Quote Originally Posted by UnitedWeFall
You completely missed the point :thumbsup: Your argument was hilarious though, good effort.
Yep, it's easier to call an argument "hilarious" than actually counter it. Though I still still didn't miss the point, I just chose one of the two points you made:


It's an old classic because it's a bloody good argument. No one can disprove it.
This, right here, is what prompted my response. It's a terrible argument and I made my case against it, and in the true creationist spirit you dismissed it and moved on without another thought. Considering you said "it's a bloody good argument" in direct response to my description of it, the counter-argument is perfectly relavent.

Basically it comes down to one fact; If God exists for one person, then he exists for that person. And if God does not exist for another person, then he does not exist for that person.

God can't be proven, and he can't be disproven. It's impossible. It's purely down to personal preference. Simple as that.
Yes yes, "personal truths". That is the point you mistakenly thought I "missed", but it's an irrelevant one nontheless since such logic gives credence to every delusional schizophrenic in a mental institution. Of course isn't that the most powerfull creationist tool, to declare that just believing something strongly enough makes it a "truth" no matter what it is, no matter what logic it's based on. But I'll let Polymerizes well-constructed argument take it from there.