Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Except that it was not what you said. You said that if you believe something by faith, then evidence does not exist.Read it as "does not exist for it."Which is a fact. If you're taking something on faith, then you have no evidence for it. If all you can do is take something on faith, then it has no evidence.They were twelve years old. They were already prejudiced prior to the experiment. That proves nothing. Childrens in kindengarden are not prejudiced.You're just asserting again.You didn't have an argument. Only bare assertions and name calling. Nothing to address. I don't have to address every nonsense you can came up with in your head, specially since they are not backed up by evidence.My argument was that superstition is caused by eons of evolved bad reasoning skills, primitive minds (because we didn't start with this mind, we have primitive ones millions of years ago), and charlatans. You made no rebuttal.I know. I am having a hard time addressing your "arguments" in a civil manner. Your poor grasp of Logic is the worst part since I have to demonstrate it to be wrong, instead of simply dismissing your bare assertions as being mere bare assertions.It took me a while to figure out what bare assertion means to you, but now I understand. A bare assertion to you is a fact that is common knowledge, easy to verify, but that you disagree with.Fair enough. Provide me archeological evidence for the history of the Odyssey and we stop.I just did: Troy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TroyThere is no minor premise. It is not a syllogism.Major premise:It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” Minor:It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist,Conclusion:and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.It does if you can prove that it possibly necessarily does.Still incorrect, this is why we have scientific methodology, to test claims that may even appear logically sound but are incongruous with reality. For example, we demonstrate through logic that dark matter should, necessarily, exist but because we haven't manufactured any of it, or encountered it, it is still speculative.And you claim such because..? Wait, I know that one. Because evolution is true and it can create complex beings without the need of a designer. Ah, ok. Circular reasoning.It's not circular reasoning unless I said evolution is true because [evolution is true] or somesuch. I said that the premise is negated by evolution.You don't seem to know what the word tautology means. If it is a tautology, you shouldn't even be disputing it.A tautology is a statement that is true in and of itself but has no utility. Like designed things are designed, or a a made thing has a maker.I didn't misread anything. When the premise and conclusion are the same, the premise is not justifying the conclusion. The premise is the conclusion. And when the premise and conclusion are the same, it is not a tautology (you really do not know what it means, it seems). It is circular reasoning. I believe you meant to say 'a tautological argument' instead of 'a tautology,' which would be correct, then. Yet, your use of the word justify is completely incorrect. Are you a native American speaker?Saying:A made thing has a maker is tautological, using a loaded word to justify a conclusion is tautological reasoning. You're just quibbling over semantics and mis-statements, which you do regularly as a way to distract from the topic.And your point is? If gravity is true, then evolution is true too? Or maybe you mean to say that if I can assume gravity to be true, then you are free to assume that evolution is true. Let me tell you that if you can assume evolution to be true, then I can assume that God exists, and we can end the discussion here, with my victory, since we are free to assume to be true whatever we want to, regardless of proof.My point is that except in the world of crackpots and fundamentalists, evolution is an established theory and fact, like gravity, and it doesn't require me to justify it anymore than I should have to justify to you than the earth orbits the sun. If you have trouble with this, read a science book PUBLISHED BY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES, NOT CREATIONISTS, and learn biology.Just because you are suffering from a delusion where the whole scientific world is out to deny creationists their glory, doesn't mean I should have to do your homework for you. The only time I'll bother defending evolution is if it is an evolution debate, or if I'm in a masochistic mood and feel like writing volumes of text to people who won't read it anyway because their mind is closed shut.I don't see how what he said applies to the questions at hand. If you do, you're alone on it.He said:Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).