The following argument for the non-existence of God is invalid.

Thank you for your response: Let me cross all your argument fellow: "My opponent argues that God's existence cannot be verified by the senses or empirically tested. His observation is accurate, but such thinking does not disprove God's existence. Consider the following statement: Only that which is empirically verified by science is true. The above statement cannot itself be scientifically tested since it is an abstract assertion. It can only be true if it is false, so it must be false. Therefore, even though God cannot be observed by our physical senses, it does not follow that he does not exist. " Yes, and so are fairies, Hecules, mermaids, big foots, aliens. .. Indeed we can't feel them either, but that's not mean those things do not exist, but the percentage is small, not even close to 1%, if we believe mermaids, fairies. .. are real, then God can't be real, if again God can be real then these fairies can't, look one look at the Bible, you'll see them are just simply some fairy tales with a hint of history which make the Bible simply become more interested. The sentence "Only that which is empirically verified by science is true. " like you said cannot be scientifically tested because it's an abstract assertion, but just because it's just an abstract assertion does not mean it's can be true, fairies, mermaid, and all other mythological creatures may be real, even though they can't be tested, you believe mermaids are real, right? Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ", if your faith is simply so much contradictions with science, I think you should look at and decide whether or not your religion is blind. "My opponent cites an apparent paradox: an immortal God died a mortal death. This argument is simply a misrepresentation of Christian theology. The Christian worldview presupposes dualistic man—that humans are made of two parts: mortal flesh and immortal spirit. [1] There is no paradox in the flesh dying and the spirit living on. Therefore, there is no logical paradox in Christ the Man dying on the cross and Christ the God living on. The only way for this argument to go any further is to disprove that man and Christ are immortal spirit. Of course, the only way to do this is to philosophically disprove the existence of God. In other words, this argument begs the question. He'll have to win the debate before he can continue with this line of reasoning. " _ My opponent point clearly is that in Christianity theology, a man has 2 part, the mortal flesh and the immortal spirit, therefore when I stated that it's ridiculous when we say Jesus Christ is God and died a mortal death, my oppoent said it's apparently paradox, but it's an explicit event when Jesus Himself rose back from death,, if it's like what you said, normal for the immortal spirit to live on, then the mortal flesh cannot rise back from death, we should remember that when Jesus rose back from death, people still touch and see Him, He even required to eat, Jesus continue stayed with the disciples for 40 days I believe before He ever went back to Heaven. You're right, for this argument to go further, we need to disprove that man and Christ are immortal spirit, but that's impossible, due to the fact that none of them are immotal spirit, Jesus said in the Bible: "God is the spirit", if God is the only one who has His whold body is immortal spirit, then it's impossible for men are immortal spirit, it should be men have immortal spirits which we call souls. "6-Day Creation is Unproven This argument is simply a non sequitur. The age of the earth does not disprove that it was created. It should be further pointed out that science is unable to empirically verify how the earth was formed. There are theories, to be sure, as the earth's formation can only be hypothesized. Again, my opponent rests all his laurels on the axiom that scientific validation alone brings objective truth. I discredited this presupposition in contention 1. " Oh, I think you had misunderstood my idea, my idea in this concept is not either did this earth created or not but my idea was how can God go on and teach people about His little story of creating the earth in 6 days while the oldest rock found in earth was about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago, also before the earth and all the human were even exist, science also found the fossil of the dinosaurs, also the evidences ofthe prehistoric times, while our God there raise up and said: "I created the world in 6 days and the first one I created were human. ", a transparent paradox that you ought to look at it. "Christians Have Misbehaved My opponent's final point is merely ad hominem, it argues against the people rather than the ideology. The fact that people have done violent things in the name of Christ gives additional credence to the Christian notion of fallen man, and it most certainly has no bearing on the existence of God in general. My opponent will have to make actual logical connections between the violent behavior of some Christians and the non-existence of God before this contention can even be considered. " Oh, that's also not what I meant, but what I meant was that Christianity and other monothestic religions, faith is mandatory, more than mind, because of faith, lots of people not just Christian but also Jews and Muslims had killed people for their God, in the Old Testament I am sure that you'll see lots of violent graphics and pictures that had caused by God or God commanded it.