Instigator / Con
4
1325
rating
48
debates
13.54%
won
Topic

What is the proof that God exists?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

PressF4Respect
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
7
1535
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Description
~ 716 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Please attempt to provide practical, Repeatable examples that present the existence of God.
I will attempt to show invalidation and inconsistency.

For clarity or questions, Please comment or send a message prior to accepting the debate.

Round 1
Con
The description will serve as the first round.
Pro
I thank Mall (who shall henceforth be known in this debate as “Pro”) for having this debate today. Before we begin, I must clarify a few terms before I make my opening argument.

Definitions
God - The figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [1]

exists - Has objective reality or being.
1.1 Is found, especially in a particular place or situation. [2]

Argument
Given the above definition of “exists”, it is evident that God exists. God is found in a particular place, namely the bible. In fact, God is found in the King James Bible 3877 times [3], thus proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I will now let Pro make their rebuttal.

Round 2
Con
Congratulations, for proving God exists in a book .
Now prove this being exists in this physical world like you and I.

You will have to do this scientifically.


 
Please attempt to provide practical, repeatable examples that present the existence of God.
I will attempt to show invalidation and inconsistency.

Pro
Thank you, Mall (Pro), for your R2 response. I will now rebut it.

Rebuttal
R1. You must prove it physically
Pro claims that the proof of God I presented is insufficient/inapplicable because of the apparent need to prove God's existence in our physical world. However, Pro never stated this in the description/R1 argument. When I accepted this debate, I understood my BOP as the need to prove God's existence. According to the definitions used (which Pro has not objected to), all I needed to do to meet my BOP was to prove that God is found in a particular place. I have shown that God is found in the Bible (and thus exists) in my opening argument.

By saying that I need to prove God's existence in our physical world, Pro has moved the goalposts [1]. As such, Pro's R2 contention is invalid.

I extend my Round 1 argument for rebuttal.

Sources
Round 3
Con
P"claims that the proof of God I presented is insufficient/inapplicable because of the apparent need to prove God's existence in our physical world. However, Pro never stated this in the description/R1 argument. When I accepted this debate, I understood my BOP as the need to prove God's existence. According to the definitions used (which Pro has not objected to), all I needed to do to meet my BOP was to prove that God is found in a particular place. I have shown that God is found in the Bible (and thus exists) in my opening argument."
 

You have not proven God exists according to my request.
You're are correct to admit that you took advantage of the broad topic statement. You took the liberty to specify one place to prove God's existence. In this case in a literary sense. 
But it works both ways. So because I was broad and didn't specify, it is therefore not illegal or invalid to further challenge the burden of proof as it's within a broad context. The burden is still on your shoulders to relieve with demonstrating the existence of God in the literal sense.
See if the topic statement was: prove that God is mentioned in a book or prove God's existence in at least one place, then I would have no grounds to move forward.





Pro
I thank Mall(Pro) for the Round 3 response. I will now refute it.

Rebuttal
You have not proven God exists according to my request.
According to the description, I have to "provide practical, Repeatable examples that present the existence of God."
According to Pro's request, my proof has to be practical and repeatable. 

Practical - Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas. [1]
Repeatable - Able to be done again. [2]

My proof was concerned with the actual doing/use of something (the bible), and it was repeatable (anyone with a bible can verify my argument). Thus, I have proven God exists according to Pro's request in the description.

You're are correct to admit that you took advantage of the broad topic statement. You took the liberty to specify one place to prove God's existence. In this case in a literary sense.
Here, Pro admits that I have proven God's existence in one place. Since that is all I need to do to prove my BOP (and proving my BOP means that Pro loses), Pro has essentially conceded the debate here. I thank Pro for this concession.

But it works both ways. So because I was broad and didn't specify, it is therefore not illegal or invalid to further challenge the burden of proof as it's within a broad context.
No. Because Pro did not specify which type of existence needed to be proven in this debate, ANY type of existence would suffice to fulfill the BOP.

The burden is still on your shoulders to relieve with demonstrating the existence of God in the literal sense.
Pro did not require the BOP to prove the existence of God in the literal sense before Round 2/3. Again, this is moving the goalposts (changing the BOP mid-debate).

