God's NOT Dead part 1 0f who knows how many....

Debate of philosophy is interesting.

Debate requires a difference of view between 2 or more parties on any given topic.
Since In the film the topic is God's no longer exsistence it seems rather obvious what the counter to that argument is. But, there is the fact that since you are talking about exsistence previously of a person/entity you must also be in able to debate death have proof of life. Or to say it another way in order to have this debate the primary point you must show is that in fact someone or something exsisted in the first place. Because if I can convince or prove that God does not exsist and never has, the foundation of your argument is no longer valid.

I realize that may be a bit confusing, but if you think it through I believe you'll find it's reasonable rational and logical. 

So can we from either side show that God does or has indeed exsisted in a convicing fashion?
While the answer is seemingly obvious, there's yet another question  we must ask:

Do we want to show/use the "evidence" of the exsistence previous or current of God?

The fundamental question is:
What do we do with the pieces we cannot fit into our nice neat boxes?
What do we do with what we do not understand?

It's the fundamental problem of a finite mind with limited ability to reason trying to reason out an infinite God. When we reach the end of what we can figure out what do we do with the rest?