A. If existence cannot be established, radical_logic cannot be established.
B. Existence is presently debated by many atheists and logicians.
C. Something that is debated is not established as fact.
D. Thus, existence cannot be established.
E. Thus, radical_logic cannot be established.
Ok, that was easy. Next premise:
If radical_logic cannot be established, we must establish him before we can comment on anything he says.
Anybody wanna debate this with me? Come on, I can post this again if that will make it clearer.... I'll even restructure the argument to make it more believable if you need.