See if the topic statement was: prove that God is mentioned in a book or prove God's existence in at least one place, then I would have no grounds to move forward.
I ask Pro: What is the difference between proving God's existence and proving God's existence "in at least one place"? If something exists "in at least one place", does it not exist? Unless and until Pro can address this issue, this debate is a concession by Pro (according to my second point in this round).

Sources
  1. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/practical
  2. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/repeatable

Round 4
Con
"My proof was concerned with the actual doing/use of something (the bible), and it was repeatable (anyone with a bible can verify my argument). Thus, I have proven God exists according to Pro's request in the description."


My request that you wish not to admit is to prove God in a literal sense. If you could prove it, you would have already. Why not just concede to that? If what you're doing is repeatable, why can't you REPEAT the process for my request of LITERAL evidence? I guess we know why.

"Here Pro admits that I have proven God's existence in one place. Since that is all I need to do to prove my BOP (and proving my BOP means that Pro loses), Pro has essentially conceded the debate here. I thank Pro for this concession."

I admitted it in the previous round. I congratulated you on choosing an area of which I never specified. The problem is, you're not able to verify that's all you need to do without checking with me.It's just like me saying " bring me the car". You choose to bring me a Buick. I can say it's a car but not the one I wanted. You can't say you brought me the correct car because I never specified. See it was your job to get clarity first. So I can continue to request repeatable, repeatable, repeatable examples of evidence. Not just in one instance but over and over again. You've demonstrated that YOU CANNOT REPEAT THIS TRIAL.

 "No. Because Pro did not specify which type of existence needed to be proven in this debate, ANY type of existence would suffice to fulfill the BOP."

So how is it incorrect for me to choose like you did? How is it wrong for me to request you to repeat what you did as the premise states? See you're doing all the deciding in how you want to play the premise as it's the only way to hide from what you can't do. So if I didn't specify to you which of the select condiments to put on my sandwich, are you going to say I stated ketchup and I'm wrong for not accepting it on my food? Am I wrong for not just accepting that and requesting more flavor? You can't decide where to stop at to address this . I never indicated that, did I? 

"Pro did not require the BOP to prove the existence of God in the literal sense before Round 2/3. Again, this is moving the goalposts (changing the BOP mid-debate"


HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE GOAL POST IS WHEN I DIDN'T SPECIFY WHERE?
You're choosing wherever it is that makes it easy for you.
If I ask you,"are you going to work?" and you say" yes "proceeding to go to the place of your employment, the goalpost is not moved if you stop to do some remodeling WORK on your house. Better yet, in lieu of your WORK for a living, you're still at WORK with the house renovation.
See I put the goalpost out in the field somewhere. Way out somewhere in a vast field. I didn't tell where the goal line is for you to reach it. Saying "prove God" is as broad as saying something is somewhere in around the neighborhood of . It's not exact , so you can't be sure what you've done to meet the criteria. You can say you proved something, I can say you did not. Under what terms? Ah haaa.



"I ask Pro: What is the difference between proving God's existence and proving God's existence "in at least one place"? If something exists "in at least one place", does it not exist? Unless and until Pro can address this issue, this debate is a concession by Pro (according to my second point in this round)."

One is specific, the other's broad. One has not been shown to be proven repeatably in a numerous amount of areas as the premise laid out. Your limitation is in one area. No repeats after that so concede to that.

If something exists in one place, does it exist anywhere else? If you provide no evidence for anything else where, how can you say you proved it? 

Another matter is with you choosing a specification in the definition of God. The meaning of God must be just as vast , widespread and broad as the concept. I understand God in concept is suppose to be ALMIGHTY, supreme, omnipotent. This would mean a vast and extensive nature which means omnipresent and all-encompassing. What kind of deity did you prove existing in the presence of one place?








Pro
I thank Pro for his Round 4. I will now respond to his critiques. In the interest of imparting upon Pro some valuable debating advice and making this debate more relatable to Pro, I will be addressing Pro in the first person.

Round 4 rebuttals

My request that you wish not to admit is to prove God in a literal sense.
Yes, that was your request... in the second round. Your request in the first round was just to show "practical, repeatable evidence" for the existence of God. Once I did so, you then decided to add the "literal sense" into my BOP. Again, this is shifting the goalposts.

