Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5064

God Exists

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1479
rating
316
debates
39.08%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Con
#1
Thanks to Mall for accepting the debate. As the burden of proof falls on the affirmative side, I will forgo this round in favor of responding to Pros opening arguments.
Pro
#2
" As the burden of proof falls on the affirmative side"

The question is what am I proving?

Topic just says God exists and the description says "The opponent will take the Pro, in that they think God does exist in the sense of an individual supernatural personality".

So I'm taking it that I am to prove what I think. I guess the only way to do that is by telling you.

I ask somebody what they think, they tell me and they can  back it up with action. 

Now that's where it can be demonstrated the proof.  Something that can be seen for yourself, witnessed, observed empirically, that's evidence of what someone thinks, believes in or has an opinion of .


You can have a strong belief backed up by action.  I see people demonstrate what they believe upon where they go and what they do. I witness people partaking in a ceremony that is in connection to the God they believe in, thinks exists.

You see me praying, giving thanks to God, that is proof that I think God exists.


Round 2
Con
#3
Forgive me.if I wasn't specific enough. Pro should provide justification for why they think God exists in the sense of a supernatural individual personality. We can do this debate again after this one concludes if you would like. 
Pro
#4
Justification as to why a supernatural personality would exist.

Being that I'm a being with a beginning, I see everything around me with a beginning. I think that everything wasn't always was. Everything that is is natural so before there was natural,there was what it was before the birth of natural before the natural outside the natural we'll call supernatural.

Personality is what is unique, personified and individualized. An entity or an existence like no other. Which an existence like no other would be non existence compared to the existence as we know it now .

Thus far I'm taking you down a line of reasoning deductively which has many valid connections and conclusions which is what just or justified comes out to be .

I'm justified or correct in thinking there is that that is beyond me as there has to be a history and events before me and before those events and before those and before those and that would go on and on to get to me where I am in this point in time. 

Just as I would be correct in thinking the time has to be set first in order for anyone to tell the time.

Round 3
Con
#5
Mall, thank you for responding. It's extremely difficult to follow your arguments because of the grammar. That may be more a problem with me than with you. 

I think fundamentally your points can be challenged with this question; why do you assume that before our universe and its laws came to be that there was something more than the natural? Why couldn't it be that there was just a different type of natural before what we are familiar with now?

I think you need to provide evidence that the supernatural is even possible before you can assert that it was the cause of anything. Do you have evidence that the supernatural is possible? 
Pro
#6
It's too bad you didn't setup more rounds than this. I know things can be explained in a concise and succinct manner. But in terms of understanding, you may need to allow more space for explanation and expansion. Then things like grammar is not so much the issue but a sufficient explanation. 

People do speak accustomed to how they habitually do and you have to have patience in ciphering the message . This can be done through questions and answers but in this setup, we've already exhausted the rounds.

But let me answer your question(s) to clear up things between us and the readers. I think the question(s) posed show some misunderstanding on your side.

"I think fundamentally your points can be challenged with this question; why do you assume that before our universe and its laws came to be that there was something more than the natural?"

Notice, go back and read. I never mentioned the term or terms "something more". I laid a foundation of explanation of whatever it was before anything existed describing it as whatever that was in the beginning or prior to. Not saying it's more or less. I can't say what it is exactly or quantify it. We don't know right. So the variable is X which we will call "supernatural ". It's any other whatever outside of reality as we know now and it can't really even be called a " what " because we still don't know other than it not being natural is X. See this is hard to grasp as it leaves us almost impossible to properly identify "what" was before anything. Our minds calculate in a reality in which we know or can know how to describe things.

So outside of what is natural, the label is supernatural. The question is, has the natural always been? That would be the question to challenge me with? But if or being that there's no evidence for natural laws and reality always being, is the challenge really there?

After all all the topic is asking about is proving what I think, not facts.


"Why couldn't it be that there was just a different type of natural before what we are familiar with now?"

Yeah well supernatural is different from natural isn't it? See we're not too far off from agreement. We just need to understand each other better. Non-existence is different from existence. If you want to call non-existence a different type of natural, you obviously free to your preference. I don't think you are alien to the same thought process that there was "whatever "before what we have now. It just comes down to how we identify it in communicating it.

"I think you need to provide evidence that the supernatural is even possible before you can assert that it was the cause of anything. Do you have evidence that the supernatural is possible? "

If you believe and think like I do that the catalyst, whatever it was that gave us the natural world and reality as we know now, I'm CALLING that factor, supernatural.

See you have to really pay attention to how I'm using words and not so much going by the conventional conception that comes to mind when you see the words.

We didn't get a chance to unpack this further but if you decided to come back and read this last round and want to have a part two of this, send me a message.




Round 4
Con
#7
Forfeited
Pro
#8
Like I said:

"We didn't get a chance to unpack this further but if you decided to come back and read this last round and want to have a part two of this, send me a message."

Thanks for the chance of interaction.