(March 10, 2017 at 4:12 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 4:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm sorry, but at best you have demonstrated that the world wasn't flooded. It doesn't follow that the hypothetical god in the claim does not exist.
To Test this.
If I claim that a Nonpareil exists that flooded the world in forty days, and we establish that the world was never flooded for forty days. I have just proven that you do not exist.
Do you agree with the conclusion, that you do not exist?
No. But, again, that is not what I am arguing.
The actual conclusion that your argument allows you to draw - and the thing that I have been saying for this entire time - is that a Nonpareil that flooded the world for forty days does not exist.
This is not complicated.
Ok... I think I see the distinction you are making... Just seems like an odd way of laying it out, and especially from your first post on the issue which would have stated that said nonpareili doesn't exist. However I don't see the distinction from my first statement quoted above.
