Resolved - God exists

R1) Science is not the only way to validate somethingI would challenge my adversary to name one thing science can not validate or teach us truth about. Science by definition is the study of something. Science is the study of anything within the natural world. God exists outside of the natural world , therefore he cannot be studied. That is basically what my adversary is saying . The issue with this, as I have stated 1,000 times already is that can be applied to any variable. I can change God to any possible variable and the same argument would be valid because there is no way to proof whether he does not does not exist. The fact that you cannot prove this by my adversaries concession, is literally the end of this debate. He has the BOP to show God exists, yet is saying that you cannot prove this because he exists outside the natural world. This debate is over at this point. R2) Knowledge is subjective but objective truths exist outside our own knowledgeThe title of the rebuttals sums this up. Just because we perceive stuff and gain knowledge does not mean we are correct. People believe in God and they are wrong, just as people thought the earth was flat when it was round. Even though the entire world at one point assumed the earth was flat and this was based on personal experience and perception did not change teh fact that the earth was in fact objectively round. That was an objective fact in spite of what people believed. The same is true with God. People assume God exists without any proof or scientific evidence, just because enough people believe something does not validate it as a truth. That is a classic ad populum and a appeal to the masses. R3) Correlation to God and experience he says this" Con gave a poor example. Of course i'm not going to look at a burning bush and correlate it with God because God has not been presented as solely the only explainable cause. However if i die, go to heaven and see Jesus then he brings the immaterial essence of my life force back to life, you cannot apply the principles of science to explain away this phenomenon because 1) It cannot be tested 2) It's beyond natural reach. "This argument is just invalid. This has never happened and claiming when people die they go to heaven is something that cannot be observed or studied or even proven to be true. Its entirely speculation based on no actual evidence. R4) Gravity existsGravity does not exists because it exists, and if you had the abiility to form a thought or would read what I typed you would see what I claimed. You are in fact claiming God exits because he is exists without giving any evidence to support it saying that personal experiences justifies God then in the next paragraph saying personal experience is invalid. You are destroying your own arguments for me by conceded pointsI'm saying gravity exists because it operates the same way 100 percent of the time unless it is altered. That is why its a scientific law. Again this is scientific law. 1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).Gravity exists due to empirical generalization and operates the same way without exception due to the results of repeated and successful testing. Saying gravity exists because it exists is a failure to read what i'm typing, its not even hard but you just don't want to read it. However you are saying God exists because he exist. You even are claiming that you cannot prove that the exists because he is immaterial. At which point you have conceded the debateConclusionThis debate was over rounds ago, and I will walk you through why. (1) Pro says God exists because of personal experience. (2) Then when I flip this and say anything can exist this way (my fairy) he says personal experience is not valid (3) He claims there are no objective laws in science which is false(4) He claims that god is immaterial so he cannot be proven to scientifically exist or empirically exist(5) By saying he cannot prove that God empirically exist, he has lost this debate, as the resolution is God exists. View his own definitions for this. He says God exists in reality and then defines reality, and then in the actual debate argues that you cannot empirically verify God because he exists outside of reality altering the resolution and dropping the debate. (6) none of his syllogism logically follow and prove nothing(7) HE HAS NOT REFUTED A SINGLE ONE OF MY CONTENTIONS. READ THE FIRST ROUND, NOTHING I CLAIMED WAS EVEN TOUCHED. He did not bother to refute anything I said which left to me rebuttal all of his points and leave them in shambles. (a) He has the BOP so the margin at which I destroyed his arguments awards me the debate(b) He did not even touch my contentions so everything I stated is still standingI would go into this further, but this is a pretty cut and dry debatePro had the BOP to show that God exists, and has failed to provide any rational reason, logical reason, or any evidence of fulfill his BOP. This debate is proof of objective truths, because he without a doubt objectively lost.