Debate #1 - The supposition"God exists" is a valid proposition for consideration in logical analysis

"[P]The statement "God Exists" can be assigned a truth value of either true or false. [Q] According to [D3] we have the proposition P is a valid proposition. [R] The supposition "God Exists" is therefore a valid proposition. "This is not an actual argument restating the resolution and then using definitions to vindicate your conclusion isn't logical analysis it's a semantic argument which I assume you weren't going for. definitions are used as guides in a debate to understand what one is talking about when referring to a word not making them the basis of an argument it isn't a valid argument and therefore an illogical conclusion. Continuing,His objection to my first paragraph isn't really an objection more he agrees with my analysis He then makes a chart explaining how I reached my conclusion then makes a non sequitur of reaching a further conclusion that I agree with his assertion that god exists is a valid proposition when did I ever say this. You can even see in his analysis that his assertion was never reached in my conclusion. I do not need to retract my first paragraph as it's letting me segway into my arguments. "NOTE: though this argument P2:A1 precedes A2, it is obvious that Con needs Paragraph 2, Argument 2 to define pointless. "There is no need to define pointless I was assuming everyone new what it meant if you insist on a definition I shall provide one. "P2:A2:P is that same logical argument as unresoned men of history that "it is pointless to wonder wheter the world is round" becasue 'it's stupid'"Actually after reading this I suppose I should point out the difference between pointless and stupid. Pointless: Having little or no sense, use, or purpose. Stupid: regarded as unintelligent: regarded as showing a lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense. There is another error in his argument people assumed they were right in thinking the earth wasn't round. I am not assuming anything I am asserting that it is pointless to consider whether "god exists" in a logical analysis, because there isn't a logical reason to do a logical analysis on wether "god exists" since there are only two choices/assumptions that can be made god exits or god doesn't exist. And it's relevant to consider the two theories of the famous scientists, because those theories are actually relevant they have substance and merit and concern many advancements in technology. "It can be noted that most men chose the same position as Con when the opposing proposition was considered stupid. Only AFTER an unproven is knowably true or false can one consider the opposing position stupid. "Actually I'm saying that it's pointless to consider the supposition "god exists" that's why I'm con in this debate you still have not upheld your burden because a burden of proof requires actual arguments. I am not goingto respond to his "argument" on the square root of two because I don't see how it's relevant to this debate or how it even matters. "AWSOME, HERE, we can see that my opponed USED logic, AND used the similar reworded proposition "If one believes in God" to conduct his own logical analysis. WOW, if we supposed his argument were true, then we MUST suppose his reasoning is invalid as P2:A4:Q is by HIS definition "stupid". How can he use it to validate his reasoning and debate that I cannot have the VERY SAME right. This is a logical contradiction and as you can see, quite absurd. BUT NOTE: it does not mean he is wrong, he just made a mistake in reasoning. " Again my opponent like many people has already come to a conclusion on my position of peope who believe in god this assumption of his cannot be vindicated in any way nor can it be justified his "argument" isn't an actual argument against my analysis. In that paragraph I proved that people who believe in god don't question It, they trust god implicitly and do not contemplate over whether god exists they folow the religion they are in. They do not consider in a logical analysis wether god exists when following his codes/rules. "Hi argument is really another familiar argument worded differently. This one would have us suppose that nothing we don't know is worth discovering. He would propose that anything we do not know is not worth the effort of reasoning about it. " What argument is that? And I am not proposing anything we are discussing god not nanotechnology or neuroscience I would appreciate it if you do not reach illogical conclusions to the arguments I am making since I have already done that. "If he does not mean this, then he is saying that men should be allowed to determine what other men can reason about AND if the majority agree that it is "stupid" then they should not be allowed their "ridiculous" assumptions, suppositions, and beliefts" What? !? ! when did I ever say this or how did you extrapolate this from my argument please read my last paragraph again so you do not misunderstand what I'm saying. "None needed, all statments in this paragraph argue OR give example of the truth value of the proposition "God Exists" which is NOT in dispute or up for debate. " I am not being argumentative I am taking a conclusion from my arguments and telling you my position which you seem to disregard and substitute your assumptions. Here is my last paragraph again in case you missed it My position is it's pointless to wonder about god therefore it's an invalid consideration since we know nothing about what constitutes god only that he exists or doesn't we can make assumptions about his character but that might constitute a false premise, therefore their shouldn't be any logical analysis on "god exists" And for the record "many religions with that worship a god and have different rules and live by them one of my personal favorites is Hasidism"-headphonegut It seems my opponent is not objective to my arguments he does not attack them with what flaws there are in logic but uses his misplaced view that he has of who I am to debunk them he has not made a single argument nor a valid objection to my arguments "It appears that Con actually proves my points in all cases. It appears that Con, for some "reason" chooses the position that he and his peers are the ultimate deciders of what we can think about or suppose. " How do I prove your points? And when did I say I'm the ultimate decider and what makes you think that I even like my peers? And what gives you the illusion that Ad hominems are going to win this debate for you?