Well this is the idiocy of the script.
If he concludes its logical to believe in a creator because a,b, and c,
and he still does not,
what is logical about him not believing in a creator? By definition of his own explanation he’s being illogical.
And how is that to be a defended position for him?
He has to admit his position is not based on logic, but because he is refusing the evidence because he doesnt want to believe in a creator.
A true scientist always has to hold out the possibility he is wrong...because there is no way to test for all possibilities. Science is never settled.
“What is logical about him not believing in a creator? By definition of his own explanation he’s being illogical.”
That’s true, but he could argue that his disbelief is based on faith.
Well analyzed!