Hm, first you say it is "safe" to say that it did not exist, but then you say you are willing to change your mind if any evidence arises. Can't you see your self-contradiction here? You cannot be "safe" if you are willing to change your mind under certain circumstances.
"safe" means: 100%, not 99% of certainty.
You did not correct me. I quoted somebody else (you?) who said that Crantor saw it on pillars and added an "allegedly". You live in illusions. You still have not realized that Crantor is a witness of the story independent from Plato, be he trustworthy or not. You screw this all up right from the beginning with your black-and-white schemes.
Hm, X is not Y, but Y is X. Interesting theory you have, we could make a Platonic dialogue out of this, me in the role of Socrates, you in the role of the ... errr ... less educated person :-)
Ever heard of Karl Popper? Hypothesis and falsification, etc.? Not valid for text interpretation? But indeed!
> Why Crantor would mention pillars can be found in the Critias itself, where Plato states
> that the Atlanteans had their laws and their kings list inscribed on pillars of orichalcum.
I can't get it! This is so outrageous! You confuse the law pillar of Atlantis with the alleged Egyptian pillars with the war report on the war between Atlantis and Egypt! *sigh*
Edited by Proclus, 08 February 2013 - 02:50 PM.