Instigator / Con
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4451
Prove * GOD* exists.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
TheApprentice
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1500
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
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.
Your burden is to prove that God exist. Keyword is GOD. I had this topic a time back and the opposing side I believe couldn't see apparently that proving GOD exist versus the existence of the word.
Apparently the voters couldn't tell the difference.
Prove God exist, not the word. We know the word exist because I able to form it. I'm able to arrange the letters together.
The opposing side on this topic before couldn't prove God existed so they moved the goalpost with saying the name exists specifically in the bible. That's not proving God exists.
First of all, who or what is God?
That's what you have to prove.
The definition of God is not a three letter word. God is a being, not a word. What is that name of that being? God.
The topic is not "Prove the name exists".
People are not really confused by that I don't think. But the low hanging fruit is there dangling too temptingly not to pick at it. So folks pull a cheap halfhearted shot like that.
So just fair warning. If that is tried again, I'm just going to call moving the goalpost which will be an automatic forfeit.
I say prove that car exists. You tell me I can read about it or I can spell it. You have failed to met your burden of proof. I need the evidence, to touch , to experience the actual tangible reality of such. If that BE a car, that's what to BE is. The existence of that physical reality of a thing. Not what's intangible such as language or word or words.
What is a car? What does exist mean?
That car whatever it is, is being what it is.
Prove the existence, the being of God or GOD BEING.
What,does that mean God being a name, prove that?
Does God mean name?
Serious intellectual honest folks please.
Just a small disclaimer in addition. These topics reflect nothing of my personal views .
Questions, concerns, drop those things in the comments. Peace be unto all .
Round 1
Con
#1
Ok so the opposing side by taking this challenge, they've assumed the claim they can prove an immaterial, non tangible entity to this reality which would what a spirit would be.
That is what they are to prove. Now being that we know what evidence is, we do have a paradoxical challenge here .
When something is evident,keyword"something", that something is physical reality. That's what a thing is. It is material composition. We detect it by empirical sense, otherwise it wouldn't be evident.
Evidence works for only for the physical world as it is the language so to speak specifically setup, designed, suited , formulated, compatible for such objects and matter. Evidence is the detection of the physical world and tangible reality.
So we're at this interesting but straightforward dichotomy that the opposing side will have to establish, connecting a bridge somehow between the two .
Pro
#2
The first argument I’ll use to defend the existence of God is the argument from motion. To comprehend this argument, you have to recognize reason. In this world, something is always occurring. A rock could be falling, a wave could be crashing, a life could be ending. All of these have root causes. Someone could have pushed the rock, a gust of wind could have caused the wave, and someone could have caught an infection. Even for these causes, there are further root causes, and this cycle repeats endlessly. The world exists. What caused it? The big bang happened. What caused it? There must be an original “motion-maker”. The First Mover. That is God. Without the original domino falling, nothing else could have moved. The same is true in the world at large.
Round 2
Con
#3
Prove that God caused the big bang and not nothing.
The argument of causality is useless. The obvious reason is the law causality would of had to exist for anything to be conformed to it .
Can you prove the reality of cause and effect existed to cause the big bang?
Pro
#4
The Big Bang is an explosion of atoms that spread throughout the Cosmos to create what we now have. There are three key words here, bang, spread, and explosion. None of these things just simply occur. There has so be some “change” to the status quo to enable them to happen. That “change” is movement. In the argument of movement, there must be some unmoving force that is the First Mover, and that set up the way things operate now. We see cause-and-effect in the world, and so logically, there must be some beginning to this cycle. The world couldn’t start out as an effect, if cause came before. Neither could my argument set up God a result of effect. Instead, God is the cause, the first cause, and everything is a result from him. Again, I’ll point you back to the domino reference.
The next argument, is the argument of necessary being. In this argument, we must acknowledge, as beings capable of reason, that some things exist at one point of time, and some things exist in another. Once upon a time, dinosaurs existed. Once upon a time, we will have existed. Even further, once upon a time, the Earth will have existed. Our end of existence doesn’t signal The End, though. The universe will still carry on, still subjected to the same entropy and law of existence we are/were. Therefore, there must be some being, outside this cycle of existence, providing the metaphorical train tracks to get us to where we are now, and will be in the future. Without this necessary being, the train will start and stop, but won’t continue.
