The Christian God Cannot be Proven

= Framework = 1. Con did not post only his choice of a debate paradigm in the first round, but also an analysis of what the framework he has chosen means. There are two impacts; a. that he must be docked conduct as this is a direct violation of the rules set in the opening round. b. is that this analysis must be rejected outright as it violates my right as the instigator to frame the round in the way that I want to. I already wrote an analysis of the burdens opponent and I in this debate, and invited inquiry in the comments. Further analysis is not only unnecessary, but abusive. 2. As all arguments in this debate operate a Tabula Rasa lens, only the arguments offered in this round are acceptable as a grounds of judging this debate under. What this means is that I do not need to warrant every possible argument on the the impossibility of proving God, only the arguments which arise in this debate. 3. As the contender of the resolution my opponent holds the burden of clash. This may include needing to prove the inverse of the resolution true, however that burden is not inherent in accepting the role as the contender. = On-Case = 1. Proof- Princeton defines 'proof' as 'any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something'. Therefore in order for something to be considered a proof, it must be both objective, factual and falsifiable. The impact here is that theological, ideological and/or philosophical explanations for the God's reality do not fall within the scope of an acceptable proof. Leading arguments for the reality of God such as the Kalam Cosmological argument, the Watchmaker analogy and Pascal's Wager are invalid as 'proof' as they operate theoretically, instead of empirically. These arguments may serve as the basis for one's belief in the Christian God, however they are not proof. In the same way I may believe that cars need gas to run because my mom so, her statement is not proof unto itself. Just because something is persuasive and causes one to believe, does not mean that it is proof. 2. Truth without proof- The question of this debate isn't about whether or not God is real, it's whether or not he can be proven. If God is real, then he's real and not logic or deductive reasoning will be able to change that. At the same time, we need to be careful not to mistake logic and personal conviction for empirical evidence. Gravity is accepted as a law of nature, but realistically there is no proof that the force we call 'gravity' really exists. There is no way to touch, taste, see, hear or feel gravity. We can only view and experience the effects of gravity. If I throw a ball into the air, it doesn't fall down because of gravity, but because of the effects of gravity. Back to the car analogy, it may be true that cars need gas to run, but my word isn't proof of this necessity. I may even come to the conclusion that cars need gas based on logical observation, however that still isn't proof. Truth can exist and be accepted without objective proof. 3. Faith- The Christian God can only be accepted on faith, there is no evidence for the reality of God because God does not operate on an empirical level. If the Christian God is real, he's real. If he's not, he's not. No amount of argumentation or debate will change that basic fact. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." That said, because God will exist either way, proof is irrelevant. If at the end of the road we all stand in judgement before the creator of the universe, his existence doesn't validify any logical argument for the existence of God. These explanations may remain persuasive, and their conclusion's may be true, but they are not proof because they are neither objective or falsifiable. If I say that there are sodas in the refrigerator, you can check to see to see if that's true or false. If I say God is real, you can only check if it's true. Proof for God's Existence is not falsifiable.