David
Are saying i cannot answer the question and this is because it is not a real question? Can you explain why you say it is not a real question?
AJ thought he could answer it. I guess you would disagree with his evolutionary approach.

Regarding my response, what do I need to clarify?

Why, I’ve already explained a few, Dan.

<<..I don't think you've explained how anything on this list actually applies to Don Batten's article.>>

Here’s a quick rundown of them.

The Straw Man:
One example of a Straw Man from Batten was where he took the somewhat-sensationalist title of a science magazine and attacked that without actually addressing the content of the article. Which, when you read it, puts things into perspective:

“To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something.” (http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover)

Batten quote-mined the title of an article without bothering to address anything that had actually been said in the article (which can be read in full in the above link). He wanted it to look like physicists (and thus, by extension, every single atheist, or materialist (whichever suited his argument best at the time)) claim that the universe just poofed into existence from what we laymen would usually think of as nothing (i.e. no matter and a very low state of energy).

The Special Pleading fallacy:
This one I already explained. Batten insists that everything has a cause, but is willing to let his god off the hook on that one.

Begging the Question:
Batten commits this fallacy because the essay is implied, indirect evidence for his god, but his god is already assumed in the premise of his argument, so it’s essentially circular (e.g. God is required for the creation of the universe, therefore, the universe is proof that God exists).

The Argument from Incredulity:
This one was implied throughout the entire article. Basically, because Don can’t see how naturalistic explanations could be true, then that means they’re not. This was the most subtle of all fallacies but was explicit in his mocking tone.

The Argument from Ignorance:
This was committed impliedly in Batten’s assumption that because some things have not yet been conclusively proven (e.g. what happened before the Big Bang and abiogenesis), then they must therefore be false. Why else would he refer to them as “magic”?

Continued…

…Continued

Tu Quoque:
This fallacy was the entire article. In his article, Batten is essentially saying, “Well, we might believe in magic, but so do you.” I know he tried to distinguish his god’s work from magic, but all he demonstrated was that he needs to consult a dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/magic).

The God of the Gaps:
This one, you explained yourself: “The point of the article is that atheists acknowledge no forces other than the natural or material (the forces of physics and chemistry), but these forces are inadequate and even counterproductive in explaining the large scale events that atheists believe occurred.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324030)

Sure, but that doesn’t mean you’re justified in plonking a God in those gaps.

<<Batten appears to me to be using the words materialist and atheist as synonyms, considering both words refer to those who deny the existence of the spiritual. This would seem reasonable given the context.>>

No, it’s not reasonable at all. It’s actually dishonest. Batten is, first and foremost, attacking atheism. But to do this, he needs to paint all atheists as materialists by - using slight of hand - switching between the two terms interchangeably. Yet not all atheists are materialists.

There's another example of his Straw Men.

As for contacting Batten, I did so that night, but I am yet to receive a response. Somehow I think my $50 is safe. Batten's article seems geared towards those who already believe, and I suspect he's switched on enough to realise that an atheist is going to be able to pick it to pieces.

grateful,

The existence of an omniscient god may not stop someone making choices (I’ll even call this free will, if you like), but as I said earlier, those choices are meaningless if making a different choice could never have occurred by virtue of an omniscient god’s ability to see the future.

But getting back to your main point, grateful.

<<To exercise free will we need an existence that is independent of our existence in this world … To conclude, freewill presupposes that each and every one of us has a spiritual existence; an existence that is independent of our worldly existence.>>

Okay then, what happens to this ‘spirit’, and the free will which it supposedly makes possible, when a person suffers from a brain injury? Because, when a person suffers from a severe enough brain injury, everything that makes that individual who they are can be reset: their personality, their memory, their preferences, their desires, even their ability to form new memories.

What happens to such a person’s spirit and free will? Did the spirit suffer from brain injury too? Is its ability to move and communicate with the brain-injured person’s body hampered? Did it pack up and leave? Did a new spirit, with behaviour more like that of a brain-injured person, complete with a different personality, set up camp in the unfortunately person’s body?

And what if the brain injury causes someone to become an atheist? Did their own spirit condemn itself to hell? (Or physical death if they were a Muslim living in an Islamic theocracy and someone found out about their apostasy?)

The existence of free will, if it even exists at all, does absolutely nothing to prove the existence of souls, spirits, or a spiritual realm.

AJ wrote:
The existence of an omniscient god may not stop someone making choices (I’ll even call this free will, if you like), but as I said earlier, those choices are meaningless if making a different choice could never have occurred by virtue of an omniscient god’s ability to see the future.

An “omniscient god’s ability to see the future” means that the god would know our choices before we made them. How would this make the choices any less meaningful?

AJ states:

“Okay then, what happens to this ‘spirit’, and the free will which it supposedly makes possible, when a person suffers from a brain injury? Because, when a person suffers from a severe enough brain injury, everything that makes that individual who they are can be reset: their personality, their memory, their preferences, their desires, even their ability to form new memories.
“What happens to such a person’s spirit and free will? Did the spirit suffer from brain injury too? Is its ability to move and communicate with the brain-injured person’s body hampered? Did it pack up and leave? Did a new spirit, with behaviour more like that of a brain-injured person, complete with a different personality, set up camp in the unfortunately person’s body?”

Being able to choose requires having an existence that is independent of our worldly existence. This is compatible with an infinite range of possible forms that the worldly existence may take.

AJ: "And what if the brain injury causes someone to become an atheist? Did their own spirit condemn itself to hell? (Or physical death if they were a Muslim living in an Islamic theocracy and someone found out about their apostasy?)"

If someone is a believer by choice but because of brain injury they become a committed atheist, then the fact remains that they chose to believe and did not choose disbelief.

Okay then, grateful. I should have said that “the ability to make those choices” is meaningless.

<<An “omniscient god’s ability to see the future” means that the god would know our choices before we made them. How would this make the choices any less meaningful?>>

I didn’t mean to imply that those choices have no meaning, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Since it would be a paradox to deviate from what an omniscient god already knew we were going to do, then the fact that we were able to make the choice is meaningless because making a different choice was never an option.

The logic here is similar to, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t carry it?” If he can, then he’s not omnipotent. If he can’t, then he’s not omnipotent. Do you see the paradox now?

<<Being able to choose requires having an existence that is independent of our worldly existence. This is compatible with an infinite range of possible forms that the worldly existence may take.>>

So what exactly is the role that this spiritual existence plays then? Because your free-will argument suggests that it needs to be there to control the person independently of the physical-world constraints. But now you seem to be suggesting that our spiritual existence doesn’t need to do anything, it just has to exist.

You need to clarify this.

<<If someone is a believer by choice but because of brain injury they become a committed atheist, then the fact remains that they chose to believe and did not choose disbelief.>>

So choices are no longer choices after a brain injury then? Is Gary Busey not really a Christian because he became one after a permanent head injury sustained after a motorcycle accident that has affected his personality? Does God then not admit him to heaven because his choices no longer count? Or is it only the unfavourable choices that don’t count? Did Gary Busey’s atheist spirit lose some control over his mind after the head injury?

I don't think you’ve really thought this through properly.