Well, the entire excuse he used for not understanding my OP’s restatement was chickenshit :-).
Basically, I restated, he went off on a load of tangential points because he missed the reference to Pascal’s Wager and thought I was basing my arguments on an acceptance of deity, then came back and agreed with half of what I was saying, moved the goalposts on the rest, and then blamed me for the confusion. :-)
I think we’ve both had about enough of that for one day. It’s my fault for messing with him longer than a should have. Same old tired arguments.