Hate Mail 2 - The Criteria That Are Acceptable As Proof of Things You Like Can't Be Held To Be Inadequate To Prove Things You Don't Like Without Impeaching What You Like

I wonder if Duns Scotus were arguing for the existence of some entity in the natural world and supported it with such obvious antecedent premises and with exactly the same form of logical argument what you would say about the existence of that entity.   
I would guess that the argument would be considered so strong by anyone with the intellectual ability to follow his argument that it would be considered either proof of stupidity or insanity to deny the existence of such a thing.   It really is an incredibly persuasive argument and I think anyone who can follow it is entirely within their rights and entirely within intellectual respectability to be totally convinced of it.  

It is certainly superior to any argument I've heard or read for atheism, by a huge margin.  Certainly better than anything any of the neo-atheists have come up with.  Dawkins' 747 nonsense is popular, I can't recall, off hand, which atheist said they thought it was probably the worst argument ever made by someone who is supposed to have some kind of intellectual status.  Nothing I read by Haeckel or any other science based atheist zealot comes close.   

As it is, I am convinced from long experience and observation of life and the world.   Really, the same things that are the basis of believing anything, including the validity of logic, mathematics or science.