Instigator / Con
0
1469
rating
347
debates
41.5%
won
Topic
#5189

How would you convince an atheist the spirit of God exists? You could.

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
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1309
rating
280
debates
40.36%
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.

Round 1
Con
#1
I need to specify the claim. To those who say this or think this,  I'll get to it , don't worry about that.

The number one individual to worry about the specification is the opposing side. Let them worry about that and I don't think they're worried, they got this. 

Now let me get this thing started up in here.

How would you convince an atheist the spirit of God exists? 

What would you say to a person that believes no spirit of God exists does indeed exist?

Is that not specific?

Ok well I'll make it more plain. A spirit apparently is an immaterial, non physical being, entity, figure.

For instance the spirit of fear, in the spirit of Christmas, in the spirit of great so and so .

To the spirit of a what someone says, spirit of the law or rule.

You have a written rule that serves a technical order of control or enforcement .

As long as you have done what is necessary to fit the letter of the law, you technically have not made any violation.

This is how loopholes are utilized to get around a rule if said rule wasn't specific enough to eliminate a loophole.

For example a rule for a child to be in bed by a certain time. The intention of the rule is for the child to be asleep and not be up so late most likely entertaining themselves with elements outside their room and bed. That is the spirit of the rule. Something not said or materialized in the rules.

So therefore without specification, the child that is intelligent enough knows or is inventive to go around this by still being legal but still manages playtime even in bed. 

Another example, this from a well know public television kids cartoon about the parents forbidding their son from watching their living room t.v. as he was grounded in his room with no t.v.

Well he got clever and used a pair of binoculars to watch t.v. through a neighbors window, called that neighbor and said "put the phone by the t.v.".

Another example out of an old sitcom from the 1950s of a wife that specifically said to her husband " you better not let me catch you with another woman".

He said " Honey I give you my word of honor, I'll never let you CATCH ME". She knew right then he just went with her exact words to be faithful to that and that's it. That was the joke in that show but it highlights what she wanted as a complete picture in her heart or to the spirit of what she desired as an unspoken rule.

The opposing side may be thinking this is getting too tangential. But I'll make it full circle. The spirit of God is a being that is unspoken. You can't hear God. Unseen, you can't see God. There are things naturally that we specifically see that has order, design. 

No where in existence has been proven that a thing exists powerful enough or strong enough, massive and mighty enough that would have created all that we can ever experience. 

Atheists just like those who say it's not wrong to do anything that a law hasn't SPECIFICALLY stated not to do, it's not wrong to reject and only accept what has specifically been proven even though we as people don't know everything and there could be a bigger picture they we could be in error about denying.

So a being that is an almighty immaterial being, that couldn't be the BIG BANG, that's physical. It couldn't be any theory that we know of or don't know as it spans from some scientific natural assessment as you've guessed deals with the material reality again.

Before anything, any material existed, that is what you have to convince to an atheist exists. Now when we talk about before anything existed that's very similar to the language I read in Psalm.

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"

Likewise in Genesis it says "in the beginning God created the heavens and earth ".

So the atheists or atheist that you'll be conversing with may have the biblical God in mind or see the alignment of that God and just God laid out here in this round broken down in basic terms.

What would you say to the atheist to convince them that this spirit, almighty being lives?
Pro
#2
What would you say to the atheist to convince them that this spirit, almighty being lives?
This is not the topic.

This is the topic:
"How would you convince an atheist the spirit of God exists? You could."

I would simply wait until we both die and show God to the atheist and therefore convince him.

Now, as for this life, the proof for God is in the cosmological argument.

1. God is the only one who can solve the infinity regress. 
2. Infinity regress is logically unavoidable, since either time is infinite either amount of causes are infinite.
3. Infinity regress has been solved.
C. God must exist.

1. Causes cant cause themselves.
2. "Something" cannot be the first cause
3. "Nothing" cannot be the first cause
4. First cause had to be neither "something" nor "nothing".
5. First cause had to be God.

Because God is above the laws of logic, being supernatural, he doesnt need a cause.

With powers to speed up time so that infinity passes in an instant, God solves infinity regress.

Since "nothing" only produces nothing, and "something" requires a cause, it follows that first cause had to be supernatural, neither nothing nor something.

