[mooted]

I think he is merely referring to the assertive nature of this part of essay:

No, it turns out, humans are not created by God in his own image; they're just one species among many, descended not merely from apes, but from microorganisms.

[mcav]

> No, it turns out, humans are not created by God in his own image

Counterpoint: God could be described as the "master programmer". A supreme being would be capable of designing an evolutionary system which would evolve beings who are capable of contemplating the existence of God himself.

That deity probably has a handle on chaos theory.

[gjm11]

Well, of course a supreme being "would be capable of" making a world very much like this one. Or, for that matter, any other sort of world. (So any argument that begins "a supreme being could make a world like this" isn't actually bringing in any facts about the world.)

A better question -- because it gives some opportunity for applying actual information about the world -- is "If a supreme being were making a world, would we expect it to look like this one, or very different?". The answer to that depends on what sort of supreme being you have in mind, of course.

[netsp]

My comment still applies.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone, just showing how for many people the process of changing their mind about God involved the principle outlined in the essay and demonstrated in these comments.

According to Russell (with whom I agree) The fallacy lies in the question, a common place for blind spots to hide.