Presuppositions

You're missing the point. It's an argument by contradiction: if your thoughts are the end result of random natural processes, then does "thought" really exist? Obviously, thought is not random, logic exists, and thus, there must have been something intelligent that created our intelligence. The principle of infinite regress then points to God as the original, supernatural creator of natural intelligence.

I don't know why Jay engages in this stuff. He himself knows God is only revealed through revelation. You won't find him through philosophy… and the god you find there will have just as much in common with the theist's god (which is altogether worthless, without any sense of specificity or revelation in order to know him).

Some anons just put too much stock in Dyer. He provides great intellectual headway into the faith, but like any other earthly endeavor it's ultimately fruitless. I pray that he understands this, and hope that other anons learn not to put too much into him.

That argument by CS Lewis is pretty dodgy. Its just a fancy expression of disguising your feelings of incredulity as an argument. Likewise its pretty dishonest or ignorant to hold things evolution being akin to spilled milk. Even with all of this this argument could be reversed and used to argue for atheism by holding that unless there is nothing but material objects there is no reason to trust your thoughts because divine beings could just be implanting or messing with them.

Discussions of consciousness and abstract things like numbers is a much better way to go about dealing with empiricism.

Probably a combination of:
1.It gets views and attention for his other work. 2.He is American and still has that kind of volatility and fire that defines American religious and Athiest identity

I'm pretty sure he's made the "wisdom of this world is foolishness" argument against atheism, not Christianity. He just holds that the atheistic worldview is incomplete and easily refuted.

He probably sees it as a form of evangelism

I don't argue with atheists. Nobody should. Let them pat themselves on the back and retweet themselves and have their little circle-jerks. We should focus on the needs of our community and Christians in need.

Doesnt he do simmilar things with respect to scholasticism though?

These arent mutually exclusive. If argument can help bring friends and family to Christ it is absolutely worthwhile.

Why?

The why is supposed to quote the green text