An argument against naturalism

[Cerrone]

I think we should attack other premises.

You think wrong.

You are right that this premise is false, so the argument is unsound. However, the argument still holds water if we believe that reason is reliable in determining truth.

As a matter of fact I've often found reason to be the enemy of truth. Lawyers, politicians and dishonest people with a way with words often use some form of reason as a way of avoiding or manipulating the truth.

(11) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies.
Conclusion: This being we call God.

I think- if you're looking fo different ways to bring C.S Lewis down, and you seem to be- then you could write this all off as christian bias, that assumes before the debate begins that there is a "god" responsible for everything. Essentially failing as an evolved species by reverting to primitive doctrines when we find ourselves incapable of "thinking outside the box".