Round 3
Con
#5
To those that may have gotten confused in the comments, there is a distinction between real and what a physical thing is . All things are real. All that is real is not required to be a thing.
Nobody is arguing things that are non physical don't exist or are not real.
But the opposing side has a challenge. That is to demonstrate something immaterial to the material world. Just the word "demonstrate" alone, we're talking about empirical means.
On top of that , trying to prove a negative such as the topic states.
"There has so be some “change” to the status quo to enable them to happen. "
This is your claim of a causality requirement so therefore you're positing a "causer", a creator.
Being this is a creator of everything, it would include the law of causality. This throws out the causality requirement because it didn't exist. The origin of things exist because things are required to have a cause. No, before anything existed, nothing worked like that , so the same rule can't be used. So to try to prove a creator or God exists because of this rule would be a non sequitur.
What would be even harder to prove because now I ask, what is a reason left for a creator to do anything or decide anything if there is no need to cause anything at all?
Now you have the burden of proving why would a creator exist at all with no causality and personally deciding to create anything.
"The world couldn’t start out as an effect, if cause came before. "
This is not up for debate that the world is an effect of a cause. Prove that God exists. You cannot prove empirically that it was nothing, a non existent factor that caused the cosmos explosion. You can't say and be correct it had to take a cause before the law of causality existed just like for everything else afterwards that operates by causes .
You can't empirically disprove that everything always was .
"God is the cause, the first cause, and everything is a result from him. Again, I’ll point you back to the domino reference."
This is still assuming and insisting that there has to be causality. But being that you can't prove that God had to create or cause anything , you're imposing a requirement of causality that God must use.
Being that the law of causality didn't exist due to absolutely nothing existing but it was just God, you have to prove a needed decision from God to make to create anything.
It's hard enough trying to prove the existence of God and now you have to demonstrate the mind of God. Why would God do this ,why wouldn't God do that?
Prove a mind like that of God that would exist, that would make the selection to begin the work of creation. Those are astronomical layers of demonstration to present from a finite mind to another.
A domino falling is under the law of causality. We know that is caused by such a government. We're talking about before anything existed including any ordinance of cause and effect itself.
"Therefore, there must be some being, outside this cycle of existence, providing the metaphorical train tracks to get us to where we are now, and will be in the future. Without this necessary being, the train will start and stop, but won’t continue. "
Here we go with this must be stuff . This thing of a "necessary being". I used to use these arguments until I realized I'm arguing based on rationale.
Then it hit me. Wait a minute. Being that nothing at all existed, rationality didn't exist . So why am I using it to justify something outside of it?
I can say God created the world but it wasn't because of cause and effect. The regulation of cause and effect didn't exist. So now I'm hit with the question why would God create anything as there's nothing requiring beyond that?
So the greater task is proving why would God do to prove why God would be?
Why would God do for God to be? You prove the "why" , you already sold on the existence.
These debates go in circles about God because there's no first hand observation. We just go by what we see in this world and impose the rules to a situation where no rules would have a place to exist.
You call God the cause. To demonstrate that cause and effect is meaningless at this stage, means before it had any reality, how did God make anything according to what we've learned throughout life?
God made things out of nothing. In this physical world of cause and effect, you need an actual thing to push something else.
With God , there was nothing. GOD used no cause. Rightfully, cause didn't exist. What we know as cause is not what God did. It's not what God used. God didn't use anything. No thing existed. Making something out of nothing is not cause and effect. Once more, another non sequitur.
Cause and effect is something coming from something else.
Pro
#6
Okay, it looks like I have a lot to cover, but I'll try my best to keep it simple and organized.
"Empirically"
You use the term "empirically", multiple times in your arguments. Specifically, you tell me to empirically prove that God exists. That wasn't in the terms of the debate, but even if it was, can you empirically prove that God does not exist? Furthermore, can we empirically prove that love or hope, or other intangible concepts exist? I doubt it, and so we have to use reason on either side. I don't have a problem with that on my side of the argument.
