Wow. I only now bothered listening to this. Did he really just stoop to the level of every Bible-thumping inbred American redneck? "God said it. I believe it. End of."
Funny enough, that "American-Redneck" line of reasoning is also espoused by a few professional philosophers. The ones I have read specifically are Alvin Plantinga, John Hick and William Alston.
The reasoning is simple and can be broken down into 3 basic steps.
Step 1: Not all true beliefs/statements can be demonstrated to be true.
This is something we all accept. For example, I believe it is true that I ate bread yesterday. There is no way I can provide any reason/evidence for this belief but at the same time I know it is true. There are tons of such beliefs that all of us hold, for which no evidence can be presented.
However, even though you are unable to provide any evidence, you are still
reasonable to hold that belief.
Step 2: Find a way to claim that God/Religion is part of such a belief that cannot be demonstrated but at the same time is not unreasonable to hold.
Step 3: Therefore, one does not need to evidence to believe in God.
For step 2, William Alston and John Hick argues specifically for religious experiences. They say that if one has a religious experience, there is no need to treat it any differently than one would treat a natural experience.
For example, let's say I see a tree. I believe there is a tree in front of me and now I am experiencing what it is like to be in front of a tree. Notice, that I don't go seeking external evidence for my belief that there is a tree in front of me. I see the tree and that is all I need to hold the "reasonable" belief that there is a tree in front of me.
Likewise, let's say I see or have the perception of seeing an angel or God in front of me. According to Alston and Hick, I don't require any additional evidence to hold the "reasonable" belief that there is a tree in front of me.
Plantinga argues for step 2, by asserting that belief in God is a "properly basic belief". I don't like Plantinga so don't have much of a clue of what he specifically argues for.
The dawahgandists though don't seem to be following any of these philosophers. They are clearly ripping off of Sye Ten Bruggencate. It is only after he appeared on the scene a few years ago, that I started to notice some Muslim forums making up the Islamic equivalents to Sye Ten's Christian non-arguments.
I really wonder if Muslims have ever made an original argument for their religion? I am willing to be there were probably some obscure Christian figures who made "the literary argument" for the bible before the Qur'an.
Topic: Tzortzis Doesn't like Debates