. You\u2019ve just quietly dropped them. Oh well. It’s still progress.<\/p>\n
We have also made progress on the actual debate we are supposed to be having, which is: does the argument on your website constitute a proof? <\/span>As I point out in my preceding post, you have now (perhaps unintentionally?) conceded your argument does just presuppose that the laws of logic cannot exist without God.<\/p>\n But then you have conceded it fails as a proof, surely. Hoorah!<\/p>\n All that\u2019s now left to tie up is your challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic, and loads of other things too, on an atheist world view.<\/p>\n Tell you what \u2013 I will continue with your challenge to \u201caccount for\u201d the laws of logic on an atheist world view if you take my \u201cevil God challenge\u201d and explain why belief in the Christian God is any more reasonable the belief in the evil deity I discuss in \u201cThe God of Eth\u201d.<\/p>\n