"I disagree, but you're more than welcome to accept everything as true regardless of evidence." <--There is no evidence that I accept everything as true without evidence, what a false claim. That's why I demand evidence, and really you nor any atheist have provided it.
"However, the statement itself is an observable truth and is backed up by the evidence of it being repeatable and observable" Nonsense 0 evidence.
What you are saying is that the evidence in other arguments simply backed the quote and prove it that it is true. Which if you apply this theory, then it can be the same for every religious argument, and that will make all atheist arguments even worse.
Based on your theory, anyone can say that the evidence of nature proves the evidence of God, because men can't create nature, and yeah, it's true we can't create nature, think of it like a hypothesis that's then backed up by repeated instances of it being true, that being the evidence. Do you see how nonsense that logic is?
That assertion "in itself" has no evidence of it being true. Yet it tries to assert itself as being true.
And atheist pull evidence for other assertions and use it as an evidence for that assertion, that is bonker logic.
"Anything asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" <----- including this assertion. It is really easy to understand, and there is no evidence for this assertion, and so it dismisses/contradicts itself. But atheists just wouldn't understand/accept it, and they still think their logic is superior.
