Resolved - God exists

R1) BOPResolution - God exists. Pro states this" For the resolution, con did not make it clear that God had to be scientifically proven "God exists, is clearly the resolution. Like that is literally typed verbatim. Check back to cons r1 where he himself defines what real is in a given way" Reality - state of being real "" objective - based on external truth not on personal opinions and feelings "My pros on definitions he has lost this debate. His entire debate is a case that is based on subjective concepts like experience and feelings, instead of an objective empirical stance about the existence of God. He has provided no proof in the existence of God, but only has shown that a God may exist. Just stating a God may exist is not enough, and even if this debate was based on the preponderance of evidence it is totally lopsided because his entire case is based on subjectivity and personal experience. Let's review a seekergasm. That is what is what I'm going to start calling this nonsensical syllogisms that he is spitting out. (p1) our senses can only be subjective(p2) We sense the world around us through subjective means(c) We can only show that the world exists if all are subjectively in agreementWTF did I just read. I mean you literally have no concept of what you are saying at this point. The world exists objectively even in spite of how we perceive or view it. Everyone does not have to subjectively agree that the world exists to show that it exists. The world exists objectively despite what everyone thinks. Just because enough people believe something does not make it an objective fact. That is a classic ad populum, but this goes further because it's an ad populum that is literally non nonsensical.Congrats on the new number 1 statement for the weekly stupid. R2) IDGAf at this pointLike these responses are so incoherent , that I literally have no idea how to respond to what he is asking because I have no idea what he is asking. It's like he snorted shrooms before he wrote this round. " 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? "Gravity exists because I can drop a pen and have it operate the same way 10,000 times in the same manner. That is an objective fact to support gravity. I can't go high five an alien, or sex up a ghost. I can think I see them, but there is nothing to verify this with empirically and is routed in subjectivity based on personal experiences that can be altered and that varies depending on the situation. A1) Coming out your mouth with that blah blah blah" 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. "GOD CANNOT REVEAL HIMSELF OBJECTIVELY. He has never did this, never will do this, and there is no evidence to prove other wise. Just because you think he revealed himself does not mean that he actually did. If you walk outside and see a bush on fire, you can try to do the Moses and be like praise the lord. That does not change the fact that someone probably set that sht on fire with match. Just because you equate a situation or personal experience and try to correlate it with God does not necessitate the fact that it actually does correlate with God. It also definitively does not necessitate that a God actually exists. A2) Turn around boy let me hit that" 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. "I can touch a tree, I can make love to humans, I can kiss my dog, I can bone a beaver, and all of this can be verified. I can test gravity, I can test air, I can even test dark matter, God exists outside of this and is non verifiable. This entire argument can be made for any variable in place of God. At this point pro is just saying (x) exists. He is saying God stimulates his senses therefore he exists, I can claim that my magical fairy stimulates my boner, but that does not actually equate to any viable form of logic. Conclusion" 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. "He just conceded this debate by stating that and does not even realize he conceded it. There is no point refuting the last few lines by him as he is saying the same thing over and over after I have refuted it 2 or 3 timesAll of my contentions standI would like to point out some of the statements pro has made(a) There is no such thing as a scientific law(b) Experience necessitate a God(c) The then says you can;t prove a fairy exists because of personal experience which is the same thing he is using to justify his points this debate is so horribly one sided at this point, that I literally am lost. He has missed everyone of my contentions, is making false claims about science because he has no formal knowledge of it, and just asserting random properties to things that do not actually exist or make sense. http://www.youtube.com...