There is undeniable evidence that God exists

Undeniable evidence is evidence which cannot be denied. The last round of a debate is a poor place to come to the realization that the initial topic can be won by simply denying everything. I've done the topic justice as should be existed but, it is accurate to note that by simply saying "I deny all evidence that God exists" proves the resolution by definition. Your evidence stands but it really is bad evidence. It isn't evidence for the existence of God, usually it's some slight evidence that there exist somethings science hasn't answered yet. In the past God was proved by thunder as the hammer of Thor and god created all the living things and their arrangement on this planet. We explained those things. Other than that you suggest that some historical events occurred in the Bible and therefore God exists. Well Marvell comics just depicted the election of Barack Obama so clearly the X-Men are real. That's not undeniable evidence (I deny it), and it isn't even good evidence. In fact, it's rather silly. ---- Testimonials? Really? Your story is that you crashed on your bike and people helped you. You know what happened when I crashed my bike as a kid. People helped me. You know what happens when any kid crashes their bike? People help them. Cloth isn't hard to come by. Neither are trucks on dirt roads. You scraped your scalp and bled. You know dangerous that is? It isn't (I assume you have no bleeding disorders). It bleeds like the dickens but is pretty harmless. It stops after a minute or two. I donate blood every 8 weeks or so, and that's probably more dangerous and it's completely harmless too. I hate to seem callous, but that's pretty lame. That's not evidence of anything except the obvious fact that people will help a hurt little girl. There are coincidences. Seriously, they happen all the time. They honestly just happen. They are statistically likely to happen. Miracle waters should produce a 1 in a million miracle every million times or so. People should have cloth handy quite often. Trucks and transportation are similarly very common. You could give me millions of testimonials even of people directly talking with God. The evidence is necessarily first order evidence. The evidence to you cannot be seen as compelling to me because it wasn't given to me. To me it is hearsay and necessarily more likely the result of a deceived person, delusion or lying than of being truth. No testimonial could ever be seen as compelling. Similarly I must discount the testimonials of those claiming to be abducted by aliens or possessed by demons. I pointed out exactly why your supposed evidence for God was nothing of the sort. Evidence for 10th century artifacts are seen to be instantly evidence for the Empires of David and Solomon. They always start out claiming to be 10th century and then say 9th century and then say 7th century or so for all of the claims. Even if there were some 10th century sites, they would still be rare. There simply was no great empire of the time. Finding some remains at the Valley of Elah is just that, remains. They are more compelling than your rock formation and claim that that is Noah's Ark, but no more compelling than anything else. It doesn't claim to say David, it claims to be Hebrew and even that assessment is rather vague. There's another later text that says "House of David" but that in itself is pretty poor evidence. There should be massive amounts of evidence for a great empire as such. .. in reality there's nearly nothing. Even if there were good evidence for 10th century sites, it still wouldn't prove the Bible true about the God claims. . http://www.youtube.com... Many of the Egyptian hieroglyphs include stories about gods. Am I to believe that those are real too? If so, are you to start worshiping Ra? With the Bible we find the psalms in the local prayers, Noah's ark in the Epic of Gilgamesh and other outright thefts of stories as such. I'm not making the claim out of boldfaced concoction. I am saying it because that is what a large amount of evidence compels us to believe. They wrote to glorify their past. When we check out what they wrote and look at their real past, we find a completely different story. To see how they vary from text to text you would need to look at several different texts. It wouldn't be hard as no two are seemingly the same. They vary greatly with additional material added and material removed and no indication as to why we have the version we have other than luck and happenstance. The point is largely an attempt to note that the Bible was created by the people who lived at the time and for purposes other than recording history. The texts progressed, grew, and evolved over the years. They took different turns and included different texts and changed as the years went on. They are historical, insofar, as they are the product of people within history. They are not truth in the depicted events, which analysis suggest is largely fictional. In short, the Bible is not proof of God. Using the Bible to try to prove God is like using a comic to try and prove Superman. Citing the Bible to prove God as my opponent does by referring to Genesis 1 in her fourth point is circular because her entire attempt is to use the Bible to prove God. Pointing out that just magicking god into the picture is unacceptable because you could just as easily assume the universe exists (because it does) and leave it at that. You create an infinite regress by making an answer that answers nothing and raises a larger question. -- Where did the original point of the Big Bang come from if not super-intelligent half-fairy half-goblin who steals socks? The question is being worked on, but the existence of a question is not evidence for the existence of God. It isn't good evidence and certainly isn't undeniable evidence. Further, it is scientifically possible that something comes from nothing. In fact, it happens all the time in the quantum world. Things just pop out of nowhere. Electrons and positrons ripping out of spacetime just to crash back into each other, particles escaping nuclei for no reason whatsoever, and flows of electrons jumping from their current location to somewhere else. The world at the quantum level works in ways we just can't get our heads around. Such events are the basis for many technologies. We're typing on computers which can't work, using nuclear power, and cell phones all made popular by these odd events. It may just be that within the confines of artificial time some events are not like those we see in our everyday life. -- The question of the minimal requirements is a tractable one. We are making good strides in figuring out how such biochemistry could move towards evolving forms. Intelligence is completely possible without what we would see as life. There's no reason to assume God is a requirement anymore than there is a reason to assume a 'super-intelligent half-fairy half-goblin who steals socks' is a requirement. I can't remotely fathom how the argument works in your head but intelligence is absolutely a survival adaptation. The more intelligent species quickly progress whereas those who don't progress don't. That's the requirement for evolution and it is certainly met. The fact that my opponent doesn't understand how evolution works (want to debate on that issue? ) is an example of the poor understanding of science. The theory of evolution is a theory because it is a model to understand the world. It explains a large set of data with a robust set of facts which has been repeatedly tested over 150 years and always has proved triumphant. Intelligence, much like flight and the ability to digest cellulose, are adaptations. Those organisms with the adaptations do better than those who don't and therefore have more offspring and do better in the struggle for survival.