Can God Be Proven? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Learn more about DebateIsland.com's EdTech solution aimed at Middle Schools and High Schools, DebateIsland Education, here!

Can God Be Proven?

Debate Information

The existence of God cannot be disproven.
But so what?

The existence of God can be proven.
But has such ever been proven, and will it ever be proven?


«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • My God is better than your God, why?
    It is represented as not being a religion...
  • @Swolliw

    There is a point of human denial God has not at a point been prove as existence of only religion. No one here has given a legal reason why an axiom is not God. No one. And, when God is an axiom it is proven as not a fictional idea only a rather simple principle understood or not understood. This means it can have a legal place in the presentation of governing matters under constitutional representation of governing by the people, for the people. The government is not helping and may be hindering the establishment of truth, and only the religious hold God as religion, as axiom GOD is of another thing.
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    The existence of God cannot be proven, empiricially but empiricism is not the only valid path to truth. For example, 1+1=2, is a form of a prior knowledge, which logical positivists and empiricists normally reject, yet this is an objective mathematical truth, that is derived from logical deduction. Can we empirically verify, or test that 1+1=2? One might say, yes for we can take one apple and another apple and add them together. But the moment you try to verify, 1+1=2, you fall into circular reasoning. You would be proving a mathematical truth (1+1=2) by using a mathematical truth (1=1, which is circular, and thus self-defeating. We have deductive arguments for God's existence.
  • The existence of God cannot be proven, empirically.

    Yes, GOD can be proven empirically however the request for empirical documentation required it must prove in the representation of separation from religious basic principles.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -   edited July 13
    @KhasimAmedu

    You are correct that every line of reasoning must necessarily start at certain unproven assumptions. However, those assumptions are not completely arbitrary and have to align with certain observable facts about this world.

    Now, your example is actually a bad one, as 1+1=2 is true by definition, from the way natural numbers are defined in the group theory. Number "2" is defined exactly as the number following "1" in the sequence, and so 1+1=2.
    A better example would be the axiom of parallels stating that, given a line and a point, there is exactly one line going through that point parallel to the original line. This is an axiom, meaning it is taken to be a fundamental assumption upon which everything else is built. Yet, if you think about it, it is not just a random assumption some drunk man came up with: it follows directly from human experience and intuition. It is hard to imagine what the Universe would look like if its geometry did not conform with this axiom, but it would certainly be something very different from what we see around us. We know that, no matter where we stand (aside from the north pole), there is exactly one direction pointing to the north from us. Existence of two such directions, or zero such directions, makes no sense and cannot be comprehended by human mind.

    God's existence cannot be posited in such a way, however: the world without god is absolutely imaginable and even constructable, as humans already have built countless interactive virtual worlds that are guided purely by machine code and do not need any "divine intervention" to work.
    You can also imagine a world with one god, a world with multiple gods, a world with infinity of gods, a world without gods, but with demigods, a world without gods or demigods, but with some peculiar creatures with certain outstanding powers... There is a myriad of possibilities, and there is no reason to single out one of them.

    What we do in science, however, is demand falsifiability of all theories we consider. If there is no way in principle to test a theory and find it to be false, then this theory is worthless. Much like shamanism: if you cannot set up an experiment where the outcome of a conducted shamanic ritual would necessarily be different from the outcome of a lack of such ritual conducted, then there is no reason to pay any heed to the idea of shamanism. Shamanism is a waste of time from the logical perspective, and so is religion and the idea of god.

    That is why religious people never can say anything concrete and always have to resort to some esoteric arguments such as, "Existence of god cannot be proven, but nor can it be disproven", "You can get a proof of god's existence if you just patiently wait for a revelation", "If you meditate on this ancient text long enough, then you will intuitively understand that god exists". It is always these shamanistic, esoteric, ethereal things that you take on faith and, eventually, get something intangible out of them that convinces you of everything.

