Instigator / Con

What is the proof that God exists?

Debating

Waiting for contender's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Description
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
Published:
The description will serve as the first round.
Published:
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
Published:
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.

Published:
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
Published:
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.





Published:
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
Published:
"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?








Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @Intelligence_06
You can double check if Spider-Man is still there. While that does not make him a real person, it would seem to be a type of existence. If not, then do various famous paintings likewise not exist?
#13
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
So according to your logic? unicorns exist because a 5-year-old girl next door drew it? Does Spiderman exist because of my comic downstairs?
#12
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Reality can be whatever I want it to be.
#11
Added:
--> @Mall
Sources for R1:
1. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god
2. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/exist
3. http://thekingsbible.com/Concordance/God
Contender
#10
Added:
--> @User_2006
Yeet
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
You mad lad.
#8
Added:
--> @Nikunj_sanghai
It doesn't hold my interest.
#7
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I have a problem with the word proof! there would be a difference in proving a concept of god and a god. More specifically there is no tangible evidence. I am a Hindu I know 50 gods by name and powers easily , hinduism has thousands. Christian concept, Muslim concept would all differ , the word "proof" in this topic is a nightmare! IF you accept though I will surely read it in full :)
#6
Added:
--> @Nikunj_sanghai
Not the best trap. I could easily take this just copy/pasting from my own previous debates on this subject, to show that the word God and the concept for God indeed exists.
#5
Added:
--> @Nikunj_sanghai
Mall is an easy target. He never use sources. However No one can sufficiently prove that god exists, and Con has the easy resolution here.
#4
Added:
--> @User_2006, @christopher_best
This is not a debate , this is a death trap !
#3
Added:
This debate has undue burden of proof, I think. We can't PROVE that there is a God, but how can we prove there isn't? We can present some arguments for or against but there is no tangible evidence in any of them. This is simply because God is an inherently intangible subject. We shouldn't be able to measure or experiment with him by definition.
#2
Added:
Define "God".
Define "Existence".
#1
No votes yet