If what you're doing is repeatable, why can't you REPEAT the process for my request of LITERAL evidence? I guess we know why.
My proof for BOP A obviously doesn't work if you decide to make a new BOP B that explicitly excludes the proof for BOP A. Repeatable means that anyone else can look at my proof and verify it to be valid and sound. You can't repeat a proof if the BOP itself has shifted.

I admitted it in the previous round.
So you admit that I have fulfilled my BOP. Ok, good. Unless and until counter my proof, it stands.

I congratulated you on choosing an area of which I never specified
You stated in the description that you wanted proof of God's existence. According to the definitions provided, that simply means proving that God is found somewhere. I have shown that God is found somewhere. This is the BOP that was established at the beginning of the debate, which is the only standard I have to follow.

The problem is, you're not able to verify that's all you need to do without checking with me.
I don't have to check with you at all. I'm not providing you with a service; I am partaking in a debate with you. You're not a customer, you're a debater. In a debate, all I have to do is fulfill the BOP listed and defend my point from rebuttals. And once again, you don't get to further change the BOP once it is set.

It's just like me saying " bring me the car". You choose to bring me a Buick. I can say it's a car but not the one I wanted. You can't say you brought me the correct car because I never specified. See it was your job to get clarity first.
This is not a car dealership. You don't get to change the BOP once it is set. See, it was your job to get all the details down in the description before the debate began.

So I can continue to request repeatable, repeatable, repeatable examples of evidence. Not just in one instance but over and over again.
Proof A is not repeatable if there is a new BOP B that explicitly excludes BOP A and its subsequent proof. The problem is, you don't get to shift from BOP A to BOP B within the same debate.

You've demonstrated that YOU CANNOT REPEAT THIS TRIAL.
I can, within the same BOP. You haven't maintained the same BOP.

So how is it incorrect for me to choose like you did?
Because you decided to choose a different BOP in the second round.

How is it wrong for me to request you to repeat what you did as the premise states?
You aren't asking me to repeat it. You are changing BOP A to BOP B (a BOP that excludes the proof to BOP A) and demanding that I fulfill the new BOP B.

See you're doing all the deciding in how you want to play the premise as it's the only way to hide from what you can't do.
No, I'm simply fulfilling the BOP as was stated in the description.

So if I didn't specify to you which of the select condiments to put on my sandwich, are you going to say I stated ketchup and I'm wrong for not accepting it on my food? Am I wrong for not just accepting that and requesting more flavor?
This is not a restaurant, and I am not your waiter.

You can't decide where to stop at to address this
I address the BOP in the description. Simple as that.

I never indicated that, did I? 
The description and definitions indicated that. Your whims are completely irrelevant to this debate.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE GOAL POST IS WHEN I DIDN'T SPECIFY WHERE?
Here were the original goalposts:
Please attempt to provide practical, Repeatable examples that present the existence of God.

God - The figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [1]

exists - Has objective reality or being.
1.1 Is found, especially in a particular place or situation. [2]

You're choosing wherever it is that makes it easy for you.
It fulfills the original BOP. That's all I need to do for an opening argument.

If I ask you,"are you going to work?" and you say" yes "proceeding to go to the place of your employment, the goalpost is not moved if you stop to do some remodeling WORK on your house. Better yet, in lieu of your WORK for a living, you're still at WORK with the house renovation.
Another faulty analogy [1].

See I put the goalpost out in the field somewhere. Way out somewhere in a vast field. I didn't tell where the goal line is for you to reach it. Saying "prove God" is as broad as saying something is somewhere in around the neighborhood of.
If you say, "show me a house in the neighborhood of X," then any house within neighborhood X would meet that criterion. This was the original BOP, and that is what I proved.

It's not exact , so you can't be sure what you've done to meet the criteria.
Yes I can. The original criterion was to "prove the existence of God". I have done so, according to the definitions provided. Any proof of a particular Y within X is proof of X if X includes all of the elements within it.

You can say you proved something, I can say you did not. Under what terms? Ah haaa.
Under the terms of the original BOP in the description.

One is specific, the other's broad.
Point already addressed.

One has not been shown to be proven repeatably in a numerous amount of areas as the premise laid out. Your limitation is in one area. No repeats after that so concede to that.
Point already addressed.

