Resolved - God exists

"The first thing I want to start with is the BOP. The BOP in this case is on Pro to prove that "God Exists". This is an affirmative statement and it is on him to back up this claim. He cannot show that God may exist, that it is probable God exists, or that there is a possibility God may exist. He must actually show that God exists. This is his BOP, and you can note by his first round that he is no where near fulfilling it. I will start out with some contentions, and offer rebuttals in this round and latter rounds." Con did not tell us the kind of "proof" that he's looking for and fails to acknowledge that i gave an argument for why you can figure out God exists. Sometimes, it's not required for the person who has b.o.p to bring "proof", however they can lead you to the actual being just as someone can bring you to a specific place where the "proof" of the being is found. For example, i can tell you "come with me and i will show you where to find an alien spacecraft" based purely on first-hand experience. "Thing about states of mind, or when people are on drugs, or people that are just generally insane" "When its dark outside and people often get scared, they can correlate sounds and events and propose paranormal activity exists. When people are mentally unstable they will often see people and things that are not really there. When on certain types of drugs, you can actually begin to hallucinate and see stuff that is not within reality. The point being is that there are countless types of ways people can experience something and what they are experiencing is actually false or not real. It may be real to them, but it does not objectively exist. It only exists in their mind and because they allowed it to exist to them. For something to objectively exist, it would exist outside of someones mind. It would exist whether they believe it or not." Con's argument is invalid. To them, those experiences are "real", but to us, we know generally we are not on drugs nor insane. People can propose that paranormal activities exist based on their sensory input but 1) Con did not present a specific example in which we can analyze 2) This does not compare to something as specific and supernatural as the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. Con fails to realize that reality and illusion are entirely based on experiences. To me, God is reality and to you, he's an illusion. What is reality and what is illusion? We simply agree that the observations of the universe we make as "sane" people will lead us to reality and know that these hallucinations are false based on our biased perceptions of reality, but we cannot rule it out. Con left out that we are subjective individuals. "While sense are our primary means of leaning and understanding, just because we experience an act does not mean it is necessarily an objective truth. It also means that it may be a necessary truth as well." Con failed to point out that i already acknowledged this earlier "The limits of this is that although it's on direct observation, it cannot be applied to gain objective and truthful knowledge of reality." "There are certain laws that govern life that we have learned through using science, rational, reason, mathematics, and our senses. " In science, there is no such thing as a "law", only a hard proven theory. According to wiki, it says "a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated" (1). Gravity is not absolute. Con did not explain why the same is not true of God. Although con brings up gravity as an example in which we can all agree works, it doesn't necessarily have to work that way. Our perceptions are subject to bias whether we like it or not. Evolution is a proven theory, but to some including scientists, it's not reality, but an illusion. Con implies that someone can "explain away" the existence of God, but you can explain away the existence of anything that contradicts your views. It doesn't imply that it's not real. 1. If God acts upon an individuals life then the individual comes to the conclusion God exists 2. The individual can deny it, but the fact remains that God acted upon the individual "The reason i'm stating this is to address pros claim that someones experience necessitates empirical fact, because that is a false claim. Empirical laws and facts do exist, but because someone experiences something does not necessitate what they experience as an empirical fact. " You just used the example of someone dropping a pen to the ground and it falling to support your claim that gravity is a law. That is pure observation, thus con contradicts himself. What he used was not scientific because he leaves out formulating a hypothesis, gathering data, doing repeated experiments, and integrating those observations into research (2). Based on what con said, it logically follows that experience necessitates empirical fact. "Because someone "experiences God", that does not necessitate the fact that God exists, no more than someone who saw that pen fall and believed it did not fall necessitates that the pen did not fall" Con makes a mistake 1. An experience caused by God is independent of belief 2. Having faith in God is essential to having a relationship with him (ex: 1 John 5:4) 3. someone believing the pen did not fall is doing just that, believing that the pen did not fall when it did "any argument Pro brings up about him or others "experiencing God", we can discard because it is entirely faulty and relies on non verifiable evidence. " Con makes a few mistakes 1. God is immaterial 2. Science only deals with what is testable and observable (3) 3. Con agrees earlier that experience brings truth in R2 "Empirical Truths" but then resorts to bias when it comes to God and now claims that empirical evidence is needed. There is no reason to require evidence for the natural and reject the supernatural, therefore it is not faulty. As for logical deduction, con brings up irrelevant points. While yes, we do agree that we are making assumptions and that it does not in reality have to follow, logical arguments only stay within the confines of the premises and from that a conclusion is drawn. "He cannot simply show that through experience or certain means that there is a possibility that God exists, he has to show that God exists empirically and is verifiable which he has failed to do. He tried to use experience as a way to justify God and as I have stated above, this is entirely false. He needs to show that God exits even outside of peoples experience. Look at it this way, if we removed humanity God will still have to exist objectively in order to fulfill the BOP. He has not shown that God is an empirical fact. " I never said that it's possible God exists, i said that through our subjective minds, we can objectively reach the conclusion that God exists given we follow the proper methods. Con is once again biased in choosing to accept the natural realm without any empirical evidence and to reject God, demanding physical evidence. "One of the biggest arguments for Christians is that God created the universe but even that is false now. Through science we can now see that the universe could create itself. Most people would try to assert that energy cannot be created or destroyed or that you need a God in order to explain how the universe began. " 1) You have not disproven that God created the universe and i will explain a. God is outside of the cosmos and is the direct cause b. the big bang is a physical act c. God is still the cause and the effect is the universe 2) Con said "We have to address what is observable and what is not observable and the types of nothing" which is false. The big bang theory does not state that nothing caused everything, but describes how the universe came from a single tiny dense point (4). Therefore, even scientists agree that the universe came from something. 3) No where is ex-nihilo found in the Hebrew Bible (5), but rather that there was an absolute beginning. Conclusion: An experience is more than enough to demonstrate God's existence. As i have stated earlier, i have listed the strengths and weaknesses of each method (experience and evidence), con assumes that the universe exists based on experience and does not demand evidence, but when it comes to God, he is quick to require it for a being that is completely out of human comprehension and beyond natural laws. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...