Causality
"Being this is a creator of everything, it would include the law of causality. This throws out the causality requirement because it didn't exist. The origin of things exist because things are required to have a cause. No, before anything existed, nothing worked like that , so the same rule can't be used. So to try to prove a creator or God exists because of this rule would be a non sequitur."&"This is still assuming and insisting that there has to be causality. But being that you can't prove that God had to create or cause anything , you're imposing a requirement of causality that God must use."
Your (separate) statements above, to my understanding, are trying to disprove the argument of causality because God would also be subject to the same laws. If this is so, I would pose this question to you: do those in power have to follow their own rules? When a parent commands a child not to curse or face punishment, are the parents also liable to that command. No. Neither is the creator subject to the whims of his creation. Therefore, the argument still stands.
Nature of God
"Being that the law of causality didn't exist due to absolutely nothing existing but it was just God, you have to prove a needed decision from God to make to create anything.It's hard enough trying to prove the existence of God and now you have to demonstrate the mind of God. Why would God do this ,why wouldn't God do that?"
Again, I don't understand what you're trying to get at from the above statements. Why does God take action? Because He wants to. It's like asking me, why does a singer sing, or a writer write? It's in their nature. It's what they want to do. I can't have God take a personality test, but I can infer from His actions that His desires are the root of them.
Rationality
"Then it hit me. Wait a minute. Being that nothing at all existed, rationality didn't exist. So why am I using it to justify something outside of it?"
If nothing existed, rationality wouldn't exist. Sounds reasonable as a statement. Nothing exists, after all. And, if nothing existed, science and empiricism wouldn't exist either. But we have to use something to attempt to discuss the existence of God. Why not rationality? Science can't prove, nor disprove, God.
Third Argument. The Argument of Design.
But, let me try my hand at being a little scientific. First off, the world is ordered. Science says so. Every object has a structure, down to the very molecule. A table, a chair, a human, everything down to the water you drink. It's ordered and stable. One tiny movement of the atoms to be a bit further apart, and things become nothing. H20 wouldn't be wet, a table wouldn't be hard, a human wouldn't be alive. So, we know order has to exist. How did it come to be though? Did the Big Bang, by chance, lead to water, trees, humans, animals, and the dirt beneath our feet being created? Statistically, I'm willing to guess that the chances of that happening are less than .001%. And so, since everything in the world is ordered, there should be someone that made it so, purposefully, and with intent. That designer is God.
Round 4
Con
#7
"Specifically, you tell me to empirically prove that God exists. That wasn't in the terms of the debate, "
I don't know where you are reading to decide what the terms are but I state what it is to prove what there is .
Back in the debate description I said this :
"I need the evidence, to touch , to experience the actual tangible reality of such. "
When actual tangible reality of such is demonstrated, that's what empirical would be . It's what we can see, observe and detect and we acquire knowledge by this.
Then what was stated in the first round?
"When something is evident,keyword"something", that something is physical reality. That's what a thing is. It is material composition. We detect it by empirical sense, otherwise it wouldn't be evident."
We're talking about evidence. How can you prove anything here or demonstrate anything without anybody seeing for themselves?
It has to be empirical. What did you think? Did you think your word would just be taken for it?
You have to demonstrate it. You just pointed to what can be demonstrated of how dominoes fall. You haven't demonstrated one iota of how whatever worked before anything period existed. This is an astronomical task because even the "whatever" can't be demonstrated. Being that absolutely nothing existed, that would include the "whatever" as well.
"can you empirically prove that God does not exist?"
This is classic evasive tactics. When you get challenged, struggle to substantiate your claim, you redirect the light .
It's like projecting the confirmation of "Well I tried to prove my side but if you can't prove your side, then my failure won't stand out".
You'll find nowhere in the context of this topic that the burden is shared. You took the challenge, I warned that it be an astronomical task. You can make it easy and just concede at this point.
"Furthermore, can we empirically prove that love or hope, or other intangible concepts exist? I doubt it"
You doubt it. If you doubt it , then why take this challenge?
"so we have to use reason on either side"
Problem is , you call it reason. But it's really just what you think, your opinion. Your reasoning is just based on what you think. Thus far what you think is you can rationalize a situation by the same metrics like another where nothing exists to apply them to. Nothing exists to operate by them or required to be regulated by them.
"do those in power have to follow their own rules? "
I guess it depends on those in power of their own rules. You continue in fallacy of applying what goes on in this world works the same way before the world existed.
