A Wild Elles Appeared!

[Ryft]

Neither do I (think the arguments settle the question) if you're talking from an impersonal position. I think Arcanus is talking about personally though. Personally I have conclusively established it. I would suggest that you have conclusively established the opposite. Perhaps the personal nature needs clarifying?

Although that is an implication of what I said, it's not an entirely correct understanding. Settling the question for your own self is obviously involved, of course, but I meant much more than that. Remember, I also said (emphasis added; link):

Those who fall under the Gnostic Theist category would hold that a group of two or more people, when they are personally and actively involved in a discussion that examines the arguments for the existence of God, could be intellectually persuaded that the arguments conclusively establish his existence. That is to say, despite the background beliefs that another brings to the table, they hold that the parties involved can be brought into agreement that (i) the premises are more probable than their denials, and (ii) given the premises the conclusion does follow. Equally important to consider, there is no reason for anyone to think that this is done in a singular argument; i.e., it almost necessarily implies a series of arguments covering relevant areas. One does not build the roof without first building the walls. ... This is in contrast to Agnostic Theists, who feel that objections can be sustained even when given voice, that is, that certain premises are equally as probable as their denials and therefore the arguments are not conclusive.