This is why I don't like debating religion

[dsgrue3]

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

Reported for what, exactly? It isn't as if I were cursing at you in a derogatory way merely using it to display my frustration with your question.

The animal kingdom doesn't need to fathom the atom in order for its existence to be observed. Everything we observe is evidence for the atom. It makes up everything, the fundamental building block. There can be observation without knowledge. The Sun was certainly observed before we knew it was a star. Come on...you're grasping at straws here.

And as can be argued about God. Everything he created is evidence for him. The complexity, the immensity.

When we dive into that level of logic, the door is open, whether in a naturalistic mindset or in a metaphysical one.

But to say that something only exists if there is evidence for it, then there are many places on earth that the eye has not seen. By that logic these places simply do not exist.

Again, you seem to think observation implies sight. It doesn't. We can't see gravity, but we know it to exist. We can't see certain gases because they are not visible. 

Observation implies evidence, it certainly isn't confined to merely sight.

Well, we know the atom to exist and it does in fact encompass everything. This has been proven beyond any doubt as we have verified its existence through calculation and scientific study. The same cannot be said for your argument of God.

It's an untestable hypothesis and thus is not valid. This is why non-existence is impossible to prove. So asking a non-theist to do so is blatantly ignorant.