This post may be a borderline case in terms of forum policy, but since DD's arguments have been a major topic on this forum, I'd think there are people here interested of a clean version of his arguments. You can find the links to read his book online at;
I have been helping DD by setting up that a blog, which is intended to operate as a location to comment on various issues and reply to any reasonable criticism in as clear form as possible. The forum posts quickly get filled with noise, so the blog space offers little bit easier future reference for issues. Also it prevents from having to respond to the exact same thing over and over again.
The blog is meant to be a form of editing with a minimal amount of censorship, so the comments on the blog pages will not be censored.
I'm also thinking of helping the readers by commenting my way through the arguments, in the form of blog posts.
If there is immediately some questions or criticism that you think should be addressed in the blog, just let us know! You can do so in this thread, or just use the blog contact.
Finally, I feel compelled to comment on the title of the blog. The title of DD's book is referring to some universal requirements that are necessary for the creation of a world view (a well-defined representation which we call "physical reality"), so the arguments are entirely epistemological by nature. It would be easy for the uninitiated to assume the title implies yet another belief-based ontological argument about reality. That would be exactly the opposite of the truth; the entire argument revolves around the idea of what can be said without using a belief. Or another meta level above that, how can we avoid belief in an analysis at all?