> I think, Angela, you may have this just backwards: > because there is no evidence that Jesus existed, > there is no proof that he did exist. > Angela Mailander wrote: > This is elementary logic: absence of evidence > is not evidence of absence. > Argumentum ad ignorantium: a fallacious argument.
>From the absence of proof of one position you cannot prove the opposite position. I'm surprised our resident philosophers didn't notice this.
