I only watched 6 min of the first video.
What's the point? I don't get it.
Step 1. He seems to be saying that if a god exists, therefore he will give evidence that he exists.
Step 2. God gives evidence
Step 3. Step 3 is the concluding step and he says therefore, god exists.
That is not circular. It's how basic logic works with just about any piece of evidence.
The thing is that it is possible that the god never gives evidence and also you want to call some guy a god for some reason.
What's the point? I don't get it.
Step 1. He seems to be saying that if a god exists, therefore he will give evidence that he exists.
Step 2. God gives evidence
Step 3. Step 3 is the concluding step and he says therefore, god exists.
That is not circular. It's how basic logic works with just about any piece of evidence.
The thing is that it is possible that the god never gives evidence and also you want to call some guy a god for some reason.
