Resolved - God exists

R1) BOP Pro assets that I did not tell us what kind of proof I was looking for. This statement is belligerent and the sign of pro having no idea how formal debate works. He asserts something about a spacecraft that is a non sequtiur and overall just makes baseless assertions. Assuming something exists based on your own personal experience does not necessitate it's existence. It is own him to provide empirical proof that God exists. Again I refer you to the resolution. He has to prove that God exists empirically not that he may exist or could exist. Anything could exist in that regard, but that is not the resolution nor the topic of this debate. R2) Experience does not necessitate truth. His rebuttal to this literally makes no sense and he misses the entire point. The point of the premise is that despite what people think they believe or hear, it does not make it an empirical fact. I can believe anything, but that does not mean I am right. I can believe gravity does not exist, but it does. Actually pro even concedes this point" To them, those experiences are "real", but to us, we know generally we are not on drugs nor insane "This is how I perceive my adversary. To him his experiences are real, but I know he is wrong. Just because he believes something does not necessitate that it is true. He concedes this point. R3) No such thing as a lawI just had to respond to this. My adversary has no concept of science, and is just babbling non sense at this point. There is a such thing as scientific law, despite what my disillusioned adversary thinks[1]. A scientific law entails1) 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).Then he asserts gravity is not absolute. If i took my adversary and dropped him from the top of the empire state building 1,000 times. You can insert any value here. He would die that amount of times. Gravity is an absolute and the only way it varies is dependent on location or if it is manipulated. It is a basic principle that operates the same and without exception without any violation of variables. There are a few things that hold true to this. The law of conservation of energy, the law of thermodynamics, the law of planetary motion, the law of cosmic expansion, and even the law of universal gravitation. He then asserts this" Evolution is a proven theory, but to some including scientists, it's not reality, but an illusion "Yes those people are generally considered morons. Evolution is accepted as a fact, not just because of all the evidence that supports it but because it literally explains the origins of life to a ti and fills in and is verified with million examples of verifiable evidence. He then goes further to assert this" 1. If God acts upon an individuals life then the individual comes to the conclusion God exists2. The individual can deny it, but the fact remains that God acted upon the individual "I can spend an entire round destroying the validity of this statement but it goes without saying this is entirely false. God acts on this person so God exists. Any example that my adversary thinks of where God acted upon an individual can be ascribed to any given value, person, or being. Where he says God acted on him, I could assert that it was a magical pony in the sky. The statement is just as valid and is backed with as much evidence as his initial claim. Just because he thinks God acted on him or someone, that does not necessitate that God did act or in fact exists. R4) Pen exampleAgain my adversary concedes the point. I refer you back to the example. If we drop a pen it will always fall to the ground. It will always drop to the ground even if people claim it did not drop the ground. Someone can drop a pen and see it drop but believe it did not drop, that does not change the fact it did indeed drop. This goes to show that there are objective principles that act and will continue to act in a given order as expected such as gravity. I asserted it was an empirical fact, so my adversary concedes this point, but I was asserting that it was an empirical fact to show that just because someone believes that it not an empirical fact does not change the fact it is. Just because someone "believes" there is a God does not necessitate that God is real. Just as much as them believing a pen was suspended in air after they dropped it necessitates that as a fact. R5) WTF syllogism1. An experience caused by God is independent of belief2. Having faith in God is essential to having a relationship with him (ex: 1 John 5:4)3. someone believing the pen did not fall is doing just that, believing that the pen did not fall when it didThis is so incoherent it hardly warrants a response. None of the premise follow to reach the conclusion. Like I generally have no idea what this babble is. (p1) This is if God existed. If god existed this is true, but it is own my adversary to show that God exists. For this to even be a valid premise he would first have to win this debate before he could make the assertion. We are debating the fact that God exists, and he is using a premise that requires him to win the debate in order for the premise to be true. This is literally invalid(p2) This is nonsense lol and absolutely pointless to the debate. He just cites a bible verse(c) How does he even arrive at this. Let me re write this syllogism logically to show you how absurd this is. (p1) experiences caused by God are Independence of us(p2) faith in God is an essential part of a relationship(c) Not believing in God does not mean he does not exist. None of this logically follows, is not verified by any actual evidence, and to eve consider the (p1) In order to get to the other nonsense that does not logically follow he has to first win the debate and prove that God actually exists. R6) God is immaterialHe basically asserts because god is not a sentient being , he is not testable. He actually asserts that god is "Immaterial" or "spiritual", something that is "spiritual" is founded by "personal belief". Personal belief does not necessitate something is in real. He has to provide evidence to support this. Saying falls under the realm of things that cannot be tested, so he exists is an invalid argumentYou can literally insert an possible value in place of God and have the same outcome. There is a magical fairy that is sitting on my computer. That is as logical as the claim he just made. That is not saying that the claims are impossible, but stating there is no evidence to support either claim. R7) Back to bad logic and faulty syllogisms. I am frankly getting tired of refuting nonsense at this point. I would advise my adversary to take a science class before he starts mumbling non sense about stuff that he has no concept of. I am refuting the same thing over and over at this point. a. God is outside of the cosmos and is the direct causeb. the big bang is a physical actc. God is still the cause and the effect is the universelet's break down why this is horrible logic, and even a logical fallacy(p1) For this to be true you have to show God exists, not that God needs to exist. For this to even be considered God would need to exist. The argument I presented negates the need for a God, so God does not need to existso logically(a) God has not been proven to exist so this argument assumes something that is not necessarily true. Again my adversary would first have to win this debate and show God exists in order to make this claim, or(b) In order to even consider this God would need to exist, which he does not need to exist. I explained why the universe can create itself already. This invokes Occams razor to some degree, but when you have a verifiable explanation it is more logical than assuming an explanation that has no verifiable evidence. (p2) Sure its a physical act this statement does not necessitate a God either. I have showed how it can happen without a God(c) God is the cause of the universe. Again see above. This does not mean that God is the cause because God is not needed to create the inverse nor is their any evidence to support this claim. As I stated earlier, that magical fairy on my computer could have created the universe under this logic and would still be as logically valid as my adversaries stance. This is so jacked up version of the KCA. It's like he read the KCA and has no concept of the actual premises that the KCA is stating. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ContentionsHe did not even bother to refute my contentions. They stand in wholeConclusionI usually would write a conclusion but read the debate and draw your on. This is one sided at this point[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...