This is why I don't like debating religion

[dsgrue3]

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

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. 

I am not (yet) looking to invalidate the existence of God. At this point of the dialogue, I just want to demonstrate that the lack of observation does not disprove existence. For instance, prior to the existence of sentient, observing beings, everything that needed to exist to generate living beings was existent. The lack of observation didn't stop sentient creatures from coming into being.

(Note: This logic does not work for a creation deist since in general a creative deity is all-knowing. However in such a case the belief that observation alone proves existence wouldn't really be needed.)

This is beyond pedantism. Observation isn't predicated upon capability. We defined it as humans. The term existence didn't exist until we existed and defined it. That's like attempting to apply laws of science before the Universe came to be. 

I hope you understand the difference. 

From an objective third party intelligent being, indeed these such things existed (given the known physics definition for existence).