Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity.

"The only response I received was that I could not prove with absolute certainty that there is no God based on my surroundings. Then why challenge me? Why put forward such a debate when in the first round you were planning to state, "Sorry, can't happen" and then move on? With all due respect, I am confused on why I wrote such a response to your challenge and then you did not have to. " >This debate revolved around your original statement on the forums which in order to be true requires the certain non existence of god. Your an intelligent person and I was sure that was not what you had intended to mean in that statement; I didn't even expect you accept but you did. How does my argument require the non-existence of God? I am stating that by surroundings alone, no one can prove there to be a God. You can prove science though. A God could still exist, but exist outside of time and space like some claim. I cannot prove a God by looking at a tree. Neither can you. .. but you could prove biology. And why would you be surprised that I accepted? If the debate is centered on something that I said, it's only logical that I would want to defend my statement. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "My surroundings can definitely prove biology or physics but not a divine being. " > With the use of the word "definitely" and how many times I used the word "certain" in the first round one would assume you knew what I meant. Yes, my surroundings can definitely prove biology or physics. .. .but not a divine being. See the separation there? Maybe I should edit a little more so it can easily be understood, without any of this aggravating confusion: "My surroundings can definitely prove biology or physics but cannot definitely prove a God. " See my intentions? And if you actually think about it, where's the fault in that statement? My surroundings cannot definitely prove a God. If they could, do you think we would be having this debate? Of course not. However, they can definitely prove biology or physics. And if you want to debate that point, feel free to re-challenge me. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "It would be a more fruitful debate if Zetsubou argued from the counterpoint, "your surroundings can prove a deity"" > No. Why? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ "Of course, my surroundings could be scientifically proven but could not prove a God. " > No they can not, seemingly proven to the nous of healthy humans yes but not to everything else, our senses form the limit to our faculties; our senses are inaccurate, they do not PROVE anything. Sorry but metaphysics is messed up like that. "When I look around and see other people, trees and buildings, I do not see a God's work. " -From Post #1 "To prove there was a deity based on surroundings (like a tree or building) is (or at least pretty close to being) impossible. "- From Post #2 I was very clear about what I was referring to when I said "surroundings". But I will explain once more. When I say surroundings I mean "a person, tree or building". And based upon this definition of surroundings (which you did not argue against once), yes it can be scientifically proven. I can prove the existence of another person when I see them. I can prove the existence of a tree when I am touching it. I can prove the existence of a building when I am in it. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "And that absolute certainty should not be the deciding factor but maybe "beyond a reasonable doubt"? " > Reasonable is Subjective Do you really believe that our conceptions of reasonable would be so different? But, since this is the end, I will ignore that statement and move on. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Annhasle has forfeit, resolution negated, > Vote Con. Me forfeit? Ha, you wish. Vote Con? If you vote Con, you are, in a sense, agreeing that you cannot prove your surroundings or God to exist by science (i. e. physics or biology). Yes, you cannot prove a deity by surroundings alone. But you can prove your surroundings by science. Through this entire debate, Zetsubou has had "minor problems", ONE after the first post and then TWO after the second post. .. How has he won? All of his "problems" have been answered accordingly and he has yet to find any reason why my statement is wrong, that I cannot simply answer by logic alone.