    This is all bogus, of course. I can make up a lot of claims like this as well. You know, if you, instead of drinking a cup of coffee every morning, just sit, stare at it and meditate on the subtle motions of the liquid surface, then eventually you will be able to see this surface for what it is: a window into the realm of the Crocodile King. You cannot, of course, prove Crocodile King's existence - but, through sheer persistence and willpower, you can get the Crocodile King to reveal itself to you, in all its fangy glory! And then, when you die, instead of spending afterlife in the stomach of the Crocodile King, slowly being digested, you will spend it bathing in the King's river full of sexy female crocs fawning over you. Heaven!

    There may be many different valid paths to truth, indeed. But this is not one of them. A path that produces Crocodile Kings, witch doctors, gods, demons, goblins, unicorns, 72 virgins in the afterlife and other fantastic stuff is one that leads you to writing good fictional stories, not to understanding truths of the Universe.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    My God is better than your God

    And, don't we hear the same thing from every God worshipper, irrespective of whether or not they follow an organised code?

    "Oh but it is true, my God is better, he is the one and just so happens to be the only God and it is the truth". Now multiply that self-obsessed statement by at least, ten thousand.

    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    My God is better than your God, why?
    It is represented as not being a religion...
    ??

    A good synonym for religion is tribe.

    You are tribal by nature like we all are. This aside.

    Should a god not be judged by his moral worth, --- over all other considerations?

    Gnostic Christians think so. That is why we were quick to condemn Yahweh to hell for his evils.

    You say you have what a Gnostic Christian would call a Jesus consciousness. You have yet to go to a Christ mind and thinking more demographically.

    If your gods rules and morals cannot work for all, they need work.

    Regards
    DL


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @John_C_87
    My God is better than your God

    And, don't we hear the same thing from every God worshipper, irrespective of whether or not they follow an organised code?

    I like to hear that. 

    It allows me to challenge their morals and make them look sick, if they have the balls to engage in the first place.

    You have seen the theists here run for the hills at the mention of morals.

    That or the name calling starts.

    Regards

    DL

  • @Swolliw

    And, don't we hear the same thing from every God worshipper, irrespective of whether or not they follow an organised code?
    No...
    I don't worship my God it is an Axiom and I clearly often use my God. I can use my God it is not a swiss army knife but it has multiple uses...
  • Argument Topic: Synonym, homonym.

    @GnosticChristian

    God is a homonym it is a numerical value 89, or a phrase of logical (400,11,500) it is self-evident as a person would only need to apply logic to reason how to place in order 400,11,500 to get the value of 89. Number and numbers formed by letters GOD can not only be witnessed as a synonym as well as homonym when not represented in whole truth before a court of law, be it as a united state of judicial American courts or a united state of any country at liberty to address global issues by basic findings.

    I expect a person who is religious to be faithful to a commitment of belief to acknowledge an obvious basic principle like mathematics as it is not asking any follower to break faith, it is a request to say truth only.  
    GnosticChristian
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    The idea that "we are all naturally tribal" has always seemed wrong to me. Maybe I just have an anomalous brain and genes, but I have never felt the sense of belonging, or even the desire to belong, to any particular tribe. Ever since I was a little kid, I wanted to be independent, to spend as much time away from the familiar environment as possible, to explore new venues and meet new people.

    There certainly are certain biological inclinations people have that are a result of our tribal history, and there are millennia of social conditioning that have come into our societal evolution - but I do not think that, on an individual level, humans are tribal. People only act in tribal ways because these are the only ways they have ever known. But those, like me, who constantly sought new venues and experiences know many other ways, and finding them is just a matter of experimenting around and thinking. Most people are just too afraid to leave the comfortable shell of familiar experiences and people to realize that there is an entire world out there.

    Tribalism collapses pretty quickly when you encourage people to go out there in the world and interact with each other. They quickly see that there is nothing special about their "tribe". Have someone live in a completely different culture for a couple of years, and they will come home a very different person, with that characteristic smirk when hearing nationalistic and other tribalistic attributions: "Shows what you know, my friend!"

