>>14242498His problem is he doesn't prove what he says. He says there is a proof, but never references exactly where his proofs are, and when he does, he references other proofs, and this terminates in statements of the first type (which he claims have proofs but he doesn't actually directly point out). Take, for instance, his "refutation" of a world without the principle of sufficient reason. He claims this world would implicitly depend on something outside of the universe, and never expands on this extremely important point which is a cornerstone of most of his more concrete statements.
