Can someone spell this out so I can understand it or am I reading too much into the argument? Seems to me it's another twist in the realm of..." If a person can concieve of a god then there must be a god." Are they really saying " In order to presuppose either side of the argument there must be a god to allow presuppostion?"
You can share this discussion in two ways…
Share this link:
Send it with your computer's email program: Email this