    I think that tribalism is more of an artificially induced trait, than some inevitable consequence of human biology.
    GnosticChristian
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    That is why religious people never can say anything concrete and always have to resort to some esoteric arguments such as, "Existence of god cannot be proven, but nor can it be disproven", "You can get a proof of god's existence if you just patiently wait for a revelation", "If you meditate on this ancient text long enough, then you will intuitively understand that god exists". It is always these shamanistic, esoteric, ethereal things that you take on faith and, eventually, get something intangible out of them that convinces you of everything.


    That’s a pretty accurate picture , it’s basically playing the mystery card as in “he works in mysterious ways “ or “his ways are not known to mere men “ 

    Metaphysical and theological statements are meaningless as they are are not matters of logic which would make them true by definition (a priori ) neither are they provable by empirical data.

    If a god or gods became explainable they would no longer be supernatural but part of the natural world 
    PlaffelvohfenMayCaesarJean
  • @Dee MayCaesar said:  "That is why religious people never can say anything concrete" Dee said: That’s a pretty accurate picture , it’s basically playing the mystery card as in “he works in mysterious ways “ or “his ways are not known to mere men “ john_C_87 said: concrete, a numerical axiom is not understood and letters are read as letters and not numbers regardless of information known about algebra mathematics.Thank you for both admitting you clearly see a separation of church and state created by constitutional principle and the human inability to understand a numerical axiom. The choice here is a person can choose to defend religion by ignoring basic principles that are obvious.

    Swolliw asks:
    Can god be proven?
     Yes.
    The existence of God cannot be disproven. Lie.
    But so what? Can become perjury under certain conditions. What!

    The existence of God can be proven. GOD and GOD alone, no religion assigned.
    But has such ever been proven, and will it ever be proven? Yes. It appears there may be a reason to believe that credit is not assigned where credit is due. You have become so accustomed to plagiarizing the idea of only a religious representation of GOD your debates topics are often just old habit and not factual.
    Jean
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    You have said nothing meaningful regards what I stated , if you can prove a god exists give it your best shot 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Indeed, "supernatural" pretty much equals "fantastical" as far as its relation to the real world goes.

    Religion is not only not falsifiable by design, but, furthermore, it is self-fulfilling by design. Every outcome of any experiment is interpreted by religious people as proof of their beliefs.
    Say, I want to test the idea that prayer is effective. I set up my experiment in the following way: I follow the exact same diet two years in a row, but the first year I do nothing else in particular, and the second year I pray to god asking it to help me with my weight loss. Suppose I also control for all the other factors, so the measured effect is as pure as possible.
    A scientist would interpret the results as follows: if the results of the second year are clearly stronger than the results of the first year, then prayer does have, at least, some effect. If that is not the case, then no.
    But here is how a religious person would interpret the three possible results:
    1. Weight loss was greater the second year than the first year: "This is proof that god listens to our prayers!"
    2. Weight loss was smaller the second year than the first year: "This is proof that god is testing our resolve!"
    3. Weight loss is equal both years: "This is proof that god approves of my diet and wants me to keep following it!"
    There is absolutely no outcome of this experiment that would be interpreted any way other than "This is proof that god exists and my understanding of it is correct". Even if, as a result of prayer and belief in god, one's life completely falls apart and everything they though god would do for them turned out to be the polar opposite of the real events, they will still conclude: "The god has given me all these trials to strengthen my faith; in the afterlife I will be rewarded for my perseverance!"

    So yes, god's existence can be "proven" in this ludicrous way, in the same sense that any statement in principle can be "proven". I can claim that 2+2=5 and see evidence for it everywhere. There is a brown car driving by my home just now... The word "brown" contains 5 letters. Clear proof that 2+2=5!
    Dee
  • Dee said:
    @John_C_87

    You have said nothing meaningful regards what I stated , if you can prove a god exists give it your best shot 
    Even if I were to agree with you... I don't.
    Yes, you are correct in a way, I state nothing creditable to a criminal lack of representation Dee holds. All I can, or any credible witness ever do is prove a person can not understand a proven GOD. Your independence though shared as a democratic common cause is not a united state. All I am doing is in any of our conversations is proving you cannot understand some basic information. You blame me for the inability I agree, I cannot teach you math, I am not paid to teach you math.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @GnosticChristian

    The idea that "we are all naturally tribal" has always seemed wrong to me. Maybe I just have an anomalous brain and genes, but I have never felt the sense of belonging, or even the desire to belong, to any particular tribe. Ever since I was a little kid, I wanted to be independent, to spend as much time away from the familiar environment as possible, to explore new venues and meet new people.

