Is death of any person really for certain?

You did not make a very good debate title, because the title comes in the form of a question: "Is death of any person really for certain?" Whether someone is pro or con to this debate does not say anything about which position they will take, because you are being pro / con to a non-assertive title. A better title should have been, "Death of any person is not for certain."

When I entered this debate, I was planning on using the argument from the rapture to say that, because we do not know the day nor the hour, we cannot know for certain whether a saved Christian will die at all. And technically, not even an atheist is for certain, because they could end up repenting of their sin and trusting in Jesus Christ before the rapture.

But then you started arguing for the very position that I was going to argue for, and it would be dishonest of me to pretend like I believe something I do not. But I do not believe that this is my fault, because you made a bad debate title that made it unclear which position the contender was taking.

Therefore, I do not have anything to add in disagreement.

Too bad it didn't work the way you intended. But the topic is a yes or no question. Con side is no. So I explained my case for my answer. Looks like you agree, so we can wrap up unless you came with something huh .

So we have a few more rounds, try to play opposition's advocate or I'm even willing to change the topic. Send me a message and we can work from there.

We can either change the topic to something we genuinely disagree with, or we can just end the debate right now, and send messages through it to accelerate the end time.

Go into your arguments on proving the spirit of God creating the universe.

Just a brief condensed version .

It is illogical to assume design without a designer. Now, of course, with this wording, it's worth mentioning that if something appears to be designed, but actually wasn't, then it's technically not design. However, the fact that the design of nature works so well that it has actually already figured out every mechanistic problem we may have with man made mechanisms with a similar purpose screams to a creator. Someone who must have been intelligent enough to know every possible thing one might need to know when creating a mechanism, and accommodates for everything in very creative ways. Tell me if that is characteristic of a universe that created itself.

Now, of course, this isn't proof of the God of the universe, it's just evidence. He has planted evidence of his genius everywhere. But there's also no way to prove that the universe created itself. So, we must then consider the following question: which interpretation is more logical? Many would have you believe that Occam's Razor shows that God, an infinitely powerful and intelligent being, created the universe. But I will now show you how that is quite the contrary.

We begin with the starting assumption that God created the universe. But you don't want to believe in God. You want to believe the universe created itself. So, you come up with a theory as to how the universe began. But you have to come up with a whole chain of events that leads to the creation of the universe by natural causes. You have to bend over backwards every which way just so you don't have to explain the universe with God. When a new line of evidence comes your way that makes your theory impossible, you keep changing your theory just so it can fit with the evidence. You have to keep adding variables and coming up with stories just so you can fit the paradigm. Something like that obviously couldn't pass the Occam's Razor test. Whereas to explain the universe with God, you simply have to infer the fact that instead of a complicated and elaborate chain of events that eventually led to the formation of the universe exactly as we know it today, that in reality, it was God that designed it and created it.

Realizing this, one must conclude that between these two explanations, God comes out on top.

But I specifically asked about the spirit of God. That is yet to be identified and tied into this. What you're explaining here is simply cause and effect. Which the premise can be taken either way the law of causality didn't always exist so a cause or causer may not or may be reasoned to be not necessary/warranted for all of existence.

I don't know instead of assuming. If you notice, you're gathering all this from logic, right. Now before logic existed because we take that as a possibility, how did any whatever it was operate according to what, being that logic wasn't there yet?

You see the entanglement. You can't answer or rationalize without applicable rules of rationality to use in the given point, space, whatever.

This doesn't make sense. It's like saying there's no proof of me being wet but there is evidence of my wet footprints. The two are connected. Proving one is proving what is connected behind it.

There's no way I know about. There could be a way I don't know of. What is logical or more logical versus what is proven to be fact are all different avenues.

People really can't prove the spirit of God by logic and science to anybody. What people do is work their way down or up the path of deductive reasoning and reach a conclusion. Not necessarily a fact but a conclusion.

Case and point , a conclusion you've arrived at in some deductive fashion. But has God been proven?

No. The spirit of God, how are you going to empirically prove what you can't observe?

You can't as it takes empiricism. So let me know if you want to continue this topic in the forum or in another debate setup.