Debate: God Exists

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I normally find, that those who argue against logic, just aren't that good at it.  For one, you are cutting off the branch from which you sit.  And what are you trying to say with this quip?   That logic and reason are not sufficient for belief?   What do you do with the many scientific theories which are based on logical inferences?  I question how exactly this is applied, as I only see this philosophy from atheist forums.  Is a disjunctive syllogism valid evidence?

The following is the definition of Evidence (3 sources)

• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a really interesting article, check it out. In an epistemological sense, evidence is considered to play a role in justification for a particular belief.
  
• Dictionary.reference.com defines evidence as “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”
  
• Oxforddictionaries.com defines evidence as “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”
  

and the definition of arguement (from the same 3 sites)

• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has, again, a very interesting article on arguments. I’d encourage you to read it. Put very briefly, an argument is “a collection of truth-bearers … some of which are offered as reasons for one of them, the conclusion” and “a typical use of an argument is to rationally persuade its audience of the truth of the conclusion.”
  
• Dictionary.reference.com defines an argument as “a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point.”
  
• OxfordDictionaries.com defines an argument as “a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory”
  

Reference for those who gathered these definitions: https://hashtagapologetics.wordpress.com...-evidence/

And their conclusion

So, if:
Evidence can be defined as the available body of facts or information which tends to prove or disprove something…
… and…
An argument can be defined as a collection of truth-bearing statements, reasons or facts used in support of an idea, theory or belief.
Then it seems reasonable to conclude that when an argument is both valid and sound, it becomes evidence for a particular conclusion. So is an argument actually evidence?
It would seem that the answer is… yes.

So if you remove logic as evidence, and as I have often been told here, you remove testimony as evidence.   You are left with only a body of facts, that you have personally seen, and cannot make any logical deductions or inferences from to anything other than what you saw.   Add to that, another often repeated quip here, that you cannot trust what you see and remember, and all that I believe is a very weak and epistemologically neutered solipsism.

Of course a shorter route, may be to simply ask if you believe the claim that "arguments are not evidence" and why?  Is it because of evidence?  Did you reason it through using critical thinking? Or did it just sound good, and is often repeated?

Edit to add,   This view that "arguements are not evidence" would also make those who claim evidence of absence; to be without said evidence.