    There certainly are certain biological inclinations people have that are a result of our tribal history, and there are millennia of social conditioning that have come into our societal evolution - but I do not think that, on an individual level, humans are tribal. People only act in tribal ways because these are the only ways they have ever known. But those, like me, who constantly sought new venues and experiences know many other ways, and finding them is just a matter of experimenting around and thinking. Most people are just too afraid to leave the comfortable shell of familiar experiences and people to realize that there is an entire world out there.

    Tribalism collapses pretty quickly when you encourage people to go out there in the world and interact with each other. They quickly see that there is nothing special about their "tribe". Have someone live in a completely different culture for a couple of years, and they will come home a very different person, with that characteristic smirk when hearing nationalistic and other tribalistic attributions: "Shows what you know, my friend!"

    I think that tribalism is more of an artificially induced trait, than some inevitable consequence of human biology.
    Not artificial. Real.

    You do not know your own genetic character.

    Your first tribe, or human affiliation you could not live without, was likely your mother.

    If you bonded with her, or anyone else who fed you, that was your tribal nature making you make friends, so to speak.

    We are the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet. We naturally seek the protections and benefits of a tribe that we cannot live without.

    As Socrates said of those trying to live without tribes. Who will make your shoes?

    Meaning, of course and obviously, that we all rely and need each other.
     
    Regards
    DL


     
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Or, perhaps, I bonded with my mother exactly because I depended on her in reality, and not because my ancestors depended on their mothers. More likely, it is a combination of these two factors, but the former seems more likely to be the dominant one to me.
    I have not bonded with many people most other people do. For example, I have good relations with my aunts and uncles, but I have never felt that close to them; they have never felt that special to me. If you look at Chinese families, for example, you will see that they are large tight-knit communities, with multiple generations maintaining very close relationships - from the perspective of a Chinese person, this is all natural, as this is how humans have lived for dozens thousands years. Yet the same phenomenon is not observed in many Western cultures, despite being populated by people with the same general genetic structure and having the same general approach to society building.

    Nowadays one independent person can survive and even thrive very well, without any tribal behaviors coming into place. A businessman may have no friends or family members, yet live a very happy and prosperous life, as he offers something to other people and they are willing to pay to him. Tribalism can be completely foregone, and people can interact as individuals.

    For that matter, there are people who barely interact with anyone. They do their freelance job for remote clients, get paid remotely, order deliveries remotely - all the while living far better lives than any of their tribal ancestors have ever lived.
    These people do not seem to be suffering from some emotional deficiency caused by not partaking in tribal behaviors. They would had tribalism been, indeed, a part of our nature.

    Now, some behavioral psychologists claim that people do suffer from such deficiency, it is just not very obvious, as modern life allows one to mask and put those emotions away, distracting themselves with things to do. Jordan Peterson, for example, advocates for this idea. This is a fairly reasonable claim.
    It does not, however, explain people like me, who really, actually do not experience such deficiency. I can go hiking for a weekend completely alone, with as few distractions as humanly possible, away from any civilization - and not feel an ounce of desire to have someone walk by my side. It is not that I dislike people; it is, rather, that I do not experience the need to belong to any groups of people.
    Perhaps, in Jordan's view, people like me exist and just have certain anomalies in the structure of their brain. If that is so, then I am wrong and am trying to extrapolate my psychology onto the rest of humanity. I have yet to see any evidence of this being the case, however. As far as I can tell, tribalism is a consequence of irrational thinking, and that can be easily remedied on the individual level.
    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian
    @MayCaesar

    But aren't you both simply trying to identify a specification of what God is said to be?
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @GnosticChristian

    1.   Or, perhaps, I bonded with my mother exactly because I depended on her in reality, and not because my ancestors depended on their mothers. More likely, it is a combination of these two factors, but the former seems more likely to be the dominant one to me.

