There is undeniable evidence that God exists

If I were stubborn enough or cared very little I could stedfast deny God slapping me around like a scene from Chinatown. However at this point I'd settle for even moderately bad evidence rather than completely bad evidence. The fact that the comics are comics makes them false? The adventures of Joe Messiah are absolutely true though because you say so. You can't simply claim the Bible is historical, when its not, and suppose that that meets your burden of proof, because it doesn't. The entire point behind bringing up comic books was to point out that there's some true events in works of fictions so pointing out a but that is true, doesn't render the entire text nonfiction. It could also be the case that the Bible were largely historical but all the parts about God are made-up. To this point concerning Egyptian writings my opponent said, "This is a desperate assumption made by my opponent. I was not talking about their gods, I was talking about the historical content of it. " She admits there could be historical content while the parts about the gods are completely false. Why talk about any supposed history within the context of the Bible? If you can have one without the other then clearly any history within the Bible could be unrelated to the truth of the gods depicted. This alone suffices to establish all the supposed "evidence" as moot, and being also false is simply icing on the cake. -- If I were to suggest that comic books are historical documents. That the events depicted are real events and all the silence in other non-comic ways of understanding are simply an odd fluke, how could you possibly tell? That's exactly the situation we have with the Bible. The Bible says one thing happened and the rest of history makes a compelling case that it absolutely didn't but a culture existed which would have happily written the Bible for a number of reasons. We have the texts, with fictional bits and stuff that works in context, but most of the actual events depicted are completely wrong. If we were in the future who could tell the difference between Zeus, Jesus, or Spiderman? . http://www.youtube.com... -- I'm not denying your testimony. I am denying that testimony is evidence at all and that your testimony in particular was not amazing at all. I didn't see anything even remotely amazing in the story. You fell down and suffered a scalp bleed (I've had those they look wicked) and then people helped you. I'm not denying your experience I am denying that it is undeniable evidence that God exists, or even good evidence, or evidence at all. -- >>"Has my opponent had any experiences with evolution? Of course not. " Actually, I've had a significant number of experiences with evolution. I am a computer scientist and have significant interest in genetic algorithms. In fact, if you look at my current picture, you'll quickly discover that it's not actually a picture at all but a group of 200 semitransparent polygons that took about three days to evolve on my computer via a genetic algorithm which simply made random changes, tested those changes and kept the beneficial results. From the Walkers, Avida, and many other and actually economically viable implementations of genetic algorithms and genetic programing it is pretty easy to watch it in action. -- The "evidence" you've provided for King David are supposed relics coming from anywhere in the 10th century BCE. The relics have always proven to be much later than that, usually 8th and 7th century after the initial claims of dating and even if you found something, it wouldn't prove the Bible correct on the matter. The existence of a 10th century Israel wouldn't prove the Bible correct on the issue of God. -- >>This is like saying: the Egyptians wrote hieroglyphs about their lives, but they were all just stories that "didn't actually happen by taking the works of the surrounding culture. " Actually this is exactly what they are too. You need to read the parts and look at other records and kind of skip the part where the Pharaoh is a god incarnate, and does this or that fantastic deed. However, they are largely different bits and need to be put in the culture context and the events need to be taken with many grains of salt. -- >>Remember: the Bible is a historical record, not a bunch of made-up stories bunched into a book. " No. It isn't. That's the point. -- >>Please give me an example for this, and when you try, you'll find your claim is not true. The conquest depicted in Judges. We can find most the ruins and when we date them and take a look, several were destroyed before the supposed conquest and others were destroyed by local populations much later. We find that there wasn't a great conquest but a social movement. -- >>But the universe itself was indeed created by Him. Time was created by Him. He didn't have to be created—He is the Creator. Why not say the universe was created by the universe. Time is part of the universe. -- It's a bit easier and actually has a significant amount of data to backup the claims. And doesn't ignore and presuppose a God popping out of nothing. -- >>The Big Bang, evolution, etc. are still all theories. God, however, is not a theory. Gravity is a theory too. You don't seem to understand what is meant by theory. And, yes, God is not a theory. God is a myth. God doesn't explain anything and isn't a model for understanding the the world. Theories don't suddenly become something else when we get a lot of evidence for them. We can look into a microscope and there's still cell theory, even though we can see cells. "Tested over 150 years and always has proved triumphant. " - It has always been right each time it has be put to the test. You can only disprove a theory, you can't prove it. The best thing we can do is fail constantly to disprove a theory with such significant rigor as to be confident that we probably won't disprove. . http://www.talkorigins.org... -- I don't actually have any burden here. I am contending that there is no good evidence that God exists. Evidence that God doesn't exist is firstly, asking to prove a negative, and secondly completely moot to the debate. . http://www.youtube.com... -- The video referred to God just as a PBS video on Roman gods would refer to the gods. -- My opponent hasn't given anything which could even rise to the point of being good evidence much less undeniable evidence. I have, careful observers will note, done a really good job at pointing out the flaws in my opponents arguments and claims. I have referred to specific rebukes of the claims. I have pointed to scholarly works. I have tried to use repeated analogies. The part of all of this is most of my opponents "evidence" were claims for some historicity of the Bible. I could simply concede all those arguments. Even if some parts of the Bible are historical (as my opponent notes), it has no bearing on the mythology and gods also contained within the text. Beyond being really really bad evidence, it's all moot! My opponent hasn't shown any undeniable evidence that God exists. We haven't even seen any good evidence. She once fell down on her bike. There's this rock formation that looks somewhat boat-like in some mountains way away from where Noah's Ark was said to have landed. There's a reference to somebody on some stone long after they were supposed to have lived. Some nut job claims he found something that looked like a wagon wheel and only Bible stories produce debris. There's claims of 10th century Israel finds which slowly creep forward in time to centuries later without all the press coverage. And, comic books aren't real unlike the Bible and the Bible is real which proves God. -- If you think any of this is even mediocre go ahead and vote for whomever.