If something exists in one place, does it exist anywhere else? If you provide no evidence for anything else where, how can you say you proved it? 
If something exists in one place, it exists. Showing that God exists is all I need to do to prove the BOP. I have shown that God exists in one place. Therefore, I have shown God exists. Unless and until you can point out a flaw in this syllogism, it is valid and sound.

Another matter is with you choosing a specification in the definition of God. The meaning of God must be just as vast , widespread and broad as the concept. I understand God in concept is suppose to be ALMIGHTY, supreme, omnipotent. This would mean a vast and extensive nature which means omnipresent and all-encompassing.
Firstly, Round 4 is WAY too late to be Kritiking definitions. Secondly, in order to successfully Kritic a definition, you need to back it up with a source (to show you didn't just make it up) and show why we should go with your source instead of mine.

What kind of deity did you prove existing in the presence of one place?
The one in the bible, which was the one specified in the definitions.

Summary (tl;dr)
Pro insisted that I had to make a proof for a new BOP(B) when I made the proof for the old BOP(A), and I basically had to repeat myself many times about the BOP and moving the goalposts. Furthermore, Pro tried to use multiple faulty analogies to support his point, all of which I called out. Lastly, Pro tried to but has yet to successfully Kritik the definition of God provided. I look forward to the closing arguments.

Sources
  1. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html



Round 5
Con
So because this is just going in circles, we've reached the end of this  topic.

So just to reiterate and to make it clear, you did not prove God exists literally. You can admit that or not. You chose to show that a book exists, the Bible. In that Bible, if you don't know this, ignorance is no excuse but the book defines God as being everywhere, that there's no hiding place from this being. This YOU DID NOT PROVE. YOU SHOWED WHAT A BOOK SAYS. NAMELY A NAME, PUN INTENDED.

The topic statement was BROAD, NOT SPECIFIC. SO WHAT DID YOU DO? YOU SELECTED A SPECIFICATION. DID YOU NOT DO THIS? YOU DID THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE. SO BY THAT SAME RULE, I CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SPECIFICATION. SO IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING OF THE TOPIC BECAUSE THE TOPIC DIDN'T SPECIFY. YOU'RE RUNNING FROM THIS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE REPEATABLY BEYOND ONE POINT TO GO INTO MULTIPLE AREAS. YOU CAN REPEAT ONE EXAMPLE OVER AND OVER, EXCELLENT. NOW ADMIT IT OR NOT, YOU CAN'T REPEAT THIS BEYOND ONE DEMONSTRATION OF ONE KIND.

You continue to say this or that isn't necessary as a cop out to avoid conceding that a broad statement has a back bite, double edge slicing effect. The statement doesn't just have to stop where you want but you refuse for it to be expanded as obviously, it ruins your tactic. But you should have been prepared for that. The premise stated REPEATABLE , expect that to be with more than one thing. Expect to have your arguments tested over and over again. Being that there are MULTIPLE avenues to show God's existence like in a dream, in a prayer, movie or just by mentioning the name of God in this debate, by the logic you chose to introduce here, God exists because we can say a name. Did I prove God existed or the name? See this is a weak, half hearted, pretentious attempt, I digress on that aspect. However, each avenue is a REPETITION in which you've failed to understand.


SO I DIDN'T MOVE THE GOALPOST JUST AS YOU DIDN'T. WHY? THE GOALPOST WAS NOT SPECIFIED WHERE IN THE FIELD IT WAS PLACED. IF THE TOPIC STATEMENT IS THE GOAL POST, THEN YOU MOVED IT BY CHOOSING A SPECIFICATION WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AFTER EVERYTHING I JUST STATED .


The thing is, you weren't prepared for me to do what you did. I understand that you won't concede to that.  The analogies I gave were correct. Instead of you CONCEDING to that, you just respond  in dismissals basically stating this isn't appropriate, this isn't appropriate. 


In regards to REPEATABLE demonstations, what is the point of repeating one example in one place to ONE person such as I ? You're in this debate with me, you have to repeat these verifications to me. 
I understand that 2 plus 2 is four but I want further convincing, beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is true. I'm looking for consistency so what do you do? How can this be demonstrated, explained besides in a small window of knowledge? 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 is four, 3 plus 1, 2 times twice as many is four.

See to get greater knowledge of a word, you don't do it by using a definition with that word in it, you have to continue to employ other avenues and words to greater define what you're talking about.

So what have you done? Proven at the least THE NAME OF GOD EXISTING. THE TOPIC STATEMENT DIDN'T SAY PROVE THE NAME EXISTS, THAT'S OBVIOUS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, WHAT TYPE OF DEITY DID YOU PROVE? DOES DEITY MEAN NAME, NOT AN ACTUAL BEING? 

You're coming at this debate challenge so sideways as DIRECTLY walking into it face forward is futile.








Pro
I thank Pro for his closing argument. I will now refute the last of his arguments and provide a summary. Once again, for the sake of having a deeper and more fulfilling interaction, I will be addressing Pro in the first person. For convenience, I will provide the original BOP and my corresponding proof found in the opening argument here.

BOP + Opening Argument
BOP: Please attempt to provide practical, Repeatable examples that present the existence of God. (from the description)

Definitions: 
God - The figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [1]
exists - Has objective reality or being.
1.1 Is found, especially in a particular place or situation. [2]
Practical - Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas. [3]
Repeatable - Able to be done again. [4]

Integrating these definitions into the BOP, we get: 
Please attempt to provide examples that are of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas, and that can be done again, that present the proof that the figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority (the supreme being) is found in a particular place or situation.

It is imperative to note that this BOP does not contain anything relating to proving God in a "literal" sense, or proving that God exists within the physical universe. As such, my opening argument did not attempt to defend or disprove any positions relating to them.  

My opening argument:
Given the above definition of “exists”, it is evident that God exists. God is found in a particular place, namely the bible. God is found in the King James Bible 3877 times [5], thus proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This argument addresses all the points bolded in the BOP of the description. 
  • Since the proof is found within the bible, it is of the actual use of something (the bible).
  • Since anyone who has a bible can repeat my proof and find it to be valid and sound, it is repeatable.
  • Since the figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority (God) is shown to be found in at least one place (the bible), it proves that God exists.
Without any further delay, I will now move on to the rebuttals.

Final Rebuttals
So because this is just going in circles, we've reached the end of this  topic.
I've made my proof and stuck with it this whole time. 

So just to reiterate and to make it clear, you did not prove God exists literally. You can admit that or not.
I don't need to (as shown in the section above).

You chose to show that a book exists, the Bible. In that Bible, if you don't know this, ignorance is no excuse but the book defines God as being everywhere, that there's no hiding place from this being. This YOU DID NOT PROVE. YOU SHOWED WHAT A BOOK SAYS. NAMELY A NAME, PUN INTENDED.
I never made a defence of the truth value of the bible anywhere in this debate. The only argument I made in my opening was that the figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority (the supreme being) was found in a particular place (the bible). This is all that your original BOP requested, nothing more.

SO WHAT DID YOU DO? YOU SELECTED A SPECIFICATION. DID YOU NOT DO THIS? YOU DID THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.
No, I followed the BOP originally stated in the description (as shown in the section above).

SO BY THAT SAME RULE, I CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SPECIFICATION. SO IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING OF THE TOPIC BECAUSE THE TOPIC DIDN'T SPECIFY.
No. The original BOP you put in the description (the one I followed in my opening argument) stated that I needed to prove that God could be found in at least one place anywhere (since it didn't specify). You then decided to limit it to "the world where you and I live in", thus changing the BOP to exclude any other form of existence. As I pointed out in previous rounds, since you changed the BOP mid-debate, you have moved the goalposts.

YOU'RE RUNNING FROM THIS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE REPEATABLY BEYOND ONE POINT TO GO INTO MULTIPLE AREAS... NOW ADMIT IT OR NOT, YOU CAN'T REPEAT THIS BEYOND ONE DEMONSTRATION OF ONE KIND.
Repeatable - Able to be done again.

Repeatability refers to the same thing being done again. If you're asking me to make another proof that suits the limitation you added in round 2, then you're not asking me to repeat the same proof. "Go[ing] into multiple areas", especially if those "areas" specifically excludes the proof for the "area" that the proof addressed, is not asking for repeatability. It's asking for me to come up with new proofs.

YOU CAN REPEAT ONE EXAMPLE OVER AND OVER, EXCELLENT.
Thank you for admitting that my proof is repeatable.