    2.   I have not bonded with many people most other people do.

    3.   Tribalism can be completely foregone, and people can interact as individuals.

    4.   As far as I can tell, tribalism is a consequence of irrational thinking, and that can be easily remedied on the individual level.
    1. Bonding within a family is our first tribal bond. Then it extends to our towns etc. as they provide all that we need. No one individual can live without others.

    2. Ditto.

    3. Only later in life can initial bonds be ignored, but if as you indicate you are interacting with others, some kind of bond must be between you.

    4. Tribalism is our default position when born and we must maintain some semblance of it throughout life. Our tribalism is there to also push for and be the remedy for our fellowship needs, which are synonymous with tribal needs.

    Regards
    DL
     
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @GnosticChristian
    @MayCaesar

    But aren't you both simply trying to identify a specification of what God is said to be?
    More like looking at how evolution leds us.

    If I wanted to define god, I would post this old O.P.

    Let me know who your god is.

    --------------

    Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

     

    You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

     

    The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation and “I am”, represents the best rules and laws that we have found to live by.

     

    In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

     

    That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

     

    Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

     

    Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

      

    John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

     

    Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

     

    Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

     

     

    Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

     

     

    The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

     

    Regards

    DL


  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    All I can, or any credible witness ever do is prove a person can not understand a proven GOD.

    There is no “proven god “ to start with the person who proves such would win a Nobel prize , have you won one?

    If not why not?

     Your independence though shared as a democratic common cause is not a united state. 

    What that piece of insanity in print means is beyond me 

    All I am doing is in any of our conversations is proving you cannot understand some basic information.

    All you’re proving is you need serious mental health intervention 


     You blame me for the inability I agree, I cannot teach you math, I am not paid to teach you math.

    You cannot teach anyone what you don’t know …….regards math your level is junior grade and actually that’s an insult to junior graders 

    So again give it a go Homer what’s your best god proof ? Put up or shut up 
    GnosticChristian
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    You seem to just have ignored my arguments and reiterated your position. I do not see the point in repeating myself.

    It seems to me that you are assuming that every interaction between human beings is related to tribalism. But tribalism is a very particular mindset. I am not being tribal when I am buying groceries and paying to the cashier, friendlily chatting in the process: we are performing a mutually beneficial business transaction and enjoy each other's company, is all.
    I would be tribal, however, if I believed that I have some obligation to further the interests of my "nation", "race", political group or any other group entity by nature of me being a part of that entity. I do not, nor do I act as if I did.

    There is nothing in human genes that suggests the natural affinity to uniting into groups and furthering interests of those groups. I care about my family members by nature of knowing them personally, but I could not care less about my family itself: "family" is just a social construct. "Family tree", "family lineage", "family influence", "family wealth" - these terms mean nothing to me, and there has never been a point in my life when they meant anything more than nothing to me.

    When you are born, you cannot feed yourself, hence you have to rely on others to be fed. It is not a result of some "tribal instinct"; it is a result of the basic strive towards survival. Now, there may be more to it than that; I simply do not think that there is much of this "more" in there, and I have never seen evidence that would suggest otherwise. I have only seen a lot of claims with arguments along the lines of "it is obvious", "it makes sense", etc. Which serve the same purpose as "you cannot prove that god does not exist" serves in religion: an excuse to explain away people's irrationality.

