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

Let's try this again. What is the proof that God exists?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
mall has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2020 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 257 times Debate No: 124111
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate goes to.

So present proof that God exists. Attempt to show practical examples and analogies. There's no point in links and citations as I'm only reading what's on this platform. You're the presenter, Present your case.

I'll attempt to question for validity and consistency. For the sake of this discussion I'm in opposition's advocate.

Any questions for me, For clarity, Please send a message or comment.


The proof of God will not be, At least from my perspective, A matter that can or should be demonstrated by the traditional dependence on any one, Or a combination of the five senses, To wit: sight, Hearing, Small, Taste, Or touch. I perceive these to be the tools employed in any scientific endeavor to find truth by the empiric method. That proof, To me, Must be demonstrated by repeatable, And reproducible means. That is, Any experiment aimed at discovery of truth beyond belief [fact beyond theory, If you will] must employ repeatable and reproducible steps to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Repeatable meaning that if I propose a theory, Such as that God exists, And lay out the steps to follow in the experiment, And I arrive at a conclusion. You, Or anyone, Using the same steps, Will arrive at the same conclusion. Reproducible meaning that I, Or anyone else, Can perform the experiment as defined, And reach the same conclusion on each iteration of the experiment. I trust you would agree with these ground rules, Regardless of the experiment proposed.

As I understand your challenge, It is to be able to demonstrate the existence of God, Using the format explained above. Assuming you agree, I will proceed. Beginning with my introduction, That typical scientific method will not suffice, I will first explain. The operative word being "typical, " as in the scientific method by empiric means, Which depends on use of the five senses listed above which we have acquired, By whatever means. Let us agree on that point of description of "the scientific method. "

I contend that God endows us, Purposefully, In addition to the five senses, At least a sixth. I will restrict my argument to that sixth. That we may have others, Such as is displayed in other animals, Sense of the magnetic field, For example, Remaining latent in us, May serve only as example that there may be additional senses to which we may have access at all. They, With the exception of one, Will not be discussed further by me [at least as I now anticipate].

That one additional sense I contend exists, I will call "faith. " I will define my understanding of this word, Because I believe many approach this word by separate definitions. I want mine to be perfectly clear. My definition concurs with the Apostle Paul, He who was instrument against the members of Christ"s original church in years of the first decades of the first century A. D. , And who Christ stopped, And re-directed to become a powerful advocate for Christ. In his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul defined faith as ""the substance of things hoped for, The evidence of things not seen. " [Hebrews 11: 1] I might add, Being exemplary, Things not heard, Smelled, Tasted, Or"

I must stop there, And will explain further on. Let"s first examine the operative words used, "substance, " and "evidence. " Let me first advise that I acknowledge that there may be errors in biblical text; that we do not have, Today, Any book of the Bible in its original text. That there are errors, Then, Is to be acknowledged as errors of transcription [copying] and errors of deliberate corruption via transcription and translation. This condition makes any proof of scripture difficult to demonstrate, And I acknowledge this. Nevertheless, What we have is what we have, And I"ll accept it based on the assumption of correct transcription and translation for at least a value as a guide of correct principles, If not exacting in every detail.

"Substance" and "evidence" are words akin to the scientific method, Even though they are combined with words such as "unseen, " and my humble additions. The comparison of these sets of words appear contradictory, Or at least do not belong together on first pass. Agreed?

Well, Not by tradition empiricism, No. Hence, My proposal of an additional sense by which proof of linkage between "substance, " et al, And "unseen, " et al, Exists. Faith is that link, And I contend it is not some mystical, Ethereal experience, But one of a variation on "touch, " the last of the five senses listed above. Touch, I think you will agree, Is a sensation that is wholly external, Even in the sense that it is expanded to include all orifices of the human body, Thus extending a short distance inward. This is easily demonstrated, And must be accepted. I contend that faith has a feature, When properly acted upon, Which creates an entirely internal sense of touch, Such as on the heart, If you will. I will explain further in another round.

Suffice for now to conclude that faith and belief are entirely different phenomena, Although belief is a sub-set of faith. To me, Belief makes no challenge on truth. We believe what we will, But there is no insistence to act on it. Faith, On the other hand, Demands action to make it effective. I will explain this, Also, In another round. Let"s stop my argument there for now.
Debate Round No. 1


You're presenting what faith is but what is the evidence for God existing? Existing in realty, To our environment, In our perception and consciousness, Where can we point to witness or observe the existence?

That's fine of what the scripture says, Which in order for that to be valid, One will use faith, To trust and believe in that and of any scripture.
Present something that will add to our knowledge like knowledge of the sun and all it's physical and indirect tangible characteristics.


Since my proof of God is primarily founded on faith [but, I do have other commentary] my first round had to acquaint you with my definition of faith, And how it works. Now I will proceed.

First, I reject the notion that God stopped speaking to man at the close of the first century A. D. , As is a common belief. But man does not have the power, Or authority to tell God to stop talking. He does. As it happens, We’re the ones who have applied ear lids since the design doesn’t happen to include them.

First, Let’s imagine that we’ve lost the ability of face-to-face communication between just us, But we still have our telephones. I call your number, But you do not answer. I get your answering machine. If I think you’re home, But just not answering, What do I say, Usually [as most people do]? “Hey, Mall, Are you there? ” Well, It’s a bit like that.

I will introduce you to a man who gave us the best formula there is to be in a state of ignorance [I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense; merely that one lacks knowledge]. His name was Moroni. Said he, If one lacks knowledge of a thing, Such as the existence of God, Ask. But first, There are a few preliminary steps, Something like encountering your answering machine, So that I can leave a coherent message. I don’t want to leave “ummm, Ahhhh, Errr…” I don’t want to waste your time on my absurd message. I must prepare a message. I may have to call back to leave it.

