Good job, Matt. You mentioned all the important points. Bruggencate's argument is a typical presuppositionalist one, and suffers the same fundamental flaws. Really, it's hard to understand how they think these arguments could convince anyone else but themselves. They appear to me to be defensive arguments, to shore up their 'faith', rather than intellectually honest attempts to present sound reasoning.

I have only one suggestion, although it is a fairly important one, IMHO. And that is to bypass discussion of the word 'materialism' in favour of a different and more meaningful word. And that word is: physicalism. Focusing on the physicality of information in particular, is a very useful tool which undermines every presuppositionalist argument against 'immaterial' things existing in the 'material' universe. Information is the physical quantity/entity that is the basis of things like: Laws, thought, mind, process, etc.

You did make a good counter-argument to show that thoughts etc. are 'material' since they are made up of 'material' things like electrons and whatnot, but you can make that counter-argument much stronger by understanding the physical basis of information, as studied in physics under the name information theory.

Natural, you are exactly right.  My argument could have been much improved by using the principles of information theory to strengthen my position.  I actually started reading into it somewhat, where it begins with the telegraph.  I find it so very frustrating that the reason science and physics is so important (in my opinion) is that it cuts through the philosophical quaqmire that logicians present.  Pure logic does not suffice (also in my opinion) because it relies on assumed premises.  What sets science apart (also imo) is the ability to be flexible to any degree, where empiricism and testable hypothesises allow us to touch on the truth of a matter.  Where science leads (I believe) can be very unsettling, such as some of the philosophical implications presented by Stephen Hawking, but I don't think the emotional sentiment towards reality should produce philosophical battles over why we are here or if there is a God.  As it stands, we don't know the answers to the grand philosophical questions, and as such we are free to imagine what we will.  But proofs for something that we cannot verify empirically (or at least mathematically) are silly and rooted in the emotional sentiment I mentioned.

Also, I find this kind of funny, I have the theist's name wrong who I was writing about.  His name is Sye Ten Bruggencate.  For some reason, his last name really through me off.

No problem. Fixed it.

Quite frankly, I couldn't get through the list, it was just soooooooooo old hat and stupid.

As far as Matt. I think he did a great job, but semantically I might make a few points.

I see "thoughts" as not actual physical things, but abstractions( a language we use to describe our observations) due to material processes. Just like running isn't a thing itself, but the result of moving your legs faster and faster, which is a result of a material process.

Math too is not a physical thing, but words, a language physical humans use to describe observations.

So I don't think we are saying something different but merely using different examples to reach the same conclusions?

I agree some of the points I mentioned tread on semantic interpretations.  Is the mind physical, or the result of the physical condition of the brain?  I think that is a very old philosophical question.  Do you agree with Stephen Hawking that philosophy is dead?

I would say we are saying the  same thing essentially, because the conclusion remains that the characteristics of human inference and the existence of abstract reasoning does not in any way conclude God must exist. 

Also, your graphic is hilarious.

I certainly agree that Philosophy is dead, as an independent discipline, anyway. 

'Philosophy of Science' makes sense, as an arena for extrapolating current science in various directions, to guide and stimulate new hypotheses, new areas of study.

I agree it is dead also.  Philosophy of science is intriguing, for the purpose you mentioned.  Naturally, we as humans ponder the questions pertaining to meaning and existence that cannot be directly recieved by scientific analysis (neccesarily).  There is nothing wrong with that.

I must admit I study Christian apologetics much the same way a biologist might study a colony of monkeys.  When speaking on philosophy of science, the standard model of the big bang theory seems to be the crux for the cosomological arguments for the Christian god.  Extrapolating that the causal nature of the big bang must be of godlike nature (I use the word nature loosely here) there are many Christian (and Muslim) apologists that insist that God must exist.  These people are not cosmologists, and seem to quote mine laymens' resources or conduct heavily biased work.

 Issues that pertains to religions or one's belief should not be put in   question rather  it demands respect. Freedom to choose religions is  everyone's right. God's existence dwells in our heart and spirit. Questionable General William G. Boykin has been asked by the Army to speak at a prayer breakfast in early Feb.. The Army is being criticized from anti-discrimination and pro-Islamic groups. Boykin has in the past made inflammatory statements about Muslims and Islam. 

DISAGREE! Challenge-worthy claims deserve challenges.

I shall challenge any claim that isn't worth a LOWL outright

"I like it" in the way Bob presents it, which is rare for me