This only leads us to some God-like being, that explains the existence of first cause, infinite regress and universal laws of logic that would otherwise have no explanation.


"William Lane Craig, who was principally responsible for re-popularizing this argument in Western philosophy, presents it in the following general form:[29]
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Craig analyses this cause in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and says that this cause must be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, extraordinarily powerful, and personal.[30"

"In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists.

Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist).[18]

 In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause,[19] Aquinas further said: "... and this we understand to be God."[20]

Aquinas's argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is a form of argument from universal causation.

Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist.

Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence.

Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is ultimately derived.

Aquinas' argument from contingency may also be formulated like this: if each contingently existing being considers himself Bn, then, because he exists contingently, he depends for his existence on a prior being Bn-1.

Now, Bn-1 likewise, if it is contingent, depends on Bn-2. Nevertheless, this series cannot go on until Infinity. At a certain time, we will arrive at a B1, the First Being in existence, and since there is no "zeroth" Being or B0, B1 exists Necessarily, i.e. is not a contingent being. This was Aquinas' Third Way, under Question 2, Article 3 in the Summa Theologica[21]

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases."

He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason ... is found in a substance which ... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[22]

Leibniz's argument from contingency is one of the most popular cosmological arguments in philosophy of religion.

It attempts to prove the existence of a necessary being and infer that this being is God. Alexander Pruss formulates the argument as follows:


  1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
  2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
  3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
  4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
  5. This necessary being is God.[23]
Premise 1 is a form of the principle of sufficient reason stating that all contingently true sentences (i.e. contingent facts) have a sufficient explanation as to why they are the case.

Premise 2 refers to what is known as the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact (abbreviated BCCF), and the BCCF is generally taken to be the logical conjunction of all contingent facts.[24] It can be thought about as the sum total of all contingent reality.

Premise 3 then concludes that the BCCF has an explanation, as every contingency does (in virtue of the PSR). It follows that this explanation is non-contingent (i.e. necessary); no contingency can explain the BCCF, because every contingent fact is a part of the BCCF.

Statement 5, which is either seen as a premise or a conclusion, infers that the necessary being which explains the totality of contingent facts is God."

"Duns Scotus, the influential Medieval Christian theologian, created a metaphysical argument for the existence of God.

Though it was inspired by Aquinas' argument from motion, he, like other philosophers and theologians, believed that his statement for God's existence could be considered separate to Aquinas'.

His explanation for God's existence is long, and can be summarised as follows:[31]

  1. Something can be produced.
  2. It is produced by itself, by nothing, or by another.
  3. Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing.
  4. Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself.
  5. Therefore, by another A.
  6. If A is first then we have reached the conclusion.
  7. If A is not first, then we return to 2).
  8. From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite.
  9. An infinite series is not possible.
  10. Therefore, God exists.
Scotus deals immediately with two objections he can see: first, that there cannot be a first, and second, that the argument falls apart when 1) is questioned.

He states that infinite regress is impossible, because it provokes unanswerable questions, like, in modern English, "What is infinity minus infinity?" The second he states can be answered if the question is rephrased using modal logic, meaning that the first statement is instead "It is possible that something can be produced."

"Depending on its formulation, the cosmological argument is an example of a positive infinite regress argument.

An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor.[32] 

An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.[32][33] 

positive infinite regress argument employs the regress in question to argue in support of a theory by showing that its alternative involves a vicious regress.[34] 

The regress relevant for the cosmological argument is the regress of causes: an event occurred because it was caused by another event that occurred before it, which was itself caused by a previous event, and so on.[32][35] 

For an infinite regress argument to be successful, it has to demonstrate not just that the theory in question entails an infinite regress but also that this regress is vicious.[32][35] 

Once the viciousness of the regress of causes is established, the cosmological argument can proceed to its positive conclusion by holding that it is necessary to posit a first cause in order to avoid it.[36]

A regress can be vicious due to metaphysical impossibilityimplausibility or explanatory failure.[35][37] It is sometimes held that the regress of causes is vicious because it is metaphysically impossible, i.e. that it involves an outright contradiction.

