As anyone who knows me will already know, I find it very difficult to let an argument that hasn't explicitly been settled go. This is partly an enjoyment of (relatively) polite argument, and partly, I like to think, that I and others ought to care about getting things right, being justified, and arguing to a conclusion is the best way to do this. So, in the interests of me ever getting anything else done, I decree that people shall stop disagreeing with me, at least until they actually have a response to what I said in the first place, because otherwise, all I do is reiterate the same point over and over again until I become literally insane with frustration. Yes, Matt G, I mean you in particular, although you are not by any stretch of the imagination the only offender against basic canons of good argument I have encountered (see update). I'm not sure whether this unwillingness to bother to think at all about what the people you're disagreeing with say is a particular feature of the blogosphere, or whether it's more general, and I just haven't noticed because I've spent a lot of time recently in the relatively cloistered environment of academia, where people tend to, because they are usually more interested in being right than winning the argument, take their disputant's points seriously. Either way, it's bloody annoying, not only for itself, but because it means I end up repeating myself over and over a-bloody-gain in a sometimes time-consuming and always boring manner. So, please, please, stop it. All of you.
Update: Matt G has now given a substantive defence of his view, which is what I was trying to press him for, so the reference to him above should be scratched (you should still at least have a look at the thread, because it's interesting). I still don't think he's right, because he is still stipulating that God is necessarily supernatural and thus non-existing (yes, I know, the ridiculous things that philosophers argue about...), which seems to me to be in fairly direct contradiction with his point about the flexibility of the category of existence, and his claim about existing things falling under laws should be read in light of what I say about anomalous monism above. Hopefully this shows that I'm not complaining about people disagreeing with me, which would be a tad dogmatic of me to say the least, but disagreeing with me without taking any bloody notice of a damn thing I say, which is just rude of them.