Hence the example below.
"When a parent commands a child not to curse or face punishment, are the parents also liable to that command. No. Neither is the creator subject to the whims of his creation. Therefore, the argument still stands."
Now we can find parallels but we got to be careful to not be erroneous in presuming, insisting that all must work the same way.
Remember God created things out of nothing, is that right?
So this system is different from a world such as ours where things don't work that way at all. We learn this from mathematics. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
See, God would of had to invent mathematics. But He didn't invent it with the same system used to operate it because it didn't exist yet. That type of system didn't yet exist. It would be a contradiction if it did.
If you say "Oh it existed in God first". Ok , how? Prove it. In what way did it exist? What is the nature of it? That's the bottom line. You have to demonstrate the nature of it.
Being that the nature of God is intangible and immaterial, it just points back to the original burden which gets circular at this point, proving the existence of God.
Just think, if you can prove God scientifically, why would any religions exist?
This is why theism exists .
"Why does God take action? Because He wants to. It's like asking me, why does a singer sing, or a writer write? It's in their nature. It's what they want to do."
You haven't proven God exists. So that would include the desire as well. You haven't proven God so the wants of God have not proven nor any proof for why would God do anything?
To prove God to be , you have to prove why would God do?
Why? It's all there is. You're argument is causality in which causality requires God to use it to create everything . But who says God has to use it? Who says God has to create anything?
See a domino that hits another domino has to fall down. It must fall down based on the existing laws. But before the laws existed , there was none of such that existed to be governed by them.
You're position is trying to force laws that didn't exist.
"I can't have God take a personality test, but I can infer from His actions that His desires are the root of them."
You calling God's desire pretty much to fit the system of causality. Due to causality existing now, it had to exist before it existed. Notice this, due to causality existing now, it HAD TO HAVE EXISTED BEFORE IT EXISTED.
This is not a fact but a claim. You weren't there in the beginning I'm sure to empirically know .
The topic is not infer , use deductive reason but proving God existing.
"And, if nothing existed, science and empiricism wouldn't exist either. "
Then you didn't exist to empirically know or prove anything. Thus you cannot prove your case. You can discuss your reasoning but that's another discussion for another time.
"But we have to use something to attempt to discuss the existence of God. Why not rationality?"
It's because you just said it. It didn't exist.
"Science can't prove, nor disprove, God."
You've been trying to use the science of your thinking to prove God.
Experiments are used to test repeated results, to show empirical outcomes to prove theories all related to the scientific method. A hypothesis of an effect to prove the cause and vice versa, the scientific formula. We can do that in this reality that we're in under all these natural laws in the natural world.
"So, we know order has to exist. How did it come to be though? "
Good question. We know it exists NOW. Right now it exist. We don't know before now to say this order existed. Then the next variable is being that nothing existed. It would be a contradiction to say before the order, it was created by the order before it existed.
It's just one of those circular debates that goes nowhere. You can keep wondering. You can keep asking questions. You can keep trying to answer those questions and end up back at square one with another question looking for an answer. Then you end up with another unanswered question.
See our minds can only go but so far. They can't go beyond the realm in which they were developed in the field of logic.
This is why when try to comprehend what was before time, we continue to try to logical conclude an explanation. But remember logic didn't exist to base a calculation over it.
We can only calculate where we know and understand these calculations can be in an equation.
For instance, I heard that before there was anything, there was just eternity past. We can't even comprehend how that works. How does the past just continue to go back without a beginning?
If the past just continues and continues, how do we ever get to the point of the beginning of everything, you see?
Very complexing for our minds.
All we know is a past with a beginning to an end.
The term past is normally equated to time. I'm using that term to call such what was before anything was.
"Did the Big Bang, by chance, lead to water, trees, humans, animals, and the dirt beneath our feet being created?"
To be absolutely accurate, we don't know. That's because none of us that I know of were there to empirically witness anything to know. We can believe what we were told .
"Statistically, I'm willing to guess that the chances of that happening are less than .001%. And so, since everything in the world is ordered, there should be someone that made it so, purposefully, and with intent. That designer is God."
This is all your thoughts process. Not evidence. When you say "there should be", you're making this statement according to you. Not according to what actually happened.
