The argument over the existence of God has been around for a long time.

The argument over the existence of God has been around for a long time.
The issue itself is not the argument, because no matter the arguments,
there cannot be certian validity. There are great minds on both sides
of the debate, but one must realize that there all limitations to logic
and argumentation.

We know the the Loch Ness monster and UFO's don't exist because we have
evidence against the fact, not the fact that there is a lack of evidence,
so one presumes nonexistence.

There must be evidence against fact of God.

Also, the idea of arguing from stritcly physical/seen evidence is an
incredibly weak argument.

Another thing, is that the atheist premise is an absolute negation, which
is a logical fallacy. It simply states "there is absolutely nothing
absolute" which violates the law of noncontradiction. One might at this
point try to disestablish the law of noncontradiction and use what is
called "both/and" logic, but even implict within it, one is assuming that
the "both/and" system is correct, thus showing the correctness of
"either/or" logic, known as the law of noncontradicton. As one can cleary
see, the atheistic arguments utterly fail.

They do not meet standards of logic, empirical evidence. One must not
presume from this though, that since the argument for atheism is at fault,
///

The argument over the existence of God has been around for a long time.
The issue itself is not the argument, because no matter the arguments,
there cannot be certian validity. There are great minds on both sides
of the debate, but one must realize that there all limitations to logic
and argumentation. It is only a indication of what reality is, not a
fabrication of what reality is( you don't use arguments to
"create"/tell what is real, arguments are used to indicate what is
real. One has to realize the multitude of presuppositions before
anything can be said. First of it is assumed that there is some
standard by which way to distinguish between truth and untruth. In
philosophical debate, this is typically the law of noncontradiction,
stating that two oposing premises cannot exist both at the same time.
Which, in this topic, the discussion is the existence or nonexistence
of God. Also, one must note the lack of evidence doesn't equal evidence
of lack. We know the the Loch Ness monster and UFO's don't exist
because we have evidence against the fact, not the fact that there is a
lack of evidence, so one presumes nonexistence. The Atheist "proof" of
saying there is not enough evidence is not a viable argument.
Historically, nothing has been proven by the lack of evidence, but
rather by evidence pointing to lack or to existence. Zero evidence
shows nothing. Thus, the atheist relies on presumptousness, which is
not correct. There must be evidence against fact of God. Also the
argument is using false logic. Conisder this statement: "If i am 18
then i am an adult." One can logically conclude this statement "If i am
not an adult, then i am not 18", but the statement "if i am not 18,
then i am not an adult", is an invalid statement, which is the type of
logic some atheistic proofs use. Also, the idea of arguing from
stritcly physical/seen evidence is an incredibly weak argument. How
does on then come to show anything of logic or emotions? You can't see
them. Thus, sight, and physical evidence is not enough to make a valid
conclusion. Another thing, is that the atheist premise is an absolute
negation, which is a logical fallacy. It simply states "there is
absolutely nothing absolute" which violates the law of
noncontradiction. One might at this point try to disestablish the law
of noncontradiction and use what is called "both/and" logic, but even
implict within it, one is assuming that the "both/and" system is
correct, thus showing the correctness of "either/or" logic, known as
the law of noncontradicton. As one can cleary see, the atheistic
arguments utterly fail. They do not meet standards of logic, empirical
evidence. One must not presume from this though, that since the
argument for atheism is at fault, ///