It is impossible to prove the existence of God.

I created this topic to say that I am fed up with people telling me to prove the existence of God. God can't be proven because he is infinite and if he could be empirically proven the required faith to be saved by him would be completely irrelevant. God would most likely not randomly place proof of his existence on Earth. He gives us free will and choices and if we could prove him, all of the sudden people would join not necessarily because they want to but because they know Christianity is the right religion. That would undermine free will hence, God would not want that.

I contend that it is not impossible to prove the existence of a God. I assume we are debating the Christian God.

CON CASE
The Christian God can be proved to exist. If we set up a controlled experiment asking God to explicitly contact us, by say laying a pen and paper in a closed observable room and waiting for him/her/it to write a message, we can prove that God exists. If we are ever able to tear a hole in spacetime and God resides in a different reality, we have proved God. If we ever directly 'see' God in a controlled environment, we have proved God.

The fact of the matter is that it's possible to prove almost anything simply by directly observing it.

PRO CASE
"God can't be proven because he is infinite..."
How does being infinite relate to being improvable? Pro says that proving God would make faith irrelevant. Wouldn't proving a God lead the maximum number of people to a salvation? If legit proof is given that God exists, I'd have complete faith in him/her. All proof does is give us a reason to be 100% faithful in something and have no doubt at all. Without proof, there is always some likelihood against something existing.

"God would most likely not randomly place proof of his existence on Earth"
Why? First, who are you to dictate what a god would do? Second, what if said god deliberately placed evidence of itself on Earth? Don't the Bible and Jesus count as evidence?

"people would join not necessarily because they want to...That would undermine free will"
-Many people don't join because they 'want to' but because they are raised in their belief system. Free will would still exist. You could still choose not to follow Christianity. I think the proof God would make God 'happiest' by leading the most people to salvation.

The resolution is negated because one can prove a God by observing it. Such a proof would lead the most people to salvation, making God 'happiest', and we would still have free will.

I will first attack his arguments against me then I will attack his case.

He says by proving God, he will be 100% faithful in him. You will not actually believe in him because you know he's there. Thus, proving the supposed faith in him obsolete. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). You have faith that he is there but you cannot confirm it.

He says the Bible is evidence but the Bible is just a materialization of his words and words are a meta-physical object.

Free will is compromised because in a belief system you are automatically having a belief put down in your system. I can't dictate what a God can do but I can propose possibilities.

"He says by proving God..."
So at the same time I will both not believe in God, as well as knowing he's there? I can either not believe in him, or know he's there, not both.

Even then, this whole faith argument doesn't change whether or not God can exist. Pro is saying it wouldn't allow for faith and that's not what God would want. How does that have anything to do with God's existence being provable? This is an interesting discussion on faith, but doesn't affect the resolution. That Bible quote doesn't have anything to do with God's existence being provable either.

"He says the Bible is evidence..."
If the Bible is a materialization of his words, doesn't that mean they are evidence? Words can be metaphysical, but the works of William Shakespeare serve as evidence of his existence. Nobody alive today has seen him, but we have evidence of him through his works. How can the Bible be the materialization of the words of a non-existent being? Also, what do words being meta-physical have to do with anything?

"Free will is compromised..."
Free will is not compromised. The only time in which free will is compromised is when there is only one choice. As long as their is more than one choice and people have the ability to choose, free will exist.

"I can propose possibilities..."
I have done so as well - that God placed proof of his existence on Earth in terms of Jesus Christ and the Bible. How can Jesus be explained without the existence of God?

I would now like to point out that Pro dropped my whole argument dealing with observing God, and the controlled experiment I proposed. If we were to directly prove God's existence by observing him, we have proved God exists. Because my opponent fails to respond to this, he concedes the point, and the resolution is negated.

In my closing argument, I will go to voters.

He says I dropped his argument about observing God and his controlled experiment but that argument was not topical due to the fact that the resolution was "Is it possible to prove God's existence or not", paraphrased, of course. He explains ideas of trying to discover him. Hence, not endowing me with the burden of answering this claim.

The only thing my faith argument was saying that faith would completely lose its relevance if God was proved because there is nothing about him unknown.

Con seperates my case and he claims to answer each of my points. My case is really just one argument with subpoints.

I ask my opponent for their forgiveness considering the fact that I am sick and I did not put as much time, energy or thought that I wanted to.

P.S. I do not have swine influenza.

I would like to thank Copperhead for this debate, and hope he gets well soon.

"He says I dropped his argument..."
Pro says my argument about setting up an experiment to discover God is not topical. This is completely untrue! If we set up an experiment and discover God, is that not proving his existence? I am merely saying that it is possible to prove God's existence through experiment. Pro responds by saying that I made this claim, therefore he doesn't have to respond to it. The point of debating someone is responding to their claims.

"The only thing my faith argument..."
Again, the faith argument is completely non-topical. It has no bearing on whether the existence of God can be proven.

"Con seperates my case..."
Spectacular. Unfortunately, this does nothing against my rebuttals.

In summary, Pro has dropped the following:
1) Jesus and the Bible are evidence of God. How can Jesus be explained without God? The Bible is proof because it is, as Pro says, a materialization of God's words. How can such a materialization exist without something to create it?
2) Free will. Proof of God's existence does not compromise free will, as there is still a choice.
3) Proof of God would make God 'happier' as more people would go to Heaven.

Thank you, and vote Con!

P.S. Thank God!