It is a perfectly valid argument simply because - as I've just pointed out in my previous post - the two side of the debate are starting from hugely differenct understandings of reality. Is naturalistic science and its thinking, the sole arbiter of reality - or is reality broader, more multi-faceted than 'mere' naturalism? Without an answer to that conundrum, no-one will be able to claim an argumentative 'victory'.

Sorry, jeremy, when atheists and non-believers make categorical statements and assertions, as many here do, believers here are just as entitled to request evidence to support those statements as non-believers are of believers. Furthermore, whilst documentary evidence of what Christians believe remain on the table of public accessibility, that evidence has to be shown to be wrong. Arguing the case that it could be wrong, or might be wrong, yet without providing evidence of that case, doesn't hold water.