Bill the name of this blogger is the Ah unicornist. What does that say? He must not believe in unicorns I suppose. I guess that's what he's trying to say. The byline of his blog is science, reason, culture, and

unicorns. He takes on your argument from intentionality. Apparently he saw your debate.

Yes, he did in fact.

He said, here's a quote from William Lane Craig's opening statement in his debate with Alex Rosenberg.

He says, I haven't watched the debate, really how many of his debates are worth watching anyway.

But from the buzz on the net, I hear this one is of eight arguments Craig presented.

And just, wow, this is one of the most colossally inane arguments I've ever heard.

And so Bill, if you would like to read your opening statement here.

Okay, here's what I said.

God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness

in the world.

Philosophers are puzzled by states of intentionality.

Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something.

It signifies the object directedness of our thoughts. For example, I can think

about my summer vacation or I can think of my wife. No physical object has this sort of intentionality. A chair or a stone or a glob of tissue like the brain is not about or of something else. Only mental

states or states of consciousness are about other things.

As a materialist, Dr Rosenberg recognizes this,

and so concludes that on atheism,

there really are no intentional states. Dr. Rosenberg boldly claims that we

never really think about anything, but this seems incredible. Obviously I am thinking about Dr Rosenberg's argument.

This seems to me to be a reductio ad absurd absurdum of atheism.

By contrast on theism because God is a mind, it's hardly

...