Now about purpose, if you can prove there was external purpose of a creator like there are personal purposes of inventors, you prove the creator of everything because an external purpose would be attached to the creator of all things.
An external purpose differs from just cause. A domino doesn't have a desired purpose as an inanimate object to move and fall on another inanimate object. It moves based on just the scientific elements of a realm in which it exists in .
That's just the physics of cause and effect.
We need evidence of a personal nature, drive, motivational factor that would ultimately make the determination and say "I want to create a world for my glory".
Remember, cause and effect the way we understand it is something being a catalyst for another. We don't understand or witness something becoming of nothing or from nothing.
That's why this is a layered conundrum. People often use the argument that there has to be a God because of simply the logical move of cause and effect and that nothing is without cause.
But it's the opposite. If you want to say God exists because it took a cause to get an effect, you're still saying nothing caused everything to exist because God used absolutely nothing.
God is not a thing. Absolutely nothing was there. Just see how deep this goes. Makes the brain ache.
Pro
#8
Again, I'll try to keep it organized. I'll attempt to respond to any point made in the order that it was made by the Pro side of this debate. First off,
Terms of the Debate
"I need the evidence, to touch , to experience the actual tangible reality of such. "
In the context of the rest of the preamble, it just seemed to me as if you wanted to debate the existence of God not, as you mentioned in that same writing, the mere existence of the word. I will admit, though, I skimmed through it. Evidence though, I'll continue to argue, isn't always tangible. Is the alibi of a suspect in a murder case tangible? No. Nevertheless, I think that, in the situation in which I win the debate, the "tangible" evidence you desire so much will be prominent in everything you see. For if we do find God to exist, then creation itself would be evidence of Him. Now, I predict you'll argue that you need to see the evidence before the existence, in an inductive process. But the deductive process is a concept for a reason. It's because somethings require that process of analysis, viewing things from bottom-up. I think that in viewing the existence of God, we have to maintain a similar outlook.
Evidence and Empiricism
"We're talking about evidence. How can you prove anything here or demonstrate anything without anybody seeing for themselves?It has to be empirical. What did you think? Did you think your word would just be taken for it?"
Yes, I would like for my word to be taken for it. That would make this debate be so easy. But, more than that, I'd like for the truth of the arguments to be considered. Even if you can't scientifically experiment with them, you can still observe the fundamental elements of what I've said. I don't think I've gone against the laws of logic, or of empiricism throughout this debate. Empiricism is, defined by Google, the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. The arguments I've stated, anyone can experience the truth of them for themselves. I merely rejected what I, probably erroneously assumed, was a foot-in-the-door for the argument that I can't prove it scientifically, which I attempted to preemptively respond with, "you can't disprove it", that way either. It wasn't a "classic evasive tactic", but just stating a restriction that prevented certain aspects of the debate. And, yes, I did use it interchangeably in my argument, because in the context of how I was using the word, it was.
Moving on, though, I think you are bordering on solipsism in some of your arguments.
How can you prove anything here or demonstrate anything without anybody seeing for themselves?
I haven't seen Mt. Everest, the Amazons, or the Saharan, besides pictures, in my entire life. Never even been to another country. I suppose they might not exist. But here, we have to turn to reason. I know certain truths, which lead me to more truths. I have seen mountains; therefore, mountains exist. The tallest mountain, by a hegemonic comparison, has to exist. It might very well not be Mt. Everest, but something like Mt. Everest must exist. For the Amazon Rainforest, as well as the Saharan, I have to exhibit a similar thought process. You, on the other hand, seem to disagree with this process.
Problem is , you call it reason. But it's really just what you think, your opinion. Your reasoning is just based on what you think. Thus far what you think is you can rationalize a situation by the same metrics like another where nothing exists to apply them to. Nothing exists to operate by them or required to be regulated by them.
I don't understand which of the arguments I used was in an opinion-format. The argument from motion, anyone could find truth in. I push you, you move back. Causality, I punch you, you hurt, or my hand hurts. It's not an opinion, but a fact. The exposition that the argument could apply throughout time is also not an opinion, but a rational line of thinking. All we have to do is have a simple thought: why are we here? Answer: our parents. Why are they here? Answer: their parents. Then the cycle repeats. But, if the cycle repeats endlessly, what started it? Answer (here, I guess you could posit that it's an opinion): could be anything. But here comes the other arguments. It couldn't be anything, because it has to be something with an ordered mind/process, because the world itself is ordered. We know that something with one attribute can't produce another. A frog can't create a human. A human can't create a frog. That's truth.
Valid Critique
"You calling God's desire pretty much to fit the system of causality. Due to causality existing now, it had to exist before it existed. Notice this, due to causality existing now, it HAD TO HAVE EXISTED BEFORE IT EXISTED. "
God had a desire; therefore, God created the world. That's causality in existence. I agree with you. I don't quite understand why you capitalized the last part, though. Nothing you said really refuted any part of my argument. I had previously made the argument of necessary being which makes your POINT, help me. If causality existed before anything existed, then wouldn't nothing exist? But wait, something had to exist at all times, or there never would have been an existence to have sparked into existence. That is to say, if an apple seed was never planted, an apple could never have been created. Something had to have planted it.
The one thing I appreciated about this part of your argument was that it made me rethink how God operated within His own laws. I previously theorized that He didn't have to subscribe to His own rules, but you have proved that cause and effect was evident even within Himself, so maybe you have opened a hole into the entire causality argument. Except, not. Simply because He has thoughts before He acts does not mean there was something before Him. It just opens up the idea that cause and effect started with him.
Interesting Point
See our minds can only go but so far. They can't go beyond the realm in which they were developed in the field of logic.This is why when try to comprehend what was before time, we continue to try to logical conclude an explanation. But remember logic didn't exist to base a calculation over it.We can only calculate where we know and understand these calculations can be in an equation.
Interesting observation. You're basically saying, if I understand correctly, that if we don't firmly, scientifically know something, with all the experiments and observations that that entails, it doesn't exist. So, let me pose a hypothetical question for you. Before the mathematicians knew the number of a billion, did it exist as a figure? That is to say, since the greatest minds on earth didn't know there was a number that exceeded their current understanding, did existence itself conform to that? Were there only thousands of blades of grass, instead of billions? Rather, did America exist before it was discovered? Or was the Earth the center of the universe, before we discovered otherwise? The point I'm trying to make is that we do discover things we didn't previously know. You make it seem as if there is a barrier our minds can't cross, hiding hidden knowledge. I'd argue differently. Just like we experienced the effects of the sun as we revolved around it, even though we previously though it circled us, there are certain truths that are always visible. In the previously mentioned case, it was that the sun and the earth do have a connection. In my argument's case, it's that there are fundamental truths to our existence that were forever a part of it.
The World as we know it
"You continue in fallacy of applying what goes on in this world works the same way before the world existed."
I don't think it's that I continue in this fallacy, but that I don't see how I fall into it. We can't use what we don't know in a debate. All we do know is of this world. So the only thing we can use to prove or disprove God is also going to be of this world.
Burden of Proof
Considering that, as you have pointed out, the burden of proof is on me to prove God's existence, can we please redirect the focus of this debate back to the arguments I specifically laid out? We've both steered away from the original points.
I hope I addressed all of your main points.
Round 5
Pro
#10
There are certain, logical and scientific laws and truths that we observe in the world. Chief among these, that I have brought into this debate are: (1) cause-and-effect has existed since the earth was created; (2) the world is ordered, and since it is ordered, something capable of order had to have created the world. You can’t get Carbon Dioxide from Helium, that is, you can’t produce something without the proper components. (3) Gradation exists. Everything we see and experience varies on a spectrum. A human is more complex than a plant. Charity is more good than theft. There must be a being that is the highest of complexity and good. (4) Necessary being. Time, or rather entropy, is relative, but as we die and cease to exist, the law continues. There must be something unaffected by time for it to remain continuously moving.
