Resolved - God exists

"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. " Wrong, the example i gave is something con fails to realize the implications of. For the resolution, con did not make it clear that God had to be scientifically proven. Therefore, he leaves the debate open to more than one way to fulfill the burden of proof outside the realm of science. Allow me to further explain my argument: 1. our senses can only be subjective 2. We sense the world around us through subjective means 3. We can only show that the world exists if all are subjectively in agreement It's the same with God and since i had a divine experience and just gave an argument for how you can figure out if he exists, not only do i as a person with subjective experiences know God exists, i have essentially fulfilled my burden of proof. I did not concede, on the contrary, con concedes that experience does lead to truth (logically proven by him assuming the natural realm exists). Con resorts to using the argument by repetition (1) as he keeps talking about empirical evidence for God which i already refuted. "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" He did not explain why it makes no sense and once again fails to understand my argument. Why would gravity exist but aliens and paranormal beings not exist? Why is your perception of what is "natural" correct and when it comes to beliefs of the supernatural, their perceptions are incorrect? You can cite empirical evidence all you want for gravity, but you as an individual never proved that it exists, you just accept it as scientific, proving that you go by experiences not necessarily always by science. Yes you can believe anything, it doesn't make you right but neither does it make you wrong depending on what it is. I stand my case: You can believe God does not exist, but once he causes you to have a supernatural experience and reveals himself to you, his existence becomes truth. "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. " The same argument can be made against you. However we are essentially in agreement that anything that interacts with us in the world (ex. trees, humans, etc.) exists. I doubt con believes in what he says because even though we cannot see God, we can still gain knowledge of his existence philosophically. 1) Essentially, the natural senses do not objectively demonstrate existence. When we say "humans or trees exist because we can see them" what we really mean is "if it stimulates my senses, it exists." Lets say that God interacts with someone's mind and speaks to them. If con believes that the mind is natural then the requirement for God's existence has already been fulfilled since he stimulated your natural senses. If con believes the mind is immaterial but can still act on the world then he admits that God can exist because God is immaterial and can act upon the world. 2) Humans do accept abstract truths such as "there is a consequence for your actions." We cannot prove that scientifically because it's not testable, we simply assume the statement true and universal. We also accept concepts such as love, compassion, honesty, forgiveness, etc. exist even though they are not physical. There is really no correlation between say protecting your girlfriend and equating it with love. You simply assume love exists from the start. If that's the case, once God shows his divine love, compassion, forgiveness, and so forth, you would then have to accept that he exists. 3) Finally, we accept that methods such as logic, philosophy, and science will lead us to truth without demonstrating that it is absolute. We simply assume that if something is logically or scientifically true, it applies to everything else in the universe. If that's the case then God can simply state "Jesus is Lord" and we would have to accept that as knowledge of reality, thus showing his truth. Con did not explain why i am wrong and i will explain the definition of belief later (even though it's not really relevant). I have presented ways in which we can know of God's existence just by logically deducing how we interact with the world around us. Con failed to realize that there are several different theories on Gravity once again proving that a scientific law is not absolute. Con apparently missed the part in the article in which it says "Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data." There is Einstein's theory of gravity and then there is Newton's theory of gravity (2). Con simply groups them all together. "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. " You call them morons simply because they do not agree with your views. Just by pointing out scientists who have different views shows that bias exists even in the scientific community. Human bias simply cannot be erased. "Where he says God acted on him, I could assert that it was a magical pony in the sky." You could, but that can be done with anything including our own universe. We could assert that aliens created this entire universe. I can also go on refuting your arguments for the complex causes of God, but it's irrelevant to speak of what we do not know outside the limits of our knowledge. It stands that you believe your looking at DDO and that your sure that you and i exist based on experience while i am also sure God exists based on experience. "If god existed this is true, but it is own my adversary to show that God exists." Wrong, i am only using this logical argument in response to your claim that evidence is needed to support God and explaining why science can never do such a thing. I cite the Bible verse to show the difference between faith and knowing something exists. Having faith in God does not strictly mean to assume he exists, but to trust that his will shall be accomplished in your life. Con ignores the part i said about science being only able to test the natural realm. " This does not mean that God is the cause because God is not needed to create the inverse" Just because he's not needed doesn't imply that he did not create it. ", 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. " Is your magical fairy physically detectable or purely spiritual? How can we figure out if she exists based on either our experiences, logic, or/and evidence? You did not say. Conclusion: My opponent commits the fallacy of repeating his arguments and ad hominem (ex. " I would advise my adversary to take a science class before he starts mumbling non sense") (3). Even though i showed that science can only look at what is naturally observable, he still imposes that we should always follow science and denies that in order to do that, we need to experience it (using our senses to learn about science through textbooks and the sort). I have presented a logical argument for why God exists and how humanity can know. Sources: 1. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 2. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 3. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...