    When someone believes in Zeus simply because everyone around them also believes in Zeus, their belief is not a product of some hard biological programming. Their belief is simply a logical mistake born from the lack of their desire to dig deeper under the surface than just "Uncle John says X, so I better believe in X, so I can get along with uncle John". Now, you could say that, in turn, the lack of their desire to dig deeper is a product of hard biological programming... But that is a very abstract philosophical matter warranting a separate discussion.
    GnosticChristian
  • @Dee

    What that piece of insanity in print means is beyond me.
    I agree.
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87



    Your only way of avoiding posting up your best god  proof …..cause you got none 
    GnosticChristian
  • Dee said:
    @John_C_87



    Your only way of avoiding posting up your best god  proof …..cause you got none 
    I'm not proving GOD...
    I'm proving a numerical axiom that looks like a word and you simply cannot understand it. The reason for any lack of understanding is to be my emotional stability and you admitted that along with the basic principle of learning is beyond you...I agree Dee the grasp of a numerical axiom is beyond you, FYI this means you have come to an understanding of something tangent and just cannot comprehend its connection. You are contradicting yourself by then going on to say I have nothing as you said earlier I have something that you cannot understand for whatever reason you hold other than it not being tangible proof.
    GnosticChristian
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -   edited July 18
    @John_C_87

    I'm not proving GOD...

    Yes that’s what I said 

    I'm proving a numerical axiom that looks like a word and you simply cannot understand it.

    You haven’t posted one or proved one and it has nothing to do with god 

    The reason for any lack of understanding is to be my emotional stability and you admitted that along with the basic principle of learning is beyond you...I agree Dee the grasp of a numerical axiom is beyond you

    Utter nonsense 

    , FYI this means you have come to an understanding of something tangent and just cannot comprehend its connection. You are contradicting yourself by then going on to say I have nothing as you said earlier I have something that you cannot understand for whatever reason you hold other than it not being tangible proof.

    So still no proof got ya 
    GnosticChristian
  • @Dee
    I'm not proving GOD...
    Yes that’s what I said 
    No, you said God does not exist.
    Whereas I say an axiom can look like GOD when written and many can not tell the difference.
    The difference in basic principle is you need to discredit me, personally, by use of insanity. While I simply need to point out how people as a united state mistaken GOD as having come to resemble a religion after a number of years.

    In order to keep any proof admissible and to establish that all proof was not hidden from an investigation for a court of law enforcement, instruction is given on locations to collect evidence as proof for yourself. This is no proof for you do not collect the proof which has been explained as being accessible to you. When describing negligence I have the burden according to counsel to establish that negligence is the creator of harm and damage in some way.








    GnosticChristian
  • The American 1st Amendment does not state that Congress shall not help nor hinder the establishment of truth nor axiom...Only religion.
    While international free speech is a claim the words can prove to come with a cost that is hidden or can be proven incorrect.
    GnosticChristian
  • Dee said:
    @John_C_87



    Your only way of avoiding posting up your best god  proof …..cause you got none 
    I do not need to hold the proof which is available to us all...
    So I do not hold any proof...The evidence is not so fragile it cannot prevail or must be located with complex and sophisticated forms of science.
    If you question the existence of algebra or roman numerals at this point you are welcome to make a credible response in this informal debate on how they do not exist, nor ever did. You do not need to prove they didn't exist the goal is only that the numbers written with letters cannot be mistaken by people as word, 
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristian
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    Glad it makes you laugh that no one can prove god exists 

    What has what " in God with trust " got to with whether a god can be proved? 
    GnosticChristian
  • Glad it makes you laugh that no one can prove God exists.

    I proved it... of course, it's funny, anyone can prove it, it can be proven with little effort, it makes me laugh how easily it can be done. In basic principle saying not everyone can understand how GOD exists by the legal civil action is not the same as saying religion or lawyer can not make human mistakes in representation in court is kind.
    GnosticChristian
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1504 Pts   -  

    Can God Be Proven?

    Theoretically, the existence of God could be proven, past presuppositional beliefs that is. If we currently live in a simulation, the simulation's authors may have thought it would be funny to install a God mod. But assuming our presuppositional beliefs are true (e.g. that this consciousness is indeed reality) it would be possible for God's existence to be proven.
    BUT.
    There is currently no proof whatsoever for the existence of God, and as a result, atheism is the most reasonable position. You're welcome.
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -   edited July 18
    MayCaesar said:


    "There is nothing in human genes that suggests the natural affinity to uniting into groups and furthering interests of those groups."

    Really.

    Name any one person or group who is not forced to be tribal or has to rely on the tribe to live.

    What type of human can live from birth to death without his or her tribe?

    Have a look at this scholar on tribalism.

    The Groupish Gene - Jonathan Haidt - YouTube

    Regards
    DL




  • @xlJ_dolphin_473
    There is currently no proof whatsoever for the existence of God, and as a result, atheism is the most reasonable position. You're welcome.
    Numerical axiom is the explanation of evidence as proof for existence...
    If you understand that roman numerals exist and that algebra is a form of language then proof exists and you simply are saying you are no willing to accept and evidence of a god other than religious testimony.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Once again, not every interaction with other people is a manifestation of tribalism. "Tribalism" refers to something very specific: valuing a group of individuals as a separate entity, one worth preserving and promoting above the interest of its individual members. An example of a tribal ideology, for example, is nationalism: seeing a "nation" not just as a group of individuals living together, but as an entity in itself with some inherent values promoting which warrants sacrificing one's own interests and, sometimes, even one's own life.
    When you think tribally, you think about promoting your tribe. Just interacting with members who happen to be a part of your tribe is not that.

    I do not have a "tribe" that I belong to. Now, you can be very dodgy here and say, "Your tribe is the whole humanity". That would be stretching the concept of a "tribe", but okay, let it be a correct use of terminology. Even then you would be wrong: if we one day encounter an alien species who are just as intelligent, if not more, than humans, then I will be just as willing to interact with those aliens as equals as I am with humans. Or, if human-like robots emerge one day and start walking our planet, I will regard them as equals and not think less of them than humans. I might even fall in love with a robot and give up my life to protect his/her/its life. It would be a purely individualistic decision, having nothing to do with any "tribes".

    Jonathan Haidt on the video is simply pointing out a well known phenomenon: that human organism has developed in a way that encourages cooperation. Cooperation happens to be very effective in natural competition, and virtually all macroscopic animals have developed mechanisms that urge them to be social and able to develop consensus peacefully when working together in small groups.
    Cooperation in itself is not necessarily tribal. I can trade with a merchant and then walk away, never seeing them again. They are not a part of my life in any meaningful sense. Our interaction was mutually beneficial, and as soon as our ability to benefit each other has run out, we have parted ways.
    Tribes do not work in that fashion. Being a member of a tribe is a very long-term, sometimes lifelong, commitment, and just as it is not easy to become a member of a tribe, it sometimes is even harder to live that tribe. It was not uncommon for primal tribes to execute those who spoke against the implicit core values of the tribe, as the tribal members valued the integrity of the tribe far more than the well-being of its individual members.

    Organized religion is a tribal phenomenon. Free market interaction is not. Wars between nations are. Encounters with highwaymen are not. "One child" policy in China is. Lovemaking between two lovers under the moon by the lake is not.
    GnosticChristian
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473

    In basic practice any reason for letters being placed together with other than word of religion in the 1st Amendment means.
    G, O, D, GOD can be proven, then harm can be established, and then officials in a court of law, outside the Courts of law, Exsecutive office or Congress can then be proven to have been a part in the reasoning to conclude GOD is only religious.

    A false GOD is not one that is not identifying itself as non-religious in its nature it is the one that claims to be only a religion when in fact it is not.
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    I proved it..

    No you didn’t which is why you refuse to show the site your best god proof , as put up or shut up 
  • No you didn’t which is why you refuse to show the site your best god proof, as put up or shut up 

    Yes, the method of finding proof had been instructed for you many times before and is not a problem to do again for it is not just on one website, the evidence has many locations and is in use as a basic principle, GOD need not be translated as a religion by a lawyer or witness as being only words created from letters, mathematic referencing is the only presumption of innocence explaining the allowance of representation in governing by the First Amendment as an addition without cost in its declaration instantly suggests negligence. The proof of numbers instead of words describes a mistake in the human translation of basic principles as simple legal precedent.

