>Meaning that God's existence cannot be logically proven (as we humans define
>logic) and the foundation for Jim's argument goes out the window.
Since neither can God's existence be disproven (though we may have strong
opinions either way), your argument follows Jim's in like manner, landing
upon philosophically neutral ground. ISTM Jim is mainly discussing the
internal consistency of a view whilst you are mainly addressing the
validity of a view. Ipso facto, the debate need not have continued for so
long.
Regards,
Peter Grice