I would have liked to go into more detail and debate about the truths of these arguments and statements, but we only had five rounds, and the debate, on both sides, strayed from some of these points. Nevertheless, the key theory of these arguments is that we, as humans in the world, know certain things to be true. We can’t stop time. There are things outside of our control and knowledge. And we will die. There are more truths like these, like the ones I listed above, and if we follow the trail they produce, we get to the being I call God.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro gives a rather straightforward argument from motion and later on an argument from "order." Rather than critiquing the premises directly, Con argues that evidence must be empirical and that God does not count as a cause. That's not always a terrible strategy, but Pro does well here, arguing that an argument need not include empirical evidence to be sufficient and that God can cause something by desiring it. Con gives the debate away by forfeiting near the end. Formatting on either side isn't great, and Pro is introducing new arguments throughout the debate, but Con simply ignores a lot of what Pro says. For that reason, my vote goes to Pro.
Another point that was going to be submitted I'll add is about the different dimensions. This can possibly help the opposing side on this topic understand better and see where rules can't be hijacked and applied anywhere.
One instance is because the rules of perception are distinct from the 3rd and 2nd dimension , a 3D image doesn't have the complete empirical tangibility in a 2 dimensioned world or reality.
Of course all of these points are outside the ring but take it home for edification.
Prove the will, you prove God. Prove God you prove the will. No matter which way, you continue in circular reasoning. Given that someone has proven God to exist would prove the will, the desire, the decision to act in creating all things.
Why would there be a will? We have an effect of the will. Circular. Where did the will derive, why would there be one, why would it be acted on? We can go on and on, it's get circular. If the response is God, circular.
This is the distinction I wanted to make of personal cause or individual will and cause that is required to be which is the law of causality. The law is what has to be as opposed to personal cause/will that is not by a law but contingent on the individual entity which has yet to be empirically proven to exist overall.
I do want to highlight this point if I were to summarize everything I would have submitted if I didn't get distracted like I did.
The opposing side never proved the will, desire or thought of God existing.
The opposing side committed petitio principii. Now we went back and forth on the contradiction of causality not existing before it existed and that was going to be a lot of the circular points made .
That along with God having causality within is just circular as well because it points us back to just proving God again. With causality being in or of God and God being an immaterial intangible entity, all that's really being said is prove God.
Causality is a thing.
Being there's absolutely nothing before anything was including the "nothing", what is there to prove?
A decision made by the will of God. Prove the will, you prove God.
I totally forget to submit my points that I had ready to go in the preview stage. All had to do was submit it, just got too busy yesterday.
Everything was just getting circular anyway as often as these debates do.
Your initial statement was "I say prove that the car exists. You tell me I can read about it or spell it. You have failed to meet your burden of proof. I need evidence to touch and experience the tangible reality of it. If it is a car, then its existence is what it is. The physical reality of a thing is what constitutes its being, not intangible concepts such as language or words." While I understand the importance of tangible evidence, it's essential to acknowledge that intangible concepts like ideas, dreams, and strategies do exist and are real, even though they are formless and impossible to touch.
To prove the existence of God, we must first define the concept of God. In my understanding, God is omnipresent, timeless, and all-encompassing. Having been raised as a non-denominational Christian, I am familiar with the idea of God. However, I've come to realize that God's name or idea represents a collective representation of an idea or objective reality. There is a distinction between the physical realm, which is tangible and visible, and the metaphysical realm, which comprises intangible things such as dreams, thoughts, and ideas that are real and do exist.
Through this realization, I've come to understand that my definition of God is in alignment with naturalistic pantheism's view of the metaphysical realm. I believe that God represents the collective workings and ideas of the world we live in. Therefore, it's essential to have a clear definition of God before attempting to prove its existence.
The Bible provides examples that support my claims. The Israelites demonstrated my definition of God through their cyclical pattern of experiencing tragedy and good fortune. Whenever they faced tragedy, they attributed it to God punishing them, and whenever they experienced good fortune, they credited it to God blessing them. This recognition that God is the driving force behind everything that happens around us is the essence of my definition of God.
In conclusion, based on my understanding of Christianity and naturalistic pantheism, I believe that God represents the collective workings and ideas of the world we live in. A clear definition of God is essential before attempting to prove its existence.
interesting
I'll be honest, your last debate makes me angry in your stead. I believe in God, know some Theology, and would be interested in having an actual debate that tests my existing knowledge, and your own. Good luck. Oh, and what's your religious status, just so I know which point of view to put my argument's focus on?
If I go e you the phone number of so.eonr who believes they talked to God, does God exist?