Here’s why. First, Since I need to ask a question of some importance, I need to be sincere in my request, I have to know my own heart, And know that it honestly seeks an answer; it is not merely curious about the time of day. I sincerely want to know. Here’s where faith comes in. Faith demands action, And it better be sure of itself. I don’t want to go in asking if God MIGHT be real. I MIGHT get an answer, And I MIGHT not. God does not cater much to fence-sitters. I know Jesus Christ is my advocate with the Father [God]. My faith in Christ must be forefront. Then, I must ask with that sincere heart. I must ask having real intent; I really want to know, Not casually, But with a urgent need. Remember, This is a sixth sense. Abandon the other five in this search, They are of no help.

Now I am ready. This is a matter of prayer; that form of communication with God that can be as forthright, Honest, And desirous of answer as in speaking face-to-face.

We cannot ask for a sign, Such, “Show me, God, You are real by shooting fireworks into space right here in my living room. ” That is asking God to prove Himself, And that’s likely not to happen on demand. Jesus taught that asking some things, To seek signs and miracles, Is not how it’s done. Signs and miracles do not create faith; they enforce the faith that is already there. And if it’s not, Get it. You want to know, Literally, What I did? I’ll tell you, Just as sincerely as I am able. I didn’t ask if God was real; I asked first if what Moroni said was true, That if I prayed sincerely, Without doubt, But with real intent to know, Would I receive the answer I sought. I did. My heart began to burn, And the feeling launched and expanded until my whole being felt illuminated in repeating waves. I felt glorious. Tears came to my eyes. Then I asked to know if God was, Indeed, The father of my spirit, That entity that gives me life, And endures beyond my death. Am I a child a God? Yes. I had the exact same sensation as before. Like I said in my first argument, It is the touch of the Holy Ghost on my heart, And that touch expands with such resonance, I cannot deny it any more than I could deny slapping my hand on a wood table would be a touch, As well. A painful one. But I cannot deny it, Can I?

There’s my first level of proof. And it is able to be reinforced. Moroni said that once the truth of one thing can be obtained, That the Holy Ghost, By the same means, Will manifest the truth of ALL things wherein we have need to know. Sometimes, We may want, But we do not need it. Sometimes, We must be willing to accept disappointment. Not that a thing is not true; just that the need is not yet there. The body of knowledge to be had is so vast; we have not the capacity, Yet, To sustain it. I’m willing to be patient. Howe3ver, The need to know God exists is of paramount importance. Seek Him diligently; with proper preparation and goodness of heart, He will be manifested to you. That. I can promise.

Likewise, I cannot expect that with that preparation to ask of God what is, And is not so, I must be in a condition of worthiness to ask. If I am in an attitude of serious sin [murder, Rape, Adultery, Theft], Of which I have not repented, How likely do you think it is the God is will to reveal anything to me? I must present to God a broken and contrite heart for my transgressions before I should feel worthy to seek His knowledge. Fix that, Show my commitment to repentance, And He will then offer knowledge I don’t currently have.

Is it easy? Not if we are burdened with wrongdoing. If we are worthy, Seeking righteousness, It becomes easier. I’ll admit I often stumble, And the result is I do not feel the presence of the Holy Ghost, And my answer to questions is stone cold silence, And a stupor of thought. Do I deserve more under those circumstances? No.

Debate Round No. 2


So you basically can't present proof. You don't have any proof outside of the proof to you. Is that right?


I refer you to the first paragraph of my first round argument, Wherein I clearly stated that proof of God effectively cannot be proven in a test tube. That means that I do not have proof by the traditional scientific method. That you refuse to acknowledge, And try the proving method I’ve provided implies that you do not agree there may be additional methods of proof. Why argue for your limitations, Because that is exactly what you are doing.
Learning is a process that invokes a variety of methods. True, Those methods are primarily restricted [by whose demand? ] to the five traditional senses, Sight, Hearing, Etc. , And people learn by those various methods; some by some senses better than others. So be it. Learning is the objective. Yes, Or no?
However, Whoever said that we are limited by those five senses. I suggested that among some animals, Primarily those that migrate, Have a sense of the Earth’s magnetic field, While also sharing, Probably, All five of our human-endowed senses. Are we limited to those five, Even while lesser intelligent creatures have more? Why would you argue that such is the case with humans, Ignoring that we possibly have senses one could never dream of. I contend that faith is one of those senses, And just because we cannot yet validate its existence in a test tube, So to speak, Does not necessarily mean we are not equipped with such a sense. We have just not created the measurement device to do so. Once upon a time, We had no better device t measure the weather than a licked finger thrust into the air. We are an inventive breed. Why limit that creativity.
Tell me why we observe so may attributes of clouds, And we haven’t yet the foggiest notion of what they do, Why they do it, Ands what benefit or suffering they cause, But for a small percentage of their exhibited traits.
I refer you to the article in Live Science, Titled “The Five [and More] Senses, ” https://www. Livescience. Com/60752-human-senses. Html. There’s more to us than meets the eye [literally].
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GodlessGourd 1 year ago
the sense of god is no proof. For that sense has not been proven to demonstrate a god. It seems that if there was a god sense and a god they would logically lead to each other, But no one has demonstrated either.
Posted by fauxlaw 1 year ago
before engaging in actual debate, I hope we can agree to keep the debate in a congenial attitude toward one another. I am not your enemy, And you should not be mine. By your commentary in launching the debate, I am hoping you agree. Though we may not agree on the matter you've presented in the debate, That is simply a matter of disagreement, And we may end up agreeing to disagree. I do not find that to be a failure on either part. To the debate, Then! Best wishes. .
This debate has 2 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.