the existence of

[Theorist]

Re: the existence of

@ajazali

See, with even this response you could not agree with RV?
So what is your point here?
You just want it circular.
You want to leave it vague and ambiguous and live in fool’s paradise.
I know people understand what they want to understand, so in most cases, I try resort to reply with few concrete sentences, especially when I have less free time.

It’s not about agreeing with someone. An argument will be circular if there is no hard evidence. Theology and Philosophy will always have circular arguments. As a matter of fact, it is you and RV who want to be vague and circular. I am simply saying we don’t know!