(March 10, 2017 at 1:01 am)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That doesn't follow.
Yes, it does.
(March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If I claim that I was streaking through the streets of Shanghai today at noon. If you demonstrate that the claim is false; and I never left good old Penn's Woods. It doesn't follow that I do not exist.
Of course it doesn't. But that's not what I said.
If someone claims that a person exists - not you, not anyone specific, just a person - who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon, and we demonstrated that there were no streakers in Shanghai at noon today, then we know that the claimed person who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon does not exist.
In the same way, when it is claimed that a deity exists who flooded the world for forty days, and it is demonstrated that this never happened, we know that the claimed deity does not exist.
Now, this does not mean that we have demonstrated that there is no deity in existence. But it does mean that this specific claimed entity with defined characteristics that are demonstrably untrue does not exist. Even if a deity is later shown to exist, it would not be the one that was claimed.
Before you say it: yes, this is an extremely narrow conclusion. It is not meant to be anything but narrow, but it is still important to point out.
How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.
