The burden of proof is for Doug to critique those in his own camp to demonstrate how his theoretical absolutes have actually translated into more than metaphysical advantages.
It does no good to contrast the Christian worldview with the worst non-Christian worldview such as Stalin or Pol Pot. And assuming that Atheists don't believe in absolutes is not representing Atheism as a whole.
His argument is that since Atheism can't account for absolutes then the hypothesis of God must be true.
The burden of proof is for Doug to critique those in his own camp to demonstrate how his theoretical absolutes have actually translated into more than metaphysical advantages.
It does no good to contrast the Christian worldview with the worst non-Christian worldview such as Stalin or Pol Pot. And assuming that Atheists don't believe in absolutes is not representing Atheism as a whole.
His argument is that since Atheism can't account for absolutes then the hypothesis of God must be true.
Entropy56 2 years ago
Doug's argument would be more convincing if Christians could agree what those absolutes actually were.
Entropy56 2 years ago