God Exists Le Cinqieme
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Minimal rating
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.
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.
--> 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).
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.
I prove god does not exist all the time
I indicate that you make assumptions. If you do not know ehat that means it;s your problem.
laws are not created
can you validate this - or are you stipulating that you say it - it is true