Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Astonished]

I don't know about the others but I'm still waiting to see all those defeaters I keep hearing about. I don't think I've ever seen a serious objection to most Necessary Being demonstrations (here and supplemented  here) or the Argument from Logic (here.)

Well, as someone who doesn't see the universe as particularly necessary (other than that I'd have no place to keep my stuff in the absence of same), the Necessary Being argument is a non-starter for me.

Argument from Logic seems to start out with some interesting premises, but I had a "Wait, what?" moment at point #8, "The Laws of Logic are Divine Thoughts."  At that point the argument seems to have stuck its tail in its mouth like an ouroboros.  It's also merely (yes, I said "merely") a philosophical argument, suggesting that there might be a divine thinker, but does not actually demonstrate that there is a divine thinker.

Does it make any stabs at inserting 'necessary' agency into the argument from 'logic'? Ah, fuck it. Guess I'll have to take a look now, but if I haven't seen anyone address this on youtube, I'm expecting it to be EXCEEDINGLY stupid as an argument.

Edit: Fuck me, they really went there. Okay, they lost me at point 5. If you can't demonstrate that these things are necessary, any more than you can demonstrate anything else, physical or not, is necessary, you argument falls apart then and there. Never mind taking it to the point where it's part of the mind of a creating intelligence. Okay, so this WAS as exceedingly fucking stupid an argument as I would expect for something not even to be worth anyone's time on youtube. Neociopathic, I would say I expected better from you but that's literally impossible. So what I'll say is, just stop trying.