>>12592093It’s only a consequent fallacy if he doesn’t explain why, he did here:
>>12592102Matter cannot create mind.
A consequential fallacy is something along the lines of:
If I have caffeine (antecedent)
I will be awake at night (consequential)
I am awake all night (consequential)
He only commits the fallacy if he didn’t give his reasoning, which he did (matter cannot create mind for it is impersonal and impersonal things cannot create personal beings).
On top of that, if atheism were true and we’re just dancing to the tune of our DNA, then objective mortality would not exist and you should not believe anything, not even your own mind which tells you to be an atheist.
Cut God out of the picture and you have to explain all these outside the room, which you cannot.
