Instigator / Con
1500
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#5201

God Exists Le Sixième

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the contender.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
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 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.|
This person is one who believes in the exitance of a god

I've proposed multiple debates on this topic and have found it difficult. It appears opponents want to use somewhat non explicit or indirect techniques for proof. I would like opponents to evaluate my claim and point out what is wrong with it.

As it appears opponents want to write out all the explanations of support for a god - I'll let them this time. But I will most likely only focus on one point at a time as evaluating multiple points is a somewhat more complicated activity.

I would prefer that opponents stay away from philosophical statements for their validation but appears they heavily focus on this style of communication.

As there are not that many rounds allowed on Debate Art - the debate may flow into continual debates

Round 1
Con
#1
Hi

I'm going to start of with a duplication start. 

First some preamble / or initial points

--> A declaration that a super natural god exists
--> Is purported this god is all powerful - that makes me feel that this god can do what ever he wants - nothing is an impossibility
--> If god is all powerful I'm assuming he hears all  that is spoken (must be noisy in his head)

Exercise / Experiment
--> I have performed the activity of requesting god to show himself to me
    --> This is based on the understanding that this god is all powerful and should be able to hear me make this request
--> my request is blunt - that I require proof of existence and feel the appearance of a god would validate this

Now - it's probably not surprising that I did not get a response. 
I did then conclude that because I got no response I could not validate that a god exists.

Note: I have had people indicate that you can't say if someone that you know exists and you perform the same experiment  and they don't respond and do not reply that they do not exist.
What I say to that is - based on the experiment and the conditions I can make the conclusions based on the results. If a person who does not exists does not respond then I say it's perfectly valid to conclude they do not exist. If I have no other way to validate their existence. If I have other experiments I can perform that do then validation can be achieved.
Now the experiment is what has to be understood - if attempted the exact same experiment which presumes that the recipient is all powerful and can hear me then coming to same results is valid.
If the person is not all powerful then an adjustment of the experiment has to be done - such as contacting a person who does now this person and indicate that I request that they inform that the person must contact me or I conclude they don't exist. Now again they may not respond but my conclusions is no more invalid.


It's the experiment and what is expected to be achieved in the experiment that is important. You make your conclusions based on the results.

Now - I did not get a response from god - and no it's not completely concrete to say that that is 100% proof of non existence.  But it certainly does not mean the inverse of the conclusion either. This is based on what the experiment was attempting to validate and two responses were deemed as a possibility and the conclusions are result of the response.

This is somewhat a hypothetical -  i.e. - your experiment does not prove one way or the other - but it was an experiment based on the supplied information that presents possibilities (based on the experiment).



Pro
#2
"Pro
As a proponent you are declaring the statement of a god existence to be true."

This is the initial challenge.


"A declaration that a super natural god exists
--> Is purported this god is all powerful - that makes me feel that this god can do what ever he wants - nothing is an impossibility"

A little slight variation here in what the opposing side is talking about. But we can still beat them at their own game.

I'll get to the proof of a god consecutively.

I want to cover the word "supernatural" being that was thrown in the mix.

Upon doing a Google search, supernatural is defined by the following : "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Ok so I'll integrate this into my points .
Now on to the proof , evidence, the reality of what is evident to us about a god existing or being real or just as much a part of this reality as all else.

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.

Oh and before I forget, a supernatural god .

A person such as Mr. Lavey and others of the occult were and are supernatural.

As we read about the occult in Wikipedia we find information in the introduction of Laveyan satanism.


"LaVeyan Satanism is the name given to the form of Satanism promoted by American occultist and author Anton LaVey"

So Mr. Lavey was an occultist which is synonymous with supernatural. All that is needed for this to be labeled as supernatural is an event such as him founding this organization attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding.

You better believe what this occult subscribes to is beyond science. It's outside of science. It's separate from science. It makes use of no scientific understanding but its basis is symbolism from a religion that is irrelevant to scientific understanding.

Now I understand that this maybe not what the opposing side was expecting. But in these debate circles you have to expect the unexpected.

Gotta be able to argue anything that comes up that could still count as a valid fair relevant point .

You may be faced with unconventional arguments. Just the same, the challenge of counterpoints are there, thought provoking concepts which I guess are what atheists are looking for .

