Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

God snapping his fingers and bringing all of creation into existence, without an explanation as to how, is magic.First, God spoke things into existence. Second the explanation is his spoken word and testimony in the Bible. 'Disbelief' and 'belief' still have completely opposite meanings and are not interchangeable.No one is debating that fact. The definitions are the belief there is no deity or the disbelief that there is a God or deity. This still does not change the fact of atheism being a dogma. The conclusion of atheists is based on a complete lack of evidence for God. This is perfectly good reason not to believe in something, or at least to withhold belief until something convincing is presented, and this is not dogmatic, it is practical.This is purely dogma on your part. What is convincing to some might not be convincing to others. Where does the proof need to excel too? Would God revealing himself in the flesh be enough for you? Then you need to look no farther then Jesus Christ. The history of our debates is as accessible to you as it is to me.Then why do I have to keep repeating myself. I ask again, how would one go about disproving that nonexistence of anything? In order to think someone is probably lying when they say a genie just granted them three wishes, you do not need to prove that genies don't exist – because you can't. This does not mean you must believe that genies do exist.I know they don't exist because there are no such creatures. The inerrant word of God is my authority for everything. Make no mistake about that fact. I don't hide behind vague innuendos to what I believe. I believe in God the creator of all things. Which I haven't and wouldn't.You define yourself as an atheist. Therefore you claim there is no God. If not then you are extremely ignorant. With aunicorniasm you are specifically saying you don't believe in unicorns. With aleprechaunism you are specifically saying you don't believe in leprechauns. With azeusism you are specifically saying you don't believe in Zeus. With acactopusism you are specifically saying you don't believe in this cat/octopus hybrid I just made up and drew on the side of my homework. So on, and so on, literally forever. Presto, infinite religions.This is definitely the illogical ramblings of a very narrow-minded person. All of the deities you defined don't have religious followers. And animal hybrids are nothing new they have been in pagan practices for thousands of years. You believe there is no deity. The followers of these other so called religions would not all have a common bond. Unless they "made up" a scientific belief to disprove their existence like atheists do. Sorry, you don't. You just think you do.What is personal truth but thought itself. Because I believe it is so doesn't mean that it can't be. This logic can be applied to atheism too. Looks like you got confused. Real science disproves this stuff, not proves it.By what example do you have in mind here? It's funny the farther "science" goes back in time the more assumptions and rhetoric replace the observable and testable. Just look at astronomy, once you go outside our solar system the "testable" part of science becomes complete assumption. Origin of life: abiogenesis. Origin of homo sapiens: evolution. Origin of me, personally: my parents.Do you choose to be naive or is it just a gift? There is no known origin theory in the natural sciences that can explain the beginning. By the way, if you were as smart as you think you are wouldn't you be a better informed member of the scientific community? If you truly understood these theories you would see just how flawed they can be. You would rather believe in an inexplicable form of energy creating the universe. With nothing to create it. At least I believe God transcends the physical world. So I have an answer to the beginning. Your search will never turn up results.