@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62466 wrote:Thus, according to Sabz, before there was evidence of quarks there was no existance of quarks.:ban:
Before there was evidence, there was no reason to consider their existence. Was their existence considered 500 years ago? Clearly not.
Regardless of an object's existence, there is no reason to assume they exist unless evidence points towards it. It is not until evidence is shown that such a thing is taken into consideration.
And not one second before.
That means, until you provide evidence for this deity, there is no reason its existence should be taken into consideration. You can hypothesize all day and night, but hypotheses do not mean something exists.
So... the betting comes back around to you. Do you have evidence for the existence of this being? If not, why is there any reason to consider its existence?