You continue to say this or that isn't necessary as a cop out to avoid conceding that a broad statement has a back bite, double edge slicing effect. The statement doesn't just have to stop where you want but you refuse for it to be expanded as obviously, it ruins your tactic.
Earlier you were saying that you were choosing your specification of the BOP. Specifications don't expand the BOP, they limit it.

But you should have been prepared for that. The premise stated REPEATABLE , expect that to be with more than one thing.
As I have stated in a previous point, making more than one proof is not repeating the same proof.

Expect to have your arguments tested over and over again.
I do. That's why I called out your fallacies.

Being that there are MULTIPLE avenues to show God's existence like in a dream, in a prayer, movie or just by mentioning the name of God in this debate,
This is extraneous. According to the definitions provided, being found in at least one place is existence.

By the logic you chose to introduce here, God exists because we can say a name. Did I prove God existed or the name?
A name doesn't have any characteristics. You mentioned one of God's characteristics in your closing (that being omnipresence). Thus, we both agree that I haven't just proven the name.

Each avenue is a REPETITION in which you've failed to understand.
Point already addressed.

SO I DIDN'T MOVE THE GOALPOST JUST AS YOU DIDN'T. WHY? THE GOALPOST WAS NOT SPECIFIED WHERE IN THE FIELD IT WAS PLACED. IF THE TOPIC STATEMENT IS THE GOAL POST, THEN YOU MOVED IT BY CHOOSING A SPECIFICATION WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AFTER EVERYTHING I JUST STATED.
Look at the previous section again.

The thing is, you weren't prepared for me to do what you did. I understand that you won't concede to that.
I didn't do what you did. You switched the BOP in the second round, I didn't.

The analogies I gave were correct. Instead of you CONCEDING to that, you just respond  in dismissals basically stating this isn't appropriate, this isn't appropriate. 
Those analogies were faulty. They took one similar aspect between the scenarios and that of debate and made an analogy off of them. True, debates and those are all instances of dialogue. However, debating is about argumentation, while they aren't. Any waiter or car salesman who argues with you on the job will lose it very quickly. Someone isn't going to argue with you in a casual conversation either. Those scenarios and that of debating aren't even comparable.

In regards to REPEATABLE demonstations, what is the point of repeating one example in one place to ONE person such as I?
There's also the audience and voters.

You're in this debate with me, you have to repeat these verifications to me. 
I've already repeated myself in this debate... many times.

I understand that 2 plus 2 is four but I want further convincing, beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is true. I'm looking for consistency so what do you do? How can this be demonstrated, explained besides in a small window of knowledge? 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 is four, 3 plus 1, 2 times twice as many is four.
Point already addressed.

See to get greater knowledge of a word, you don't do it by using a definition with that word in it, you have to continue to employ other avenues and words to greater define what you're talking about.
We need a common definition, otherwise, there's no place to start.

So what have you done? Proven at the least THE NAME OF GOD EXISTING. THE TOPIC STATEMENT DIDN'T SAY PROVE THE NAME EXISTS, THAT'S OBVIOUS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, WHAT TYPE OF DEITY DID YOU PROVE? DOES DEITY MEAN NAME, NOT AN ACTUAL BEING? 
Point already addressed.

You're coming at this debate challenge so sideways as DIRECTLY walking into it face forward is futile.
I addressed the BOP with my opening argument, as seen in the previous section.

Summary
As I am running short on characters, I will make this conclusion short and sweet for the voters.
  • Pro opened the debate with the BOP in the description.
  • I made an opening argument fulfilling the BOP.
  • Pro then decided to limit the scope to exclude the proof, thus changing the BOP.
  • I called Pro out on moving the goalposts.
  • Pro used faulty analogies, among other things, to try and justify moving the goalposts.
  • I called out Pro for this and countered all of Pro's other points.
  • In the end, my opening argument still stands.
Takeaways
There are two things, if nothing else, that I wish Pro to learn from in this debate. These two are related concepts, and will greatly improve your (Pro) debate skills. Firstly, make sure to set the BOP with all of its details in the descriptions, before the debate begins. Secondly, make sure to define all of your terms in the description. It will prevent a lot of headaches for both you and the contender and will prevent the contender from using semantics.

I thank Pro for this debate we had and wish Pro the best in future debates. Voters, vote for whoever you thought debated better here.

Peace!