The usual apologetic binary thinking. They can't handle anything that is not true or false. They always make the same mistakes.
His argument is faulty because it relies on absolute values for his definitions which are not possible in the real world.
Mention overwhelming evidence whereby the chance of being wrong is negligible and that this is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of 'KNOWING = BELIEF THROUGH EVIDENCE' and you can point out that his entire argument relies on equivocation with his definitions.
His binary thinking also partitions the whole into believers and disbelievers and ignores that not having a belief in the existence of something is not the same as believing that something does not exist.
His argument is faulty because it relies on absolute values for his definitions which are not possible in the real world.
Mention overwhelming evidence whereby the chance of being wrong is negligible and that this is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of 'KNOWING = BELIEF THROUGH EVIDENCE' and you can point out that his entire argument relies on equivocation with his definitions.
His binary thinking also partitions the whole into believers and disbelievers and ignores that not having a belief in the existence of something is not the same as believing that something does not exist.