But it is difficult to see where this contradiction lies unless an additional assumption is accepted: that actual infinity is impossible.[36][33][35] 

But this position is opposed to infinity in general, not just specifically to the regress of causes.[32] 

A more promising view is that the regress of causes is to be rejected because it is implausible.[36] Such an argument can be based on empirical observation, e.g. that, to the best of our knowledge, our universe had a beginning in the form of the Big Bang[36] (albeit the possibility that it existed for eternity before the Big Bang is also not strictly excluded on physics grounds alone[38]).

But it can also be based on more abstract principles, like Ockham's razor (parsimony), which posits that we should avoid ontological extravagance by not multiplying entities without necessity.[39][35] 

A third option is to see the regress of causes as vicious due to explanatory failure, i.e. that it does not solve the problem it was formulated to solve or that it assumes already in disguised form what it was supposed to explain.[35][37][40"


So since infinity regress cannot possibly be solved without supernatural effect, and supernatural effect comes from God, it follows that God has to exist to solve infinity regress.
Round 2
Con
#3

"What would you say to the atheist to convince them that this spirit, almighty being lives?"

"This is not the topic.

This is the topic:
"How would you convince an atheist the spirit of God exists? You could.""


Relax comrade it means the same thing. I should be allowed to define my terms so I did. Come on , don't reject my definitions to my own topic. 

"I would simply wait until we both die and show God to the atheist and therefore convince him."

In other words the atheist would have to walk away unconvinced. Which means you abandon your burden.

The biggest problem you have with this is that the atheist doesn't have to expire at the same time as you. If they do before you and see God, it wasn't because you convinced them. 
Even if it was simultaneous, you wouldn't have to convince them because they would already see for themselves.

You don't have to convince me of something that I can see for myself like the sun. Matter of fact it's not possible for you to do that.

When somebody has to be convinced of something, it's because nothing, absolutely nothing is evident. There is no evidence that they see for themselves. But if they can see for themselves, they're already convinced or either a made witness.

So nice try with this. Really good effort honestly. I did not see this coming. The topic statement doesn't use the word "now". However we still have problems with what you tried to apply.

So what would you say to convince me say I'm an atheist that the Spirit of God exists or lives? Same thing God would be the almighty being.

What would you say to convince me ?

What could you show? What could you tell me so that I am convinced? Not possibly convinced later but that I am no longer unconvinced.

"Now, as for this life, the proof for God is in the cosmological argument."

Looks like you took some steps ahead in case that last argument flopped which it did.

One question I have is, if this is supposed to be the proof of the spirit of God , why do religions concerning God still exist?

Are religious folks ignorant of this?

"1. God is the only one who can solve the infinity regress. "

Please elaborate what this means. No wonder religious folks are ignorant to it. It comes off vague.
Is this supposed to mean everlasting eternity past prior to creation or beginning of natural reality?

"2. Infinity regress is logically unavoidable, since either time is infinite either amount of causes are infinite."


The atheist will ask, how do we know this eternity past exists if that is what is meant by what you're saying? 

How do we know this world wasn't always or could there be multiverses? 

These are more theories than so called evidence. We don't want to confuse the atheists between two different things.

"3. Infinity regress has been solved."

It has not because the atheist still has unanswered questions.

"1. Causes cant cause themselves.
2. "Something" cannot be the first cause
3. "Nothing" cannot be the first cause
4. First cause had to be neither "something" nor "nothing".
5. First cause had to be God."

Cause and effect has been proven in the natural world but it has not been proven to exist outside natural reality nor before natural reality existed if it actually had a beginning that is.

Then the atheist can ask being that the natural law exists of causality, how could it have existed before it existed?

To say "well God" is the famous"God of the gaps " fallacy. Not a proof, not evident but assumptive and theorized.

"Because God is above the laws of logic, being supernatural, he doesnt need a cause.

With powers to speed up time so that infinity passes in an instant, God solves infinity regress.

Since "nothing" only produces nothing, and "something" requires a cause, it follows that first cause had to be supernatural, neither nothing nor something."

Being that the premise is that there was no existence of anything, that would include the rule "nothing only produces nothing ", how could it apply without it existing itself in this scenario?

Another question. It's a contradiction to your own premise.

The spirit of God is not a thing. For all intent and purposes, the spirit would fall under the "nothing " category. You say nothing comes from nothing but you also say God caused. Well that's something out of nothing. 

This just confuses the atheist trying to have them think you have solved all these questions where it just raises brand new ones over and over.


"This only leads us to some God-like being, that explains the existence of first cause, infinite regress and universal laws of logic that would otherwise have no explanation."

God of the gaps yes. Just process of elimination of assumptions down to one that you can't do better than.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence."
"The universe began to exist."
"Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence."

All based on logic yes. But if we're thinking about a scenario where logic didn't exist, it can't be applied.

Basically you continue to go on discussing logical formulas and operations at the end of the day.

So I'll point you back to the questions that the atheist will raise that's keeping them from being convinced because they're skeptical. Skeptics asks questions first to clear up problems, conflicts, inconsistencies.

There were more questions than these but I'll highlight these as the center.


Then the atheist can ask being that the natural law exists of causality, how could it have existed before it existed?

Being that the premise is that there was no existence of anything, that would include the rule "nothing only produces nothing ", how could it apply without it existing itself in this scenario?


Pro
#4
The biggest problem you have with this is that the atheist doesn't have to expire at the same time as you. If they do before you and see God, it wasn't because you convinced them.
Even if it was simultaneous, you wouldn't have to convince them because they would already see for themselves.
You don't have to convince me of something that I can see for myself like the sun. Matter of fact it's not possible for you to do that.
My opponent assumes that atheists see God instantly when they die.

There is a waiting period, and I can simply ask God to speed up the waiting period and therefore cause atheist to see God sooner and therefore convince him, where otherwise he would be unconvinced for that time.

Also, my opponent assumes that I would have to die before or at the same time as atheist does, which doesnt have to be true.

I can convince any atheist who dies after me, or at the same time as me, and depending on the waiting period, even those who die before me.

Since my opponent cannot disprove these claims, it follows that my position is not disprovable.

My opponent assumes that topic means how I must be the only cause of convincing at all times, but no, I only need to cause an atheist to believe during the waiting period where he otherwise wouldnt believe.

Further, I dont need to convince all atheists, not even just one. I just need to be able to convince one atheist, not actually convince any, and since God fullfills my wishes I can wish for that.

Further, my opponent cannot disprove that I maybe could convince an atheist about God in this world.
Maybe I have proof which would cause atheist to believe in God if he saw such proof.

Since my opponent cannot disprove that I may have such proof and I am just refusing to show it, it follows that my side of the topic cannot be disproved.

Now, about infinity regress. Here is a more simple explanation of it.

Logical contradiction is supernatural.

Infinite past is a logical contradiction, as endless past had to end to get where we are.

Past cannot have natural beginning. Nature cannot create time.

We are left with supernatural beginning, which is what God is.

Some atheists would be convinced by this, since there are cases where atheists turn to religion.

Here is more proof of God which I could use to convince an atheist.

There is no natural explanation for consistent laws of universe, laws of logic, laws of math.

These laws are consistent and organized in an intelligent way, which means they have one intelligent creator.

Since the creator would have to be outside these laws, he would by definition have to be supernatural.

Atheist cannot explain how a non-intelligent non-supernatural created these laws in an intelligent way, and how does something which is outside of these laws can be subject to them at the same time.

If he went for supernatural non-intelligent, he wouldnt be able to explain how non-intelligent created laws in an organized and consistent way which requires intelligence.

Since all laws are non-contradictive, they had to have logical creator and not random mess.
Round 3
Con
#5
"My opponent assumes that atheists see God instantly when they die."

I don't assume that. The spirit of God has been effectively defined that way in this topic.If you actually understand how I define the spirit of God in this topic, God is not in one place to be found.

Do you actually understand the definition of the Spirit of God in this topic?

"There is a waiting period, and I can simply ask God to speed up the waiting period and therefore cause atheist to see God sooner and therefore convince him, where otherwise he would be unconvinced for that time."

Ok this ad hoc and therefore does not fit the definition of God in this topic.

"Also, my opponent assumes that I would have to die before or at the same time as atheist does, which doesnt have to be true."

This is total opposite of what I said. Either you're ignoring what I'm saying or obtuse. No offense.

"I can convince any atheist who dies after me, or at the same time as me, and depending on the waiting period, even those who die before me.

"Since my opponent cannot disprove these claims, it follows that my position is not disprovable."

I cannot disprove. Is that really?

Granting that I'm one, you still haven't convinced me.

"My opponent assumes that topic means how I must be the only cause of convincing at all times, but no, I only need to cause an atheist to believe during the waiting period where he otherwise wouldnt believe.

Further, I dont need to convince all atheists, not even just one. I just need to be able to convince one atheist, not actually convince any, and since God fullfills my wishes I can wish for that.

Further, my opponent cannot disprove that I maybe could convince an atheist about God in this world.
Maybe I have proof which would cause atheist to believe in God if he saw such proof.

Since my opponent cannot disprove that I may have such proof and I am just refusing to show it, it follows that my side of the topic cannot be disproved."

This ramble is not going to convince an atheist the spirit lives.

"Logical contradiction is supernatural.

Infinite past is a logical contradiction, as endless past had to end to get where we are.

Past cannot have natural beginning. Nature cannot create time.

We are left with supernatural beginning, which is what God is."

Unproven statements.

"Some atheists would be convinced by this, since there are cases where atheists turn to religion."

Unproven statement.

Remainder of what you said is either speculative and based on things inside natural reality.

The opposing side did not answer my questions as they would show their position as refuted in their answers.

At this point the opposing side has forfeited.

You cannot convince an atheist unless those questions from an atheist are answered.

You cannot convince an atheist unless those questions from an atheist are answered.

You cannot convince an atheist unless those questions from an atheist are answered.



Pro
#6
Do you actually understand the definition of the Spirit of God in this topic?
Ok this ad hoc and therefore does not fit the definition of God in this topic.
God is not defined anywhere in this topic, so really, I have endless options to choose from.

Granting that I'm one, you still haven't convinced me.
And convincing you would be irrelevant to the topic, since topic does not state you particularly, but any atheist.

Also, you are assuming that you are an atheist and you are assuming that I didnt convince you.

I think I have convinced you.

Of course, what you must prove is that no atheist, no matter how intelligent, would be convinced.

Since topic just takes 1 atheist, any atheist.

If you actually understand how I define the spirit of God in this topic, God is not in one place to be found.
This is an assumption.

You cannot convince an atheist unless those questions from an atheist are answered
Let us answer them then.


Unproven statement.
It is undisproven statement, which you would have to disprove to disprove my position and prove yours.

Disproven definition:
"to show that (something) is false or wrong"

Unproven statements
Well, lets see.

Infinite by definition means endless.

Infinite past is endless past.

Endless past cannot end.

Yet the past ended, so the conclusion follows that either past is not infinite, either something supernatural overcame infinity.

Past which is not infinite had to have a beginning. Beginning of time cannot be logically explained, as there is nothing natural known to be able to start time.

Therefore, the cause, again, had to be supernatural.

Lets start with your questions.

Then the atheist can ask being that the natural law exists of causality, how could it have existed before it existed?
Being that the premise is that there was no existence of anything, that would include the rule "nothing only produces nothing ", how could it apply without it existing itself in this scenario?
Even if no "rules" existed before, it doesnt explain why they consistently exist now.

As I said, rules, laws are organized in a consistent way everywhere in the universe.

There is no thing which could have produced consistent rules, except supernatural intelligent thing.

The mere creation of rules is supernatural, as anything outside of these rules would be supernatural, but had to be outside of them to create them.

And the idea that they are consistent, same everywhere, means supernatural intelligent creator was involved.

Atheists have no explanation for the existence of these consistent laws.

All based on logic yes. But if we're thinking about a scenario where logic didn't exist, it can't be applied.
This is an assumption that logic doesnt apply to time when logic didnt exist, but it does.

If there was a time where logic didnt exist, how did we end up with nothing but logic?

Why did illogical time end and was organized into logical time? This demands an intelligent organizer.

God of the gaps yes. Just process of elimination of assumptions down to one that you can't do better than.
Its called deductive reasoning. When God is the only sound explanation, it follows that it should be accepted over any other.

Starting from general premises of things which could create time and laws in an organized way, the only sound answer is supernatural intelligent.

The spirit of God is not a thing. For all intent and purposes, the spirit would fall under the "nothing " category. You say nothing comes from nothing but you also say God caused. Well that's something out of nothing.
My opponent assumes that God is not a thing, but nothing, which is something I didnt claim, as I said that God is intelligent supernatural.
Round 4
Con
#7
"God is not defined anywhere in this topic, so really, I have endless options to choose from."

Let me go back to the first round.

"What would you say to a person that believes no spirit of God exists does indeed exist?

Is that not specific?

Ok well I'll make it more plain. A spirit apparently is an immaterial, non physical being, entity, figure."

This is what I said in the first talking about the spirit.
Please read what I post.

Here's more from the first round.

"The spirit of God is a being that is unspoken. You can't hear God. Unseen, you can't see God. There are things naturally that we specifically see that has order, design. 

No where in existence has been proven that a thing exists powerful enough or strong enough, massive and mighty enough that would have created all that we can ever experience. "

Please read what I post or admit negligence.

"And convincing you would be irrelevant to the topic, since topic does not state you particularly, but any atheist.

Also, you are assuming that you are an atheist and you are assuming that I didnt convince you.

I think I have convinced you.

Of course, what you must prove is that no atheist, no matter how intelligent, would be convinced.

Since topic just takes 1 atheist, any atheist."

Of anything you need to worry about convincing the individual you're debating. I am unconvinced. Debate is over.

"This is an assumption."

I believe you say this when you have nothing better. You're saying if you understand the definition of the spirit of God in this topic , God would be in one place. How when you apparently are ignorant to the definition? You haven't even proven God to be in one place.

Please think before you say something. 

"Therefore, the cause, again, had to be supernatural."

You have not even proven if there is a "beginning" of existence.

"Even if no "rules" existed before, it doesnt explain why they consistently exist now.

As I said, rules, laws are organized in a consistent way everywhere in the universe.

There is no thing which could have produced consistent rules, except supernatural intelligent thing.

The mere creation of rules is supernatural, as anything outside of these rules would be supernatural, but had to be outside of them to create them.

And the idea that they are consistent, same everywhere, means supernatural intelligent creator was involved.

Atheists have no explanation for the existence of these consistent laws."

You're still trying to use logic to answer about an area where according to a premise didn't even exist. Yes I know it's a hard question to answer. Our minds are in the boxes of logic so it's almost impossible to think about it without logic.

"This is an assumption that logic doesnt apply to time when logic didnt exist, but it does."

Of course it exists because TIME exists for it. I told you it's difficult for you to think about it without logic.

"If there was a time where logic didnt exist, how did we end up with nothing but logic?"

I couldn't tell you that because I never said a TIME where logic didn't exist. I said before anything existed which would also include a thing called celestial or terrestrial positioning which translates to time.

"Why did illogical time end and was organized into logical time? This demands an intelligent organizer."

I don't think you're ducking out of my questions. You just can't answer them unknowingly I guess.

"Its called deductive reasoning. When God is the only sound explanation, it follows that it should be accepted over any other.

Starting from general premises of things which could create time and laws in an organized way, the only sound answer is supernatural intelligent."

Exactly my point:God of the gaps yes. Just process of elimination of assumptions down to one that you can't do better than.

"My opponent assumes that God is not a thing, but nothing, which is something I didnt claim, as I said that God is intelligent supernatural."

Man you gotta get on board with how the THE SPIRIT OF GOD is defined in this topic.

Otherwise get charged with moving the goalpost. Plain and straightforward simple.


Pro
#8
A spirit apparently is an immaterial, non physical being, entity, figure."
This is what I said in the first talking about the spirit.
Please read what I post.
Here's more from the first round.
"The spirit of God is a being that is unspoken. You can't hear God. Unseen, you can't see God. There are things naturally that we specifically see that has order, design.
So you say that spirit of God cannot be seen or heard, but I disagree with that.

Plus, there is more to God than a mere spirit.

You can use detectable parts of God to confirm the existence of spirit of God, even if spirit of God itself was undetectable, which it isnt.

Of anything you need to worry about convincing the individual you're debating. I am unconvinced. Debate is over
You think I need to convince you, but really, topic doesnt say you specifically.

I believe you say this when you have nothing better. You're saying if you understand the definition of the spirit of God in this topic , God would be in one place. How when you apparently are ignorant to the definition? You haven't even proven God to be in one place.
I can also present counter options.

1. Definition wasnt even properly presented by you in description, therefore, there is no reason to accept your definition over what is understood as God.

  1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

  2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity

No definition says "cannot be seen or heard". That is your made up definition. 

If we are going with made up definitions, I would prefer you put them in description so I know in advance what is it that you want to debate.

2. God doesnt need to be in one place, and that does not even disprove my position.

You have not even proven if there is a "beginning" of existence.
The only other option is eternity, which is also explained only by supernatural God.

You're still trying to use logic to answer about an area where according to a premise didn't even exist. Yes I know it's a hard question to answer. Our minds are in the boxes of logic so it's almost impossible to think about it without logic.
You think if logic didnt exist before, that current logic cannot be applied to that time.

Even if we were to accept that as true, it still doesnt explain how we went from non-logic everywhere to consistent logic everywhere.

There is no atheist explanation as to what created laws of logic and made them universal.

God explains it, as God is supernatural intelligent which can create laws of logic and make them consistent everywhere.

The other option is a non-intelligent non-logic creating logic everywhere consistently.

As we see, it is obvious that intelligence is necessary to create consistent logic everywhere, and prevent non-logic from returning.

The idea that our laws of logic are upheld by non-intelligent non-logic is absurd, as there would be nothing preventing non-logic to come and break our laws of logic.

So what can uphold laws of logic consistently everywhere, other than intelligent supernatural?

Non-logic non-intelligent cannot, as consistency requires intelligence and intelligent guiding and intelligent design.

This even applies to time when logic didnt exist, since its an explanation which is much more suitable to understand the creation of logic, and explains why logic is maintained still today.

The alternative explanation does not explain why logic is maintained constantly.

The alternative explanation holds that non-intelligent non-logic would organize logic and maintain it, but that is an absurd position to hold.

In fact, without intelligence, there would be nothing to guide non-logic towards organized logic, and to maintain it.

I couldn't tell you that because I never said a TIME where logic didn't exist. I said before anything existed which would also include a thing called celestial or terrestrial positioning which translates to time.
So my opponent cannot explain how non-logic everywhere turned into logic everywhere and how are laws maintained without any intelligent guidance.

Since its obvious that there are cases when atheists turn religious, my opponent has to defend that explanations provided by me would never be able to convince any atheist, regardless of atheist's age or intelligence level.

Therefore, my opponent has to defend a position which is by all standards of common knowledge, absurd.

My opponent gives responses and he thinks all atheists would give those same responses or be equally unconvinced as him.
Round 5
Con
#9
"So you say that spirit of God cannot be seen or heard, but I disagree with that.

Plus, there is more to God than a mere spirit."

So now you want to debate over the definition of the spirit of God. 

Unfortunately that's not the topic. Why didn't you message me first saying you want a definition you'd agree with ?

"You think I need to convince you, but really, topic doesnt say you specifically."

I'm an atheist for the sake of the topic , convince me. I'm not waiting until I'm dead and gone either.

"1. Definition wasnt even properly presented by you in description, therefore, there is no reason to accept your definition over what is understood as God."

This has got to be the biggest excuse for your fault in a lack of reading comprehension.

"No definition says "cannot be seen or heard". That is your made up definition. "

You know this is a copout. You can't refute my position based on how I defined the spirit of God so you're doing this.

"If we are going with made up definitions, I would prefer you put them in description so I know in advance what is it that you want to debate."

Here's the thing. You could of either asked me first or take the challenge going in blind. 
Otherwise you're dictating my own topic of position.

"God doesnt need to be in one place, and that does not even disprove my position."

Exactly so how can you say when a person dies they won't see the spirit of God instantly when you can't verify where God is , let alone being in one place?

This is the point I'm driving at. 

"The only other option is eternity, which is also explained only by supernatural God."

That hasn't been proven either.

"You think if logic didnt exist before, that current logic cannot be applied to that time."

Logic didn't exist before it existed did it?

So how are you going to apply the same rules of operation where those rules didn't exist for whatever operations that were there?

"Even if we were to accept that as true, it still doesnt explain how we went from non-logic everywhere to consistent logic everywhere."

Well you hit the nail on the head. This is why we have debate after debate about this. Nobody knows or can explain this. For a big simple fact, no one was there to witness this. We don't know if there was non logic to there being logic. We don't know if it always was. We can guess, go through process of elimination. At the end of it, we still come out not knowing. As it stands, nothing is proven or disproven.

This is where the atheist remains safe at and you'll always have atheists and theists and of course agnostics. Not leaving out agnostics either.

"There is no atheist explanation as to what created laws of logic and made them universal.

God explains it, as God is supernatural intelligent which can create laws of logic and make them consistent everywhere.

The other option is a non-intelligent non-logic creating logic everywhere consistently.

As we see, it is obvious that intelligence is necessary to create consistent logic everywhere, and prevent non-logic from returning.

The idea that our laws of logic are upheld by non-intelligent non-logic is absurd, as there would be nothing preventing non-logic to come and break our laws of logic."

All this just reflects my last response.

Then you feel you're convinced you have the scientific evidence or truth of something you didn't even scientifically assess, scientifically observe or scientifically experiment with.

This next response from you is a depiction of self persuasion.

"So what can uphold laws of logic consistently everywhere, other than intelligent supernatural?

Non-logic non-intelligent cannot, as consistency requires intelligence and intelligent guiding and intelligent design.

This even applies to time when logic didnt exist, since its an explanation which is much more suitable to understand the creation of logic, and explains why logic is maintained still today.

The alternative explanation does not explain why logic is maintained constantly.

The alternative explanation holds that non-intelligent non-logic would organize logic and maintain it, but that is an absurd position to hold.

In fact, without intelligence, there would be nothing to guide non-logic towards organized logic, and to maintain it."

You haven't even proven that time existed without logic at one point of time. But yet you make the statement. Maybe you're just not catching it when you say it.

"So my opponent cannot explain how non-logic everywhere turned into logic everywhere and how are laws maintained without any intelligent guidance."

Was that the topic for me to do?

Creating burdens for me that are irrelevant because you ran out of ideas to convince me with. 

Poor shame.

"Since its obvious that there are cases when atheists turn religious, my opponent has to defend that explanations provided by me would never be able to convince any atheist, regardless of atheist's age or intelligence level."

I don't have to take on any burden of proof. You do.

"Therefore, my opponent has to defend a position which is by all standards of common knowledge, absurd."

I don't have to take on any burden of proof. You do.

"My opponent gives responses and he thinks all atheists would give those same responses or be equally unconvinced as him."

If I say an atheist may have this question or that question, would you try to answer it to convince them of something?

If not, you concede and it was error of you to take challenge of something you cannot do.

Pro
#10
Thank you for the debate.

I think you raised good points about logic not being applied to when logic didnt exist, but ultimately you didnt give explanation how illogical became logical everywhere without intelligent guide.

Since intelligent guide is a better explanation for the transformation of illogical to logical and maintaining logical laws, it follows that it would likely be accepted by at least one atheist in the world.

The alternative, your explanation, does not explain why logic exists at all, when it is just as possible for it not to exist.

It also doesnt explain what maintains logical law of non-contradiction throughout universe consistently and constantly.

To claim that illogical non-intelligent can do that seems unlikely, as it takes intelligence to do that.

One can assume that at times when logic didnt exist, such logic wouldnt apply.

But that assumption would still lack an explanation about a process which took place to create and maintain logic, where intelligent supernatural explains how logic is created and maintained,

since we know that intelligence is able to produce consistency and manage things, where same attributes cannot be given to any non-intelligent that is known.

So by those attributes, it follows that intelligent supernatural is more likely than non-intelligent supernatural to be able to organize and manage, since even illogical world would have requirements for things to happen.

The other explanation, that there are no requirements, doesnt seem to explain why things dont happen for no reason today, where my explanation covers that.