Instigator / Con

PeterSimard

1509

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Topic

#5183

Can you prove God Exists? Part Deux

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall

Parameters

Publication date: 01.14.2024 04:14AM
Last updated date: 01.24.2024 04:20PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

Mall

1389

rating

420

debates

44.88%

won

Description

I want to discuss with Theists their reasoning for the existence of a GOD. I want to know why they beleive that a god exists. I would like concrete explanations that can be validated. I won't debate a philisophical point as I feel these are not concrete and leave doors wide open to the idea of "It can't be explained and god is the only valid reason". I would prefer explicit points that explain how a god can be validated and can be confirmed be someone else.

Round 1

PeterSimard

01.14.2024 09:46AM

Con

My first statement is simple. I feel that no god exists because I see no evidence supporting his existance. Can you provide verifiable evidence of an exitence to god.

Mall

01.14.2024 10:22PM

Pro

"My first statement is simple. I feel that no god exists because I see no evidence supporting his existance. Can you provide verifiable evidence of an exitence to god."

I believe so. Although I was under the understanding that according to the debate description, you were seeking the reasoning of theists for the existence of God .

Their reasoning is just that. What is reasonable to them.

"I want to discuss with Theists their reasoning for the existence of a GOD. I want to know why they beleive that a god exists. I would like concrete explanations that can be validated. "

Are we just abandoning that, dropping what the reasoning is to some people and just going to what the evidence is of God existing for not just some people but all to see for themselves?

The topic question doesn't quite line up for what you seeking according to what was initially stated in the description.

I just aim to clarify the direction of this. You basically stated you want to know why theists believe what they believe. Do you want their reason or just flat evidence of a god existing?

I'm just aiming to clarify the direction of this topic as we move forward.

Round 2

PeterSimard

01.15.2024 10:07AM

Con

You are joining this debate as a pro of the debate.

Please provide your proof of a god.

You specifics of the understanding of the debate makers no sense. It's straight forward. It appears you want to play games. If so then leave the debate as this is not intersting.

Mall

01.16.2024 11:24PM

Pro

Please be kind and offer clarity. I suspected you respond this way.

So you want proof of a god. Well let's do this. It's very interesting to know you are a god . I'm a god.

Any person you see , every time you see a person, you see god.

There's the evidence you can see for yourself.

The ideology behind this god that you see is he or she conforms to his or herself making themselves the authority. They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god.

You read all about this regarding people that hold and accept this ideology of human beings.

Perhaps ironically these people are also classified as atheists.

"If man insists on externalizing his true self in the form of "God," then why fear his true self, in fearing "God,"—why praise his true self in praising "God,"—why remain externalized from "God" in order to engage in ritual and religious ceremony in his name?
Man needs ritual and dogma, but no law states that an externalized god is necessary in order to engage in ritual and ceremony performed in a god's name! Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his "God" he sees the demon of pride creeping forth—that very embodiment of Lucifer appearing in his midst?"

LaVey, The Satanic Bible.

Maybe ambiguous but questions are raised to point out man just being god himself. He doesn't even need laws to say otherwise that he can't and some other would be necessary.

Speaking of laws. Who does he answer to?

We read on about Laveyan satanism which holds the image of the devil as such answering to himself.

"Instead of worshiping the Devil as a real figure, the image of Satan is embraced because of its association with social nonconformity and rebellion against the dominant system."

Going against a dominant system is saying nothing is more dominant than you. Such as God outside of you or a government that depicts "IN GOD WE TRUST ".

Reading more about Lavayen.

"LaVey also conceptualised Satan as a symbol of the individual's own vitality,[57] thus representing an autonomous power within,[58] and a representation of personal liberty and individualism.[59] Throughout The Satanic Bible, the LaVeyan Satanist's view of god is described as the Satanist's true "self"—a projection of his or her own personality—not an external deity.[60] In works like The Satanic Bible, LaVey often uses the terms "god" and "Satan" interchangeably, viewing both as personifications of human nature."

A human god . Thanks Mr. Lavey for shedding the light explaining the point.

That's really it in short. The personification of an individual person has the power within, the autonomy of themselves, not from a government or external figure. A person has it all as a personified deity.

When you see a person, that is proof of god.

Round 3

PeterSimard

01.16.2024 11:31PM

Con

ok - it's clear you want to fool around - start your own debate if you want to

Mall

01.17.2024 04:20PM

Pro

So because the opposing COULD NOT COME UP WITH A REFUTATION for everything I just said, they threw up their hands and countered nothing.

Basically the opposing side wanted me to argue the way they were expecting but debates don't have to be formulaic in a conventional sense of expectations.

You're here to debate and often you should expect this. Expect to argue anything the opposing side may come up with.

Expect the unexpected.

Often times people can't debate because they only have pre-planned prepared arguments for certain things like they're going into an orchestrated musical.

NOOO you gotta to play this by ear. The opposing side choked up getting booed off stage.

This show is over.

Savant

01.18.2024 04:12PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro provides the only definition of God in this debate, albeit a very nonconventional one. This opened the door for Con to respond with a more conventional definition of God, but they did not. Since Pro is the only one to say what "God" means in the context of this debate, and this definition goes basically unchallenged by Con, I have little choice but to accept Pro's nonconventional definition. People exist, so God exists if we define God the way Pro wants.

Statichead

01.18.2024 03:23PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro had not only a better argument, pro had any argument at all.
Im not sure if I should consider it a source, but pro did quote some info.
Pro had better legibility. Con had some grammatical and spelling errors.
Pro took the debate seriously.

Pro wins my vote.