Another point that was going to be submitted I'll add is about the different dimensions. This can possibly help the opposing side on this topic understand better and see where rules can't be hijacked and applied anywhere.
One instance is because the rules of perception are distinct from the 3rd and 2nd dimension , a 3D image doesn't have the complete empirical tangibility in a 2 dimensioned world or reality.
Of course all of these points are outside the ring but take it home for edification.
Prove the will, you prove God. Prove God you prove the will. No matter which way, you continue in circular reasoning. Given that someone has proven God to exist would prove the will, the desire, the decision to act in creating all things.
Why would there be a will? We have an effect of the will. Circular. Where did the will derive, why would there be one, why would it be acted on? We can go on and on, it's get circular. If the response is God, circular.
This is the distinction I wanted to make of personal cause or individual will and cause that is required to be which is the law of causality. The law is what has to be as opposed to personal cause/will that is not by a law but contingent on the individual entity which has yet to be empirically proven to exist overall.
I do want to highlight this point if I were to summarize everything I would have submitted if I didn't get distracted like I did.
The opposing side never proved the will, desire or thought of God existing.
The opposing side committed petitio principii. Now we went back and forth on the contradiction of causality not existing before it existed and that was going to be a lot of the circular points made .
That along with God having causality within is just circular as well because it points us back to just proving God again. With causality being in or of God and God being an immaterial intangible entity, all that's really being said is prove God.
Causality is a thing.
Being there's absolutely nothing before anything was including the "nothing", what is there to prove?
A decision made by the will of God. Prove the will, you prove God.
Many different church organizations and there is only one bible for them. That's the point of this topic. One bible,one interpretation and there's many different denominations. That's poor arithmetic. They can't all be following the same book and reading something different. It's that "reading different" part.
You know the correct interpretation when you know what the scripture teaches.
Let's see who comes forth. I just come up with creative variations of topics to demonstrate a basic reality.
It's like pretending something is not true when it is or maybe it's something hard to understand, so I try to break it further and further and further down to infantile elementary terms . Layman's terms didn't work, now we'll use elementary terms.
The con side is opposite to the truth or if you're more comfortable with the phrasing " opposite to what the topic statement is conveying as the truth of homosexuality in prisons " , cool. It's the opposite of what my position is which is briefly stated in the description.
NOBODY can prove that topic statement. So they stay on the sidelines. It's quite funny. They couldn't prove God did not create water and darkness. They couldn't prove God the Father is a person. They or nobody can prove a trinity in scripture.
Ok, the eternal Son in terms of this topic, I'm referring to the Son being from eternity past not having a beginning. Hence the Son always was and that's what has to be proven. Now there's more to elaborate than this but just for clarity.
Now the person to prove this can use any scripture they think will show the eternal Son. In asking is there to be scripture verbatim eternal Son, not necessarily. However it'll be more difficulty in proving your case so individual discretion is advised.
The problem with not having words exactly read as the point you're trying to make, we begin to argue over interpretation. So it's easier and more verifiable to find scripture to get as close as you can in how it's written in exact words as possible. That's because I can just say I don't read this or that in this or that verse and all you have is the way you interpret it , see. That's why it's important and a good idea to get it as written.
For those asking about "losses" and "wins", below is what your so called "losses" and "wins" mean to me.
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.
See , who you say wins a debate, loses is totally subjective. It doesn't dictate the truth I actually present. Just because I state the fact of the sky being blue while being in a pool of liars that say it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't.
See that would be the ad populum fallacy.
So we have some folks that agree with my topic statement. Yet, someone took the challenge from the debate session. So apparently we have those that think this statement is false or can argue as if it were.
12 more days, nobody accepts, it'll prove in support of my position and all the other debates of the same topic as well. The votes ought to be consistent with that.
Well hey , if nobody can prove God did not create water or darkness with scripture, no participants will make that clear and my stance true. Also it'll make clear to what was proven on the other debate of the same topic statement.
I don't know what proof a person is looking to prove a person runs their household.
It's really not about demonstrating that this occurs.
I simply just pointed out the fact that a person is entitled and justified and there's nothing wrong to discourage homosexuality inside their home. That's a fact we know exists in reality.
You guys are really that blind as "sheeple" people believing invisibility and visibility is the same. That's what you're agreeing to saying the Spirit and a person human being is one in the same . Really.
Can anyone here show it is WRITTEN, where the WORDS ARE WRITTEN?
it's like many of you don't get it when something is written as is, there is no difference of interpretation. The debate is not up for what is the correct interpretation. The debate is over what actual words are used and written.
It's like somebody knows they're defeated when they can't prove something verbatim so they evade that or move the goalpost.
To the atheists in your closed mindedness so called voters, judges, think you're operating in complete truth , you want proof for God from the Bible, it's not on your terms.
Your standards work for what they call a science book.
You actually have to leave atheism and much of the secular world. Those claiming that evidence converting them to belief, it's in contradiction to what religion is .
What do you people really believe?
Debate has ran a novel long but enjoyed it .
Another point that was going to be submitted I'll add is about the different dimensions. This can possibly help the opposing side on this topic understand better and see where rules can't be hijacked and applied anywhere.
One instance is because the rules of perception are distinct from the 3rd and 2nd dimension , a 3D image doesn't have the complete empirical tangibility in a 2 dimensioned world or reality.
Of course all of these points are outside the ring but take it home for edification.
Didn't prove any contradictions
Prove the will, you prove God. Prove God you prove the will. No matter which way, you continue in circular reasoning. Given that someone has proven God to exist would prove the will, the desire, the decision to act in creating all things.
Why would there be a will? We have an effect of the will. Circular. Where did the will derive, why would there be one, why would it be acted on? We can go on and on, it's get circular. If the response is God, circular.
This is the distinction I wanted to make of personal cause or individual will and cause that is required to be which is the law of causality. The law is what has to be as opposed to personal cause/will that is not by a law but contingent on the individual entity which has yet to be empirically proven to exist overall.
I do want to highlight this point if I were to summarize everything I would have submitted if I didn't get distracted like I did.
The opposing side never proved the will, desire or thought of God existing.
The opposing side committed petitio principii. Now we went back and forth on the contradiction of causality not existing before it existed and that was going to be a lot of the circular points made .
That along with God having causality within is just circular as well because it points us back to just proving God again. With causality being in or of God and God being an immaterial intangible entity, all that's really being said is prove God.
Causality is a thing.
Being there's absolutely nothing before anything was including the "nothing", what is there to prove?
A decision made by the will of God. Prove the will, you prove God.
I totally forget to submit my points that I had ready to go in the preview stage. All had to do was submit it, just got too busy yesterday.
Everything was just getting circular anyway as often as these debates do.
Semantics.
Rape is not wrong.
With these topics "you wanna be startin' something".
Missed my shot.
Whoever believes the bible teaches there is more than one way to interpret it, present that scripture.
I said there is only one BIBLICALLY VALID interpretation. Not only one biblical interpretation .
Many different church organizations and there is only one bible for them. That's the point of this topic. One bible,one interpretation and there's many different denominations. That's poor arithmetic. They can't all be following the same book and reading something different. It's that "reading different" part.
You know the correct interpretation when you know what the scripture teaches.
Amen
Let's see who comes forth. I just come up with creative variations of topics to demonstrate a basic reality.
It's like pretending something is not true when it is or maybe it's something hard to understand, so I try to break it further and further and further down to infantile elementary terms . Layman's terms didn't work, now we'll use elementary terms.
Vote for the truth. Do you believe there was life that caused conception?
Most humans are not good either.
The Bible doesn't say or teach most are evil.
I would take this if wasn't required to argue most are good. My position would be neutral which is correct.
I guess all we have here is "he said , she said" in statistics and data.
Yes this can't be proven. How do you prove an absolute? But atheists can be sooo bolddd .
Preservative means to save or survive.
The con side is opposite to the truth or if you're more comfortable with the phrasing " opposite to what the topic statement is conveying as the truth of homosexuality in prisons " , cool. It's the opposite of what my position is which is briefly stated in the description.
Is there anybody else that'd like to come off the sidelines and take a shot?
NOBODY can prove that topic statement. So they stay on the sidelines. It's quite funny. They couldn't prove God did not create water and darkness. They couldn't prove God the Father is a person. They or nobody can prove a trinity in scripture.
Add this one to the list, amen.
That's right, make excuses, call in and summon the reinforcements .
Anybody think they can prove and don't just intend to guess what the topic is , here's your chance.
If you can't, smart to not accept the challenge.
Ok, the eternal Son in terms of this topic, I'm referring to the Son being from eternity past not having a beginning. Hence the Son always was and that's what has to be proven. Now there's more to elaborate than this but just for clarity.
Now the person to prove this can use any scripture they think will show the eternal Son. In asking is there to be scripture verbatim eternal Son, not necessarily. However it'll be more difficulty in proving your case so individual discretion is advised.
The problem with not having words exactly read as the point you're trying to make, we begin to argue over interpretation. So it's easier and more verifiable to find scripture to get as close as you can in how it's written in exact words as possible. That's because I can just say I don't read this or that in this or that verse and all you have is the way you interpret it , see. That's why it's important and a good idea to get it as written.
That's right folks you cannot prove this.
In regards to what?
When are we going to be honest?
No wonder debate.org got shut down. Half way truthful folks.
Ahh people don't like physical discipline.
Topic statement is correct. It doesn't exist.
Well it is terrible I'll give you that, is it terrible debating with those that most likely indulge libertarian values but I strive to help.
This site reduced to debating personal dramas.
Then I voluntarily go on in attempt to edify. I try not to give up on the lost.
For those asking about "losses" and "wins", below is what your so called "losses" and "wins" mean to me.
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.
See , who you say wins a debate, loses is totally subjective. It doesn't dictate the truth I actually present. Just because I state the fact of the sky being blue while being in a pool of liars that say it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't.
See that would be the ad populum fallacy.
So we have some folks that agree with my topic statement. Yet, someone took the challenge from the debate session. So apparently we have those that think this statement is false or can argue as if it were.
12 more days, nobody accepts, it'll prove in support of my position and all the other debates of the same topic as well. The votes ought to be consistent with that.
Well hey , if nobody can prove God did not create water or darkness with scripture, no participants will make that clear and my stance true. Also it'll make clear to what was proven on the other debate of the same topic statement.
I don't know what proof a person is looking to prove a person runs their household.
It's really not about demonstrating that this occurs.
I simply just pointed out the fact that a person is entitled and justified and there's nothing wrong to discourage homosexuality inside their home. That's a fact we know exists in reality.
What is so hard to accept about this?
You know.....very factual.
You guys are really that blind as "sheeple" people believing invisibility and visibility is the same. That's what you're agreeing to saying the Spirit and a person human being is one in the same . Really.
Do not add unto his words less you be found a liar . Which many of you no doubt are from these biblical topics.
I can't explain to why and what things sound like to other people.
That's subjective. Ask yourself why do you interpret or get the impression you get .
Can anyone here show it is WRITTEN, where the WORDS ARE WRITTEN?
it's like many of you don't get it when something is written as is, there is no difference of interpretation. The debate is not up for what is the correct interpretation. The debate is over what actual words are used and written.
It's like somebody knows they're defeated when they can't prove something verbatim so they evade that or move the goalpost.
Can anyone here show where it's written God is a person?
Incorrect what people are saying here. You still don't get it. If there is a mention of celebrating Jesus, when ?
See this is where you go wrong and true Bible believers got it right.
To the atheists in your closed mindedness so called voters, judges, think you're operating in complete truth , you want proof for God from the Bible, it's not on your terms.
Your standards work for what they call a science book.
You actually have to leave atheism and much of the secular world. Those claiming that evidence converting them to belief, it's in contradiction to what religion is .
Such a small minority on the side of truth .
Such a small minority here on the side of truth. We're in a pool of falsehood shonough .
You can have your Christmas trees and Santa pagans. The Bible doesn't justify any of that.
People vote on non evidence repeatedly here.