What is the proof that God exists?

You have not proven God exists according to my request.

You're are correct to admit that you took advantage of the broad topic statement. You took the liberty to specify one place to prove God's existence. In this case in a literary sense.

But it works both ways. So because I was broad and didn't specify, it is therefore not illegal or invalid to further challenge the burden of proof as it's within a broad context.

The burden is still on your shoulders to relieve with demonstrating the existence of God in the literal sense.

See if the topic statement was: prove that God is mentioned in a book or prove God's existence in at least one place, then I would have no grounds to move forward.

1. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/practical
   
2. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/repeatable
   

My request that you wish not to admit is to prove God in a literal sense.

If what you're doing is repeatable, why can't you REPEAT the process for my request of LITERAL evidence? I guess we know why.

I admitted it in the previous round.

I congratulated you on choosing an area of which I never specified

The problem is, you're not able to verify that's all you need to do without checking with me.

It's just like me saying " bring me the car". You choose to bring me a Buick. I can say it's a car but not the one I wanted. You can't say you brought me the correct car because I never specified. See it was your job to get clarity first.

So I can continue to request repeatable, repeatable, repeatable examples of evidence. Not just in one instance but over and over again.

You've demonstrated that YOU CANNOT REPEAT THIS TRIAL.

So how is it incorrect for me to choose like you did?

How is it wrong for me to request you to repeat what you did as the premise states?

See you're doing all the deciding in how you want to play the premise as it's the only way to hide from what you can't do.

So if I didn't specify to you which of the select condiments to put on my sandwich, are you going to say I stated ketchup and I'm wrong for not accepting it on my food? Am I wrong for not just accepting that and requesting more flavor?

You can't decide where to stop at to address this

I never indicated that, did I? 

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE GOAL POST IS WHEN I DIDN'T SPECIFY WHERE?

Please attempt to provide practical, Repeatable examples that present the existence of God.

God - The figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [1]

exists - Has objective reality or being.

1.1 Is found, especially in a particular place or situation. [2]

You're choosing wherever it is that makes it easy for you.

If I ask you,"are you going to work?" and you say" yes "proceeding to go to the place of your employment, the goalpost is not moved if you stop to do some remodeling WORK on your house. Better yet, in lieu of your WORK for a living, you're still at WORK with the house renovation.

See I put the goalpost out in the field somewhere. Way out somewhere in a vast field. I didn't tell where the goal line is for you to reach it. Saying "prove God" is as broad as saying something is somewhere in around the neighborhood of.

It's not exact , so you can't be sure what you've done to meet the criteria.

You can say you proved something, I can say you did not. Under what terms? Ah haaa.

One is specific, the other's broad.

One has not been shown to be proven repeatably in a numerous amount of areas as the premise laid out. Your limitation is in one area. No repeats after that so concede to that.

If something exists in one place, does it exist anywhere else? If you provide no evidence for anything else where, how can you say you proved it? 

Another matter is with you choosing a specification in the definition of God. The meaning of God must be just as vast , widespread and broad as the concept. I understand God in concept is suppose to be ALMIGHTY, supreme, omnipotent. This would mean a vast and extensive nature which means omnipresent and all-encompassing.

What kind of deity did you prove existing in the presence of one place?

1. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html
   

• Since the proof is found within the bible, it is of the actual use of something (the bible).
  
• Since anyone who has a bible can repeat my proof and find it to be valid and sound, it is repeatable.
  
• Since the figure that Christians and others in monotheistic religions regard as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority (God) is shown to be found in at least one place (the bible), it proves that God exists.
  

So because this is just going in circles, we've reached the end of this  topic.

So just to reiterate and to make it clear, you did not prove God exists literally. You can admit that or not.

You chose to show that a book exists, the Bible. In that Bible, if you don't know this, ignorance is no excuse but the book defines God as being everywhere, that there's no hiding place from this being. This YOU DID NOT PROVE. YOU SHOWED WHAT A BOOK SAYS. NAMELY A NAME, PUN INTENDED.

SO WHAT DID YOU DO? YOU SELECTED A SPECIFICATION. DID YOU NOT DO THIS? YOU DID THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.

SO BY THAT SAME RULE, I CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SPECIFICATION. SO IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING OF THE TOPIC BECAUSE THE TOPIC DIDN'T SPECIFY.

YOU'RE RUNNING FROM THIS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE REPEATABLY BEYOND ONE POINT TO GO INTO MULTIPLE AREAS... NOW ADMIT IT OR NOT, YOU CAN'T REPEAT THIS BEYOND ONE DEMONSTRATION OF ONE KIND.

YOU CAN REPEAT ONE EXAMPLE OVER AND OVER, EXCELLENT.

You continue to say this or that isn't necessary as a cop out to avoid conceding that a broad statement has a back bite, double edge slicing effect. The statement doesn't just have to stop where you want but you refuse for it to be expanded as obviously, it ruins your tactic.

But you should have been prepared for that. The premise stated REPEATABLE , expect that to be with more than one thing.

Expect to have your arguments tested over and over again.

Being that there are MULTIPLE avenues to show God's existence like in a dream, in a prayer, movie or just by mentioning the name of God in this debate,

By the logic you chose to introduce here, God exists because we can say a name. Did I prove God existed or the name?

Each avenue is a REPETITION in which you've failed to understand.

SO I DIDN'T MOVE THE GOALPOST JUST AS YOU DIDN'T. WHY? THE GOALPOST WAS NOT SPECIFIED WHERE IN THE FIELD IT WAS PLACED. IF THE TOPIC STATEMENT IS THE GOAL POST, THEN YOU MOVED IT BY CHOOSING A SPECIFICATION WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AFTER EVERYTHING I JUST STATED.

The thing is, you weren't prepared for me to do what you did. I understand that you won't concede to that.

The analogies I gave were correct. Instead of you CONCEDING to that, you just respond  in dismissals basically stating this isn't appropriate, this isn't appropriate. 

In regards to REPEATABLE demonstations, what is the point of repeating one example in one place to ONE person such as I?

You're in this debate with me, you have to repeat these verifications to me. 

I understand that 2 plus 2 is four but I want further convincing, beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is true. I'm looking for consistency so what do you do? How can this be demonstrated, explained besides in a small window of knowledge? 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 is four, 3 plus 1, 2 times twice as many is four.

See to get greater knowledge of a word, you don't do it by using a definition with that word in it, you have to continue to employ other avenues and words to greater define what you're talking about.

So what have you done? Proven at the least THE NAME OF GOD EXISTING. THE TOPIC STATEMENT DIDN'T SAY PROVE THE NAME EXISTS, THAT'S OBVIOUS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, WHAT TYPE OF DEITY DID YOU PROVE? DOES DEITY MEAN NAME, NOT AN ACTUAL BEING? 

You're coming at this debate challenge so sideways as DIRECTLY walking into it face forward is futile.

• Pro opened the debate with the BOP in the description.
  
• I made an opening argument fulfilling the BOP.
  
• Pro then decided to limit the scope to exclude the proof, thus changing the BOP.
  
• I called Pro out on moving the goalposts.
  
• Pro used faulty analogies, among other things, to try and justify moving the goalposts.
  
• I called out Pro for this and countered all of Pro's other points.
  
• In the end, my opening argument still stands.