Resolved - God exists

There are different degrees of knowledge that each individual knows of. I may know more about the Bible than you do and you may know more about science than i do. Amateur or scientist, at the end of the day: all must bring forth arguments to support their positions. Now with the way the resolution is structured, i can only assume you mean "can we objectively know that God exists?" as if to say that it can be scientifically proven he exists. This approach will never work for the following reasons: 1. Science is not the only way leading to absolute truth - You are not born a scientist. Science is not built into your nature and by using science, you are not invincible. No matter how much evidence you present, your ultimately still a human with your own personal experiences, feelings, opinions, and nature. You began that way without science. If you want to underestimate your experiences and logic, you would have to completely use science 24/7 which is essentially impossible. 2. Knowledge is subjective - Sure, you can argue "well we can sense trees, humans, etc. thus it's objective" In reality, it's not. Just because you have knowledge that the big bang is theoretically proven does not mean that all humans have that knowledge. That's why we have to "bring the evidence", proving that knowledge is not completely objective. What you then have is not an absolute truth, but a distorted concept among all humans of "reality and illusion." A scientists word on the matter can be no more reliable than an amateur's on his/her experiences. We all then have different groups of people who experienced many different things and from that, conclude that a particular being or reality exists. The resolution can then be objectively approached through different subjective ways as i stated above. If i say "come with me and i will show where to find X so that you will know that X exists" that is just as valid because you are testing it to see whether it is a reality or not. The fact that i, my family, and a few others including on DDO have had an experience of God is more than enough to show that he exists. Now what about Zeus? Krishna? Magical ponies? etc. I present an argument to rule out those possibilities. 1. If a supernatural figure takes a physical form then that implies that they are observable and science can be used to determine whether they are God or not. Take for example Zeus, he is characterized by his control over nature and supposedly lives in mount Olympus. No one has ever observed Zeus on mount Olympus, thus that possibility is eliminated. Same with magical ponies and many other gods. If they are physical then they are subject to the natural limits of the universe and therefore not gods. Now what about an omnipotent and absolute being such as Allah? 2. I have presented a model on how to test the validity of each religion in my 2nd round. If you refuse to test it then you deny God's existence. "The world exists objectively despite what everyone thinks." Con made no distinction between what naturally happens and what supernaturally happens in the world. Con didn't show that beings such as God, demons, angels, aliens, ufos, ghosts, etc. did or did not exist, therefore if we can perceive them then con would have to admit that they exist as well based on experiences and/or evidence, constituting as objective truth. Con falsely claims that it is ad populum when i never said anything about "most people agree that X exists" (1). In reality, there is really no such thing as objectivity. How much is being objective? two people? three? or all humans? You can only inductively reason that objectivity exists by inferring that as a subjective individual can have certain experiences. The answer to God's existence can then be justified based on one person's experience. "GOD CANNOT REVEAL HIMSELF OBJECTIVELY. He has never did this, never will do this, and there is no evidence to prove other wise" Con cites no sources for his claims and commits the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance stating "God never showed himself because there is no evidence to prove otherwise" (2). In human thinking, we can know combined together with evidence, experience, and logic that God is the only possible solution to the universe. I will give an example Dark matter is something that is scientifically unseen but scientists are still able to infer it's existence because of the effects it has on physical matter (3). Therefore, once we examine every possible solution we can think of using evidence, logic, and experience taking the assumption that God will always be in harmony with the universe, we can discover God is the only plausible solution. For time purposes, i will not delve into that right now, but i will cite a source which explains the divine inspiration of the Bible and we can infer God's existence (4). " Just because you equate a situation or personal experience and try to correlate it with God does not necessitate the fact that it actually does correlate with God" 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. "Gravity exists because I can drop a pen and have it operate the same way 10,000 times in the same manner" Con resorts to circular reasoning (5), he's saying that Gravity exists because it exists. You cannot use what your trying to prove as proof that it exists. Science is more concerned with how Gravity works, not it's existence (6). "I can claim that my magical fairy stimulates my boner, but that does not actually equate to any viable form of logic. " 1) You did not clearly define a magical fairy 2) You did not present an argument for how we can test to see if your magical fairy exists or not 3) I have never interacted with your fairy and there are many possibilities to explain away it's existence because of it's humanoid characteristics (7). With an immaterial God of the Bible, this cannot really be done. "this debate is so horribly one sided at this point, that I literally am lost. He has missed everyone of my contentions, is making false claims about science because he has no formal knowledge of it, and just asserting random properties to things that do not actually exist or make sense. " 1) You ignored my sources explaining why scientific law is not absolute 2) You commit the fallacy of incredulity evidenced by your claim of it "not actually existing or making sense" (8) 3) you commit ad hominem fallacies with remarks such as "seekergasm" 4) You once again failed to remove bias and cling to the belief that science is somehow absolute. I note probability and possibility: You cannot always assign degrees of certainty to all phenomenon in the universe. Just because the sun generally comes out, does not mean that it will come out the next day. There is no 97% or 60% chance essentially. Either it comes out or it doesn't. Even if most of the time for example people die, if we find one person who does not die then that is still truth even though it's unlikely. Same with God, when he acts, you can only be certain of his existence. To come up with possibilities of the effect or experience is to deny the experience itself based on perception. You cannot disprove God's existence no matter how much evidence you bring. Likelihoods are irrelevant when it comes to what is absolute. "I can touch a tree, I can make love to humans, I can kiss my dog, I can bone a beaver, and all of this can be verified" In closing, this is all circular reasoning. You have not verified anything, you simply assumed it's existence and somehow your perceptions of those things vs. "supernatural" things is correct. As i stated earlier "feeling" something exists (ex. ghosts) is quite different from an actual experience of God such as God directly speaking to Moses from the burning bush. Conclusion: I have presented all of my arguments to "prove" that God exists using the methods listed in round 2. I have listed the limits and advantages of each one and explained why it would be wise to skillfully use each one in harmony without overemphasizing the other. I have experienced God and know others including atheists and agnostics who also acknowledge his existence. With this, i rest my case that God exists. Sources: 1. http://www.nizkor.org... 2. http://www.logicalfallacies.info... 3. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 4. http://www.goodreads.com... 5. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 6. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...