The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
tahirimanov
Con (against)

Proof of God Through Revelation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Purushadasa has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 103452
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

God has revealed many facts about Himself, and He definitely knows the facts about Himself better than anybody else could, just as you know the facts about yourself better than I could, and I know the facts about myself better than you could.

I can correctly and logically inform you of the fact that I am a person living in the United States, that my immediate family is also from the United States, and so on. I have chosen a particular medium to communicate these facts, and it is a written medium, as it turns out. There is no logical fallacy in any of this. In fact, this is the most logical source for facts to be revealed about me of all -- about me, from me.

The reason I say this is because the believer in atheist Dogma is of the incorrect opinion that stating facts about oneself is not a sound method for communicating them. However, this is simply not true -- stating facts about oneself is the preferred method in our day-to-day experience -- each person says what his name is, where he comes from, and mentions other personal characteristics upon introduction to another, and there is absolutely nothing illogical about this principle. The only thing "wrong" with it is that the believer in atheist Dogma doesn't like the fact that God uses the exact same principle to communicate facts about Himself, and that is actually not wrong at all -- it is as right as rain. The believer in atheist Dogma has no problem accepting this principle of information transmission when it comes to anyone except God, and that quirk is a logical shortcoming of the believer in atheist Dogma, not of the method of transmission. In fact, the believer in atheist Dogma hypocritically makes use of the same method himself when introducing himself or revealing facts about himself, while stubbornly attempting to prevent God from utilizing the very same method. That is prejudiced, illogical, inconsistent, and unscientific, and it simply does not fly.

Revealing facts about oneself is a perfectly valid method.

Proof is different from persuasion, and I have posted proof here, not persuasion.

No proof will ever persuade the believer in atheist Dogma of anything, as he has already come to his unscientific and premature conclusion (that God somehow doesn't exist), without even engaging in the first step of the scientific method in regards to God, what to speak of the other steps. The believer in atheist Dogma's irrational obsession with his premature conclusion precludes his ability to assess the facts in an honest and unbiased manner, which is something that I, unlike the believer in atheist Dogma, have managed to accomplish.

I do not expect to persuade the believer in atheist Dogma, just as I do not expect to persuade the pig, the fruit-fly, the pile of feces, or the slime-mold, but the proof is conclusive regardless of the mental handicaps of such unfortunate parties. The mental inability of the lower animal and the believer in atheist Dogma to apprehend the proof does not change the fact that it is conclusive proof. I know beforehand that the believer in atheist Dogma will cling to his premature, unscientific, and untrue conclusions about God, and I have no problem with that. None of it changes the fact that I have posted conclusive proof here.
tahirimanov

Con

Firstly, in my arguments I will neither deny God nor Revelation. As humans we can only know of God either by using rational faculties or by God revealing Himself. So we cannot prove the existence of God, but can have reasons to believe there is God. By that, we can question the one's reasons for their belief. If their reasons are baseless, then their belief is baseless also.

So let's analyze claims of Pro.

1- "God revealed many facts ...."
Where? How? For what purpose? How do you know they are facts? And etc.
2- "... I know the facts about myself better than you could."
No, you do not. Because I am god and this is my revelation to you.
3- Logic?
You can inform someone about where you live empirically. Study epistemology.
4- "... atheist Dogma ..."
Define Dogma first. And talking about atheist dogma does not prove your or any other point.

Pro's argument consists of 560 words (yes, I counted them one by one) and was answered in 4 points. I need better argument.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
Revelations. There has always been sick people around...
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"That of which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Of course, he asserted that very statement without any evidence, so....
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
That of which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I too did explain my own point, you did not.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone claimed, without offering any evidence for his claim, that "The starting analogy is bad at the start."

No it isn't.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Technically if an omniscient deity existed, he would know more about you than you do. He would know how many hairs were on your head and such. The starting analogy is bad at the start.
Posted by platoandaristotle 5 months ago
platoandaristotle
"I have no beliefs"
Including beliefs in God? You sure you're not a believer in atheist "Dogma?"
lol
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I have no beliefs, actually.
Posted by SirNoodles518 5 months ago
SirNoodles518
So you believe in God but don't necessarily identify yourself as a certain religion? Fair enough.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I don't have a religion.
Posted by SirNoodles518 5 months ago
SirNoodles518
Just out if interest, are you Christian?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.