Yet he failed to explain why it gives absolute credence when you substitute in other examples. You call them spurious, I call them examples that show how his argument does not merit it's conclusion. It's a non-explanation, given that anything (even the lack of a God) could just as easily explain the existence of these things.
Calling them spurious isn't an argument; it's a philosophical chickening out.
Calling them spurious isn't an argument; it's a philosophical chickening out.
