The second proposition does not follow from the first. In fact, you are deriving an ontological proposition from an epistomological one. ;)
A. I have no reason to believe that x exists. B. Therefore, x does not exist.
WTF?
Suppressed premise:
If I have no reason to believe that x exists, then x does not exist.
This is obvious false.
--- boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com> wrote:
> What we can say is that there are no known,
> reproducible observations
> which logically imply the existence of God. As a
> matter of scientific
> fact, therefore, God does not exist. \
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com