There are atheists that commonly cling to be logical thinkers. So to continue to debate about something conventional with theists that will typically not serve any expansion, progression or development in critical thinking usually, on that note, it be counterintuitive not to drive the intellectual conversation forward looking at things in another way that'll further stimulate super logical minds .

I know we have exceptional theists that do offer high critical thought processes that are a match for atheists that can argue at an elevated level.

But in the case of an atheist that is confident that they'll argue with someone that cannot prove a negative or wil find some impossibility of the sort, why continue to grab at low hanging fruit?

Unless it's just fun and games and no serious edification, enlightening, intriguing, challenging, stimulating dialogue is being sought after .

I yield .


Round 2
Con
#3
Hi

Ok - my opponent appears to be ignoring my initial argument and decided to go with an argument of the existence of god.

He posted multiple statements and as I stated in the initial description I will only go point by point per argument (as it is simpler that way).


"Now on to the proof , evidence, the reality of what is evident to us about a god existing or being real or just as much a part of this reality as all else."
--> can you clarify this statement - is unclear the purpose

Any person you see , every time you see a person, you see god.
--> I need validation of this point

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 see a god?
--> what does it mean - making themselves the authority?
--> "They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god."
  --> can you explain why this would make them a god?


Pro
#4
"Now on to the proof , evidence, the reality of what is evident to us about a god existing or being real or just as much a part of this reality as all else."

"--> can you clarify this statement - is unclear the purpose"


Yes you want proof, evidence. How evidence works is that it's processed in the physical. What we can see, observe, a positive, not a negative. So that's a physical god I'd demonstrate or direct your attention of sight to somewhere in reality. It might as well be on this planet where you are able to observe. As well as the area where you are, looking outside your door, in the room you're in, better yet, looking in the mirror granted you have one .

"Any person you see , every time you see a person, you see god."
"--> I need validation of this point"

I pretty much gave that throughout the whole first round.  The following quote of mine is a piece of that.

"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 see a god?
--> what does it mean - making themselves the authority?
"They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god."
"  --> can you explain why this would make them a god?"

Yes I can.

When you make yourself an authority, you answer to yourself, you do what you want to do according to your rules that you set for yourself. 

Many religions have an authority which is that not of those following that religion. They obey that authority as a god, worship and honor as such.

Now there are those such as atheists whom take the position of being the authority themselves instead of following another. That's what the levayan satanism occult takes on. It's the idea instead of following, worshipping, believing, having faith in a third party, they assume the role of that party. 

Why have faith in what a mystical third party can do that I can just do for myself and it's not mystical but founded and certain?

For example. Others believe their god has healed the sick. I'm a doctor, I believe in myself, I have the power, I healed this ailing person. You can see that, it's proven, now give me the praise with honor and awards and thanks. 

Others pray to their god for things. You can talk to me, call me. You ask for healing, I can grant it. You have needs, you need money, I got plenty of it and so forth and so on.

This should really be straightforward enough. Now because of the limit of rounds, I encourage the imposing side to try to get more into each round.
Round 3
Con
#5
Yes, you want proof, evidence.
How evidence works is that it's processed in the physical.
--> I do not understand what you mean by this statement.

What we can see, and observe, is a positive, not a negative.
--> Are you saying that because you can see/observe the result is a positive?
So that's a physical god I'd demonstrate or direct your attention of sight to somewhere in reality.
--> I have no idea what you are proposing here - are you saying because you can see - god is validated?


"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."
--> This does not validate a god. You indicate a god you see - but I've never seen a god. How can you validate this? Because they don't rebel against themselves as their own authority they are a god - but can't this be a general statement about anyone


Many religions have an authority which is that not of those following that religion. They obey that authority as a god, and worship and honor as such.
--> Because someone who follows a religion and follows the being identified as a god in that does not validate a god - just that the person believes they are and following. Need verification of the being this person is following is a god.

I feel there has been no verifiable proof of a god. Your statements show no validity. Just that the declaration that a god exists is made and such a god exists. Do you have verifiable proof? Something that can be validated via an activity that shows the absolute fact that a god exists. I do not feel what has been provided shows this. If it is - could you detail it more explicitly how it does? As I said I'm hearing a lot of - god exists because he has to exist / we believe he exists - so he must exist.

Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet