The Abrahamic God can not be proven to exist
Debate Rounds (5)
I thank my opponent for being prompt in his response.
My opponent attacked my way of proving whether or not God exists by saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact. Just to clarify for my voters, I am alive. And I have proposed a completely possible way to find out if God does or does not exist. Because of this, my opponent's defense of my preposition falls, and my preposition flows through.
Since I have defended my side of the argument, I would like to point out that Pro has not given any indication as to how God cannot be proven to exist. As any experienced debaters will know, the burder of proof falls on the Pro unless specified otherwise. What this means is that it is not the Con's job to come up with proof. It is the Pro's job. Because Pro has not fulfilled his duty as Pro to empirically show that God cannot be proven to exist, there can be no other ballot than that of the Con.
My main problem with this is the part where my opponent says "if you die and nothing happens he doesn't exist."
So my next question to pro is: "How can a dead man know anything?" does the brain not stop functioning at the time of death? If there are no active sensory receptors at death then how could a dead man know anything.
I believe what my opponent is arguing is the existence of a soul. which is not what this debate is about.
My opponent also stated "My opponent attacked my way of proving whether or not God exists by saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact. Just to clarify for my voters, I am alive. And I have proposed a completely possible way to find out if God does or does not exist."
One problem I have with this argument is where con states "saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact." I must correct con on his argument by reminding him that I said that it must be a world accepted fact. Not just that of one person.
My opponent also claimed that since i did not fulfill my duty as a Pro that my argument was incorrect. This is obviously an ad hominem logical fallacy which should not be apparent in a debate. This fact should have no affect however on Cons argument.
One more thing.The inability to, "prove", in any sense of the word, that the Abrahamic God exists or doesn't exist is an impossible request because there is no quantifiable test that proves the existence or nonexistence of said God so no way to prove the negative or the non-existence. It is up to con to provide proof of this claim.
Pro said that I am arguing the existence of a soul. I would like to point out that if God does exist, then everyone has a soul, according to the Bible, which is where the Abrahamic God comes from. So, in a roundabout way, I am arguing that souls can be proven to exist by showing that God can be proven to exist, which I have; die, and you'll know.
He also said that "proof" is to be considered a "worldly accepted fact". I think that everyone can agree that if you die, you'll find out if God is real.
Another thing: my opponent does not know what "ad hominem" is. For my voters, ad hominem is a logical fallacy when you attack the person instead of the argument. An example of ad hominem would be, "My opponent is dumb, and therefore his argument is invalid." I have not once insulted my opponent. My attack that he said was ad hominem is not, in fact, ad hominem. I was stating that, as Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof. He must show that God cannot be proven to exist. Since all he has done this whole round is attempt to refute my arguments, and has not posted a case of his own, he has no ground to stand on. I however, have provided a viable way to prove that God does or does not exist.
Because it is completely possible to prove that God exists (by dying), and because my opponent has not refuted this, I see no other ballot than that of the Con.
Since my opponent has not refuted any of my arguments successfully and has not defended the attacks I made in the previous round, they all flow through and therefore my opponent's case (or lack of one) falls, and there can be no other ballot than that of Con. I extend my previous arguments.
My opponent said that I am arguing for the existence of God. To put it simply, no, I am not. The resolution says that God can't be proven to exist, and I have shown that he can be proven to exist or not exist. And yes, if you die and something happens, then that confirms the existence or nonexistence of God. If, like in the example my opponent brought up, you die and see Vishnu, then you will know that God doesn't exist, therefore upholding the resolution.
Also, I find it depressing that Pro must resort to vulgarity to defend his pathetic points? A dildo god? Really?
I also find it interesting that, even though I am a freshman in high school, I have provided far more convincing arguments, was far more mature, far better manners, and had far better spelling, punctuation, capitalization and grammar than my opponent, a 22-year-old.
Because my opponent made a negligible defense of my attacks that I have easily refuted, I see no other ballot than that of the Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.