Prof,
If only...
AB's entire position rests on "I don't understand how X could be, therefore X is impossible". It never seems to cross his mind that calling something impossible because he doesn't understand it is a statement of his incredulity but nothing more. This has been explained to him six bajillion and three times at the last count but the explanation always falls on deaf ears.
Ah well.
There is another element, which is that AB seems unable to think beyond the notion that god exists, souls exist etc and there argues on that basis that these things are universally accepted and therefore require no justification when dropped into a claim. Rather they are unevidenced conjecture and therefore must be demonstrated to be the case prior to being used within a more complex argument.
So rather than a priori acceptance of these claims (which AB fails to be able to get beyond) we enter the world of
if god exists and
if god is as described in the bible (albeit that in itself is somewhat confusing) and
if souls exist then certain things follow. We might all accept that proposition on those starting point assumptions of
if - but many of us simply don't accept those starting point propositions which seem rather more fundamental than the relationship between things not proven to exist. It is a
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin type argument - point being the whole proposition is totally pointless until or unless you demonstrate that angels exist in the first place.
