What do you call an argument that ends up destroying itself? A suicidal argument?
> Firstly. An entire desert tribe of men, women, and children was once killed by the sun. Therefore the sun doesn’t exist.
Spectacular failure right out of the opening paragraph. Well done. Or is this some obscure language where all the word are suspiciously like English, but mean something completely different?
Hint about logic: A causes B. A does not exist. Logical inference is that B never happened.
> Second. Intelligent scientists have searched the night sky for the sun, and found no evidence for its existence.
They can't have been very intelligent then. Twilight, the moon and planets all hint at the existence of the sun. You have also clearly never heard of zodiacal light.
EDIT: even better: gegenschein is a (relatively) bright spot on the night sky opposite the sun, caused by the same dust that is responsible for zodiacal light.
Of course, the icing on the cake is repeating said experiment in the arctic during the summer. You know, 'cause real scientific experiments should give the same outcome regardless of where and when they were done (and by whom).
> Third. They also entered a pitch-black room and studied a book about the sun. Again, they found no empirical evidence.
Well, duh. You do not find empirical evidence for anything by reading a book. You have to conduct an experiment. Say, equip said room with a neutrino detector.
> Fourth. Beliefs were confirmed by interviewing members of the Braille Institute.
Beliefs have no place in science. It's not a popularity contest and personal opinions count for nothing. It's evidence that counts.
> Lastly. The millions who testified that they have seen a brilliant ball of fire in the sky are unscientific dimwitted liars. The a/sunists continue to hold their meetings in a dark room and tell each other that it is intelligent to believe that the sun doesn’t exist.
Well, millions of people saying the sun exists doesn't make it so. However, if there is a well-documented experiment describing how to do the observation, no one is going to ignore it out of hand.
You know the story of the moons of Jupiter, a telescope, Galilei and the clergyman? Guess which of them refused to use said telescope to observe the moons of Jupiter for themselves?
