- Banned
- #6,481
That's why anyone with half a brain working would be an agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever comes up with some real tangible proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.
No evidense is proof of no evidense.
There is No evidence he does not exist as well. So by your logic he must exist.
I'll give you points for trying, but what you just said makes no sense.
