What I am saying is that if his existence doesn't matter, then his logic doesn't, because if he doesn't exist he by definition can't have any logic! His logic, the inspiration that apparently comes from him, everything that comes from him and everything about him - is dependent on his existence. So how can existence not be an issue here? How do you justify that?
What do you mean the negative is you don't believe it? 1. What don't you believe? 2. As I said, not believing has got nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy you accused me of.
The negative proof fallacy is claiming to be able to prove the non-existence of something, which is fallacious.
EvF
What do you mean the negative is you don't believe it? 1. What don't you believe? 2. As I said, not believing has got nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy you accused me of.
The negative proof fallacy is claiming to be able to prove the non-existence of something, which is fallacious.
EvF
