This is why I don't like debating religion

[dsgrue3]

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

 

Uh, you can't use self-existence. That's redundant. It will always be true and isn't a valid hypothesis.

Indeed, existence is absolutely predicated upon evidence! That's what I said! 

Your anology is ridiculous, the moment you were birthed someone witnessed that event, thus confirming your existence. Thus you exist. 

 

Again, it's the converse that is false:

In an event where genesis has no observer (the splitting of cells), the existence of a given cell does not rest on its observation, imho. So that cell not being observed doesn't equate to it not existing.

We have evidence for this. It has been observed. You have no point, you're still focussed on sight.