“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. If you do not assume mind is primary, there is no “you” to make any argument at all.”
- William J Murray
Around and around we go.
Both base their arguments on faith. One religion against another.
I personally believe there’s more evidence in the universe for God, though I can’t prove it. Ergo....
I am reminded of the hilarious story from Rabelais about the two scholars arguing on metaphysics using only symbolic logic.
If you want to read many good rejoinders to Coyne’s nonsense then search for Ed Feser and read his cogent answers.
“Coyne misunderstands the question to which Collins is referring. “Why are we here?” is primarily a question about purpose, not a question about formal method.”
With that caveat, I can pretty much agree with Collins. Coyne way oversteps the boundaries of science.