Why are we even bothering with this argument when its first premise is bollocks?
The idea is that "If it's possible God exists then he DOES, so I just have to prove it's possible"?
This is NONSENSE. It's POSSIBLE that all kinds of things exist. This had no bearing at all on whether they do .
First rule of epistemology is you don't let someone get away with a flawed first premise. This premise is so flawed as to be meaningless.
The idea is that "If it's possible God exists then he DOES, so I just have to prove it's possible"?
This is NONSENSE. It's POSSIBLE that all kinds of things exist. This had no bearing at all on whether they do .
First rule of epistemology is you don't let someone get away with a flawed first premise. This premise is so flawed as to be meaningless.