So we are back here again. OK, let's go round again. Only this time even more slowly and carefully.
On your website, you present this argument:
(1) The existence of laws of logic nec. requires the existence of the Christian God
(2) The laws of logic exist
Therefore: the Christian God exists.
You call this a "proof". You have also said the argument on your website establishes, as it stands, the truth of the above conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, right?
Now we ask why we should accept premise (1). You say there is also an argument for (1) on your website. We look. We can't find it. You say it's behind the "continue" button. We still cannot find it - all we can find is the *assertion* that the contrary of (1) is impossible, but no *argument* that the contrary of (1) is impossible.
So, some questions:
(i) It is an argument, in the sense of premises and conclusion, that you supply to support (1), correct?
(ii) This argument does lie on the page behind the "continue" button, correct?
(iii) This argument does establish the truth of premise (1) beyond reasonable doubt, correct?
(iv) In which case, can you help us by setting out the argument in question with numbered premises and conclusion? Like so: