God's Existence Is Personal Opinion

Isn't the debate over right then and there? You have agreed that God's existence is a subjective matter, or a personal opinion. You have agreed that God's existence is a subjective matter, or a personal opinion. You have agreed that an objective science cannot prove there is a God (and likewise I agree that science cannot prove there is no God). My burning question for you, is how do you intend to win the debate by agreeing with me?" You misinterpreted what i meant by experience, i define experience as God in some way or shape revealing himself to you through revelation, miracles, visions, etc. that will prove that he exists. Personal opinion cannot be equal to a supernatural experience. ". It can't be disproved but of course a hypothesis that can't be disproved" It can be disproved by logic and empirical evidence. It can be rejected if insufficient evidence is found (1). "I will now argue that objectivity is inseparably linked to evidence. It is apparent that objectivity requires evidence. The scientific method is built upon this idea. We need numbers, data, empirical evidence, quantitative observations, and things like that in order to observe a trend in nature. My proposition is as follows: (an example of an objective claim is that rocks weigh more than balloons of equal volume. A theory is that the force of gravity is proportional to mass). Note: Data and evidence are used interchangeably." Not necessarily, scientific theories are still subject to the scientists interpretation of them. You subjectively submit to their findings, but not every scientist agrees. For example, a small percentage of scientists do not believe in evolution (2). "Objective claims cannot be disagreed upon. If they cannot be disagreed upon, two people who happen to disagree must necessarily have some sort of way to resolve their disagreement. A disagreement between two people can only be resolved in the future obviously. And in order for it to be resolved in the future, they must have a prediction that can be tested. " This cannot always be done. The more complex a theory is, the more chances it has of being argued against. Like the example I gave above. For example, according to the scientific concept of Abiogenesis, there is no standard model for the origin of life. This gives more room for subjective and conflicting views even in science. To respond your last paragraph, God is just as reliable as a human being. Can you prove to me that humans exist? Scientifically, you can't because not only would that result in circular reasoning on your part, science isn't concerned with existence of beings, but about how they work. Yes, you can observe humans, but that's not proof, it's justsubj ective observations not applied to an experiment. It's an assumption you make. Who is right? It depends on the experience. I had a revelation of Jesus Christ and no revelation of Buddha or any other god. Logically, if the monotheistic God revealed himself to me, he is the only God and revelation is supreme. If you saw the President of Iraq, but have no proof to back it up, can I doubt it? Yes, but is it valid for you? Yes, therefore I have no say on the matter. You cannot prove to me that anything material exists unless it is brought to my perception. Sources: 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. http://www.aboundingjoy.com...