    By the way, GOD only needs to be established as a numerical translation longer than It has been in use as a display in relation to America's governing by its legal independence.
    What the axiom provides in the way of public governed use is people are subject to believe lies based often on appearances only it is not accorded to discrimination or prejudice.

    : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

    Axiom | Definition of Axiom by Merriam-Webster

     Why all the letters in algebra? | Introduction to algebra | Algebra I | Khan Academy - Bing video

    History of ancient numeral systems - Wikipedia

    Hebrew Letters as Numbers (hebrew4christians.com)

    Roman Numerals Chart | RomanNumerals.guide

  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    No, you said God does not exist


    I didn’t , I never made such a statement I asked you to back your assertions up you continuously fail to do so because you cannot 
    GnosticChristian
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    An Axiom does not describe what a god is also any true axioms will leave out some truths as unprovable , this is pretty basic stuff you are totally oblivious too ,Gödel’s incompleteness theorem seems to establish a limit on what mathematicians can know unless you know better than Godel 
  • Argument Topic: A Line-up is a legal precedent

    Not provable?

    (1.) God
    (2.) GOD
    (3.)  god
    (4.) GOD
    (5.) God
    (6.) god

    Pick out which one choice (1 - 6 ) is a word taken from a religious context?
    Only one of these letters spell a word the others are basic forms of mathematics.
    Extra credit pick which mathematic problem will be performed incorrectly due to lack of complete understanding of the rules of the equation?

    Gödel’s incompleteness theorem seems to establish a limit on what mathematicians can know unless you know better than Godel. ( Nice reference)
    This is not a contest of intelligence it is nothing more than a comparison of basic observation. Is the grammar in the context of how GOD is used always enough to hold the definition as a word only? No.

    An Axiom does not describe what a god is also any true axioms will leave out some truths as unprovable.
    IV (4.) is a mathematical statement presumed to be true by those who use roman numerals every day. Are trying to say that a principle of mathematics cannot share the same connections to a state of freedom as speech or press?
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    What a pile of utter gibberish , your illness is escalating 
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @GnosticChristian

    I do not have a "tribe" that I belong to.
    You were born in a tribe. Then accepted your neighborhood as extended tribe.

    When did you stop interacting with people and leave your tribe?

    You mentioned you still do and that makes you tribal.

    You can try to complicate things, but when you rely on others in your tribe for so much, it is anti logic to think one is not tribal or free from it.

    Regards
    DL
  • In basic principle, you are now making a claim that using a calculation as a general model is not a powerful statement to be made. Yet! No answer from Dee or GnosticChristian use your knowledge and pick out the one word from five numerical values. What would you know of illness, my illness, or any illness my human frailty has nothing to do with the display of evidence shown when two grown people can not point out the five homonyms.

    See, it isn't that you cannot find the one in six right answer which might be seen as being week by an educational standard. It is that you can not see the five in six right answers which describe your opinion on religion as a falacy.
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    In basic principle, you are now making a claim that using a calculation as a general model is not a powerful statement to be made. Yet! No answer from Dee or GnosticChristian use your knowledge and pick out the one word from five numerical values. What would you know of illness, my illness, or any illness my human frailty has nothing to do with the display of evidence shown when two grown people can not point out the five homonyms.

    See, it isn't that you cannot find the one in six right answer which might be seen as being week by an educational standard. It is that you can not see the five in six right answers which describe your opinion on religion as a falacy.
    You say, without an argument against whatever opinions of mine you are talking about.

    How droll.

    Regards
    DL
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    More nonsense all because you cannot present your so called “god proof “ , because you got none …..you’re mentally unwell and need treatment 
    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian
    You say, without an argument against whatever opinions of mine you are talking about.
    reference to Comment.

    GnosticChristian
  • The problem Dee is even and 100 proof you are still only at about 50% ...understanding.
    GnosticChristian
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch