Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#5199

God Exists Le Cinqieme

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
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
1,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Pro
0
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Description

Pro
As a proponent you are declaring the statement of a god existence to be true. This debate will request that you provide evidence of this claim. The proof have to be verifiable and cannot be based on faith. A "prove he does not exists" will not be accepted as the basis of the debate is validation of a claim and not invalidation of a claim.

Con
This person is one who does accept the statement. This person will provide their reasoning for not accepting the claim and reasoning for not accepting the claim. The focus of this person is to provide understandable reasons for not believing in the existence of a god.|

Now - I've done a few of these debates and have got questionable debaters. It appears participants either don't want to actually debate and just take up time or want to generalize the aspects of validation and make the debate a philosophical one.

POINTS
--> This is not a philosophical debate
--> The process of the debate will have to be based on valid demonstrable activity -- i.e. - if a claim is made - then an absolute proof of that claim must be provided
--> The con part of the debate should be a evaluation of a claim and indication of failure if the claim is deemed inadequate
--> This is a big point - debaters have been trying to use general concepts or statements that provide no testable explanations. Tis debate s to focus on explicit proof,
--> Some debaters appear to want to debate the concept of a god that could be perceived in many different ways
--> I am only concerned about the GOD(s) that are represented in a religious context
--> As I've said in other debates -- DIRECT EVIDENCE is required. No spewing of a bunch of sentences that in the end do not say anything

If you are someone who wants to debate this seriously then you are the person I want to debate. If you are someone trying to prove a point that you can will a debate by not actually debating - then go to another debate. I have no use for you (and you know who you are).

Round 1
Con
#1
I have not seen evidence thar will prove the existence of a god. Nothing verifiable, The only proof identified is faith, Faith is not a means for evidence and just proports the acceptance of a claim.  
Pro
#2
A "prove he does not exists" will not be accepted as the basis of the debate is validation of a claim and not invalidation of a claim.
My opponent knows that he cant prove that God doesnt exist, so he made it a rule that he doesnt need to prove that God doesnt exist.

But he still needs to prove that proof of God doesnt exist.

If God exists, proof of God exists too.

My opponent assumes that proof of God doesnt exist and will never exist, but this is his assumption.

He cannot prove that in couple of months he will not discover the proof of God.

So since he cannot prove that proof of God doesnt exist, and since he just assumes that it doesnt exist, it follows that topic "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But I wont be mean, I will present some proof.

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.
Round 2
Con
#3
so he made it a rule that he doesn't need to prove that God doesn't exist.
The claim is that god exist and that is what has to be proven

you can't prove he does not exist is not a valid statement
I prove god does not exist all the time - so your statement is invalid

But he still needs to prove that proof of God doesn't exist.
prove it all the time\

If God exists, proof of God exists too.
This makes no sense at all - GOD exists so proof exists - typical theist wrap around
My opponent assumes that proof of God doesn't exist and will never exist, but this is his assumption.

^^^ he will not discover the proof of God.
what is your point

"God exists" cannot be disproven.
prove god does not exist - and your claim is false anyway

Logical contradiction is supernatural.
this makes no sense

Infinite past is a logical contradiction
what's your point

Past cannot have natural beginning. Nature cannot create time.
what are you saying

We are left with supernatural beginning, which is what God is.
this makes absolutely no sense - you are jumping to conclusions

if you read my constraints proof has to be verifiable - so do that and stop playing games





Pro
#4
I prove god does not exist all the time
This is an assumption.

Now, my opponent basically refuses to counter any point I made, and simply says that my conclusion is wrong without explaining it.

So I guess I will just present more proof.

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.

My opponent 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
I indicate that you make assumptions. If you do not know ehat that means it;s your problem.
There is no natural explanation for consistent laws of universe, laws of logic, laws of math.
clarify your statement 

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

Since the creator would have to be outside these laws, he would by definition have to be supernatural.
I don't care how you indicate how you state your god exits - provide verifiable proof

laws are not created - the fact that you think this shows you limited intelligence\

Since all laws are non-contradictive, they had to have logical creator and not random mess.
can you validate this - or are you stipulating that you say it - it is true

you stll have provided no proof - just trying to hide behind concepts you don; understand





Pro
#6
I indicate that you make assumptions. If you do not know ehat that means it;s your problem.
Yet what I say remains unchallenged and undisputed. You just assume that its assumption, but not offering any counter point.

laws are not created
This is your assumption.

The idea that something can exist without being created is itself a belief in supernatural and unexplainable, since it means that you cannot explain their existence or explain why different laws dont exist instead.

can you validate this - or are you stipulating that you say it - it is true
It is easily demonstratable that consistency requires intelligence.

In fact, you could throw around letters for infinity in a random way and you would never get a consistent book.

So the fact that laws of the universe are consistent everywhere is not possible without one consistent intelligent creator.

Consistency requires intelligence, where random creation would result in laws being random, not applied everywhere, being different in places. Magic.
Round 4
Con
#7
I'm tired of this banter. I started his debate for those who want to provide verifiable proof of the exitance of god. Which you have not done. Provide verifiable proof and indicate how it is verifiable. I don't want assumptions or statements that in no way describe how I con do something that verifies the claim.

Please do what was requested in the debate description.

Pro
#8
My opponent assumes that I didnt provide proof, but one can also conclude that I did provide proof and my opponent didnt understand it.

My opponent has a history of debates where he does not address any arguments, does not make counter points, where he just assumes that everything the other person says is an assumption.

In conclusion, every debate my opponent makes will be essentially the same, just him saying how everything is an assumption. That must be fun.
Round 5
Con
#9
my opponent joins a debate
ignores the  specifics that were specified
answers the questions they want answer
has no understanding that the declaration of assumption indicates that the person made unintelligible comments 
does not want to answer the question asked - why - because they in no way have the ability to answer - just want to make untellable comments - expect you to accept them because they believe because they made the statement it's true - with  o proof

it would be nice if they would answer the question asked
Pro
#10
So my opponent ignores proof and pretends that proof doesnt exist, refuses to make argument or counter argument.

As for "questions" I didnt answer, I dont need to answer questions like "what are you saying?", "whats your point?", when my opponent refuses to counter any point I make.

Also, questions arent arguments, and questions like "what are you saying?" are basically of no value to any intellectual discussion.