Debate: God Exists

[masterofpuppets]

You have presented no evidence, not one bit of actual testable evidence has been presented by you or any other theist.

What you have presented are the equivalent of  zenos paradoxes that you have somehow convinced yourself has some bearing on the existence of a supreme deity and would you credit it, it happens to be the one that is worshipped where your from. 

You see zeno has argued convincingly that motion is impossible in one of the paradoxes.
Now we all know that that is false but the logic is sound.

If you apply logic alone to a problem what you get is essentially nothing, what is needed for an argument to succeed is ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

So arguments are not now and never will be evidence.

So when you say you have presented evidence when all you have given us are old arguments forgive us when we roll our eyes and go once more into the breach.

I will say it again.

arguments are not evidence ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

That's correct; arguments are not evidence, evidence supports arguments.

I would also like to expand on the discussion of logic. There are things logic can and can't do on its own. Logic cannot demonstrate that possible things exist. However, it can demonstrate that impossible things cannot exist. When you assign mutually incompatible characteristics to x, then x cannot exist logically. This applies to God as well. God is said to be perfect yet require worship. A perfect being, however, would see no use for worship. These two qualities are incompatible by definition.