In one place, he explains why he cares enough about the topic to participate in a public debate. He writes: “My answer is that I am a teacher, so my job is to educate. I am also a philosopher. Philosophers question common assumptions and inspect the reasons for and against those assumptions. That is why I want to help readers get clear about the evidence for and against the existence of God, so that they can decide for themselves.”

This assertion about his motive is helpful to our analysis, because it commits him to an intellectual policy against which we can compare his actual arguments. And when he fails to live up to his own policy, it makes his hypocrisy and incompetence all the more obvious.

Although his stated policy is to “question common assumptions,” he nevertheless depends on numerous subjective or intuitive premises and common assumptions throughout his presentation….

Sinnott-Armstrong concludes the debate by saying, “In contrast, I tried to base my arguments on commonsense standards of reasonable belief and adequate compensation.” Thus throughout the debate he appears completely oblivious to the fact that he has said, “I am also a philosopher. Philosophers question common assumptions and inspect the reasons for and against those assumptions.”