It has not concerned him in the past when third parties point out that he has not countered specific counterarguments. IOW he presents a position, someone else presents counterarguments, and often his response is to reassert his original arguement and then comment on its strength, not quite realizing, it seems, that an appeal to one’s own authority - implicit in repeating how one has proved something - is even weaker than the run of the mill appeal to authority (where a third party is brought in, at least). When the first responder mentions how Prismatic has not responded to the counterargument, but merely dismissed it (if that), sometimes a third party or several will come in and repeat this. No, you did not respond to the counter argument. If one is lucky, one may get told that one’s counterargument is not sound. Though generally without any critique of the counter argument. His orginal argument’s repetition is seen, by him, as a response.
I mention this because not only does one find trouble getting an acknowledgement that one has even made an argument, let alone having it reacted to point by point, but…
even when third parties point out that this has happened,
one still gets, at best, simple dismissals that what one has assserted and argued for is not correct, and a repetition of his original position.
It is very hard to…hm…how shall I put this…hard to not treat other minds like our own.
So, when one is told one has not produced a sound counterargument it often seems like one has an actual responsibility to re-show whatever arguments one has made.
He must have read them. He must have wrestled with them. Perhaps he presented a critique I missed.
Because, hey, we would not simply dismiss an argument and label it unsound, without having spent time trying to show that. Taking some of its premises or logic (purported) apart to demonstrate the unsoundness.
So, there must be a glitch, and we wade into the tide again, re-presenting the ideas, perhaps in a new paraphrase. A new angle. Taking respnsibility for bridging the counterargument, when, in fact, no effort has been taken on the other side to bridge or even to understand.
It’s a fairly common experience on the internet, and i am sure I have done similar things, hopefully only in regard to portions of counterarguments, but who knows. _But some people ‘make their living at it’ to write metaphorically.
It’s the bread and butter of their approach to not responding and maintaining that they have proven something.
To be charitable: perhaps he thinks people have to demonstrate there is a God for there to be any problems with his ‘proof’. That’s also a common confusion. Unless one can prove X is the case, then -X must be the case. Which is not only not true, but not relevant to the soundness of his argument.