God is not real and cannot be proven

Alright, I don't want to get deeper into this with you than I already have, so I'm just going to say that the absence of evidence is only evidence of absence in that it affects the probability of making something existing, but it doesn't typically prove something doesn't exist at all. You can use the lack of any direct evidence for God as evidence that one doesn't likely exist and that's valid. You just can't use it as proof that no God exists. That's the point I'm trying to make here. If you disagree with that, then idk what to tell you.

Anyway, I'm not going to carry on this particular conversation any further.

Casey already said it better than I can and she understands how BOP works

>That's the thing though, Con doesn't have to prove anything if you have the burden of proof. All they have to do is show how your arguments are insufficient to prove God does not exist, which they are.

The lack of evidence for the existence of God is frequently interpreted as evidence of absence. It is illogical to demand that people disprove the existence of something that has never been proven. This is comparable to being asked to prove that someone lacks insurance without any evidence indicating they have it. Therefore, the fact that the universe's creation cannot be attributed to a deity through the laws of thermodynamics, coupled with the complete absence of empirical proof of God, suffices for me to convincingly argue that God does not exist and cannot be empirically proven.

If that is insufficient for you, then perhaps nothing will ever suffice, as you may always find yourself in a situation where you think something might be real despite lacking evidence, and no argument could persuade you otherwise, given that the stance itself is contradictory.

>Incorrect. Again, you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are making the invalid assumption that because something has not been proven, it cannot be proven and must therefore be false. Mathematicians have been trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis for decades and have been unable to, yet there is still little doubt that it's actually true.

That's incorrect. First, mathematics is not always empirical. When we engage with empirical mathematics, we are dealing with immutable truths; for example, 1+1 will always equal 2. In the case of the Riemann Hypothesis, we are dealing with a theory that, by your own admission, has not been proven and thus cannot be declared as true.

Secondly, I am not committing an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. I am following the established principles of the scientific method. To substantiate something, we must observe it, develop theories based on these observations, and then test these theories to reach a conclusion. This process is fundamental to science and empirical reasoning. Since God cannot be physically observed, no theory about God can be formulated, and thus, God cannot be empirically proven. Unless one argues that science itself commits an "argument from ignorance" fallacy, the assertion that I am making such a fallacy is not valid.

>Many theorems have been proven that rely on it being true. Again, Con doesn't have the BoP here and doesn't have to prove that God exists. As long as they can prove that his existence is at least possible, then they win.

You may argue that Con does not bear the burden of proof and that it lies with me, but this is ultimately irrelevant for two reasons. First, even if we agree that I carry the burden of proof, I have already established it through the absence of evidence, which is considered a form of evidence. Second, the only way Con can effectively counter my argument of evidence absence is by providing evidence.

Finally, given that there is no physical evidence of God and the scientific method cannot be applied to establish the concept of God as a theory, I am curious about how the opposition could demonstrate the possibility of God's existence without being able to establish it as a theory.

> I recognize my stance as Pro; I am simply highlighting that Con cannot provide any proof, as doing so would challenge the principles of science. Since the existence of God cannot be proven, my argument stands substantiated.

That's the thing though, Con doesn't have to prove anything if you have the burden of proof. All they have to do is show how your arguments are insufficient to prove God does not exist, which they are.

> Actually, that's a fallacy argument because you acknowledge that you lack sufficient proof to establish God, then you haven't proven God, and therefore, it, by definition, is not proven. Thus admitting that God can't be proven.

Incorrect. Again, you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are making the invalid assumption that because something has not been proven, it cannot be proven and must therefore be false. Mathematicians have been trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis for decades and have been unable to, yet there is still little doubt that it's actually true. Many theorems have been proven that rely on it being true. Again, Con doesn't have the BoP here and doesn't have to prove that God exists. As long as they can prove that his existence is at least possible, then they win.

>While it is true that the person trying to prove God's existence typically has the burden of proof, once you claim non existence the burden shifts to you, and the murder comparison doesn't stand up.

Acutally, it does. Claiming someone has committed murder requires proof to substantiate the accusation. This makes a perfect comparison. However, your argument Is akin to arguing that a person is presumed innocent until they declare their innocence, at which point the burden shifts to them to prove they are not guilty. This is an illogical stance.

>The fact is you can't assume a universe created by God is less likely than a universe that popped into existence or always existed.

You seem to have overlooked my argument where I stated that the Universe, being composed of matter, has always existed and thus lacks a creator. I supported this claim with a source. Therefore, I did not make any assumptions but rather based my framework on empirical scientific laws.

I recognize my stance as Pro; I am simply highlighting that Con cannot provide any proof, as doing so would challenge the principles of science. Since the existence of God cannot be proven, my argument stands substantiated.

>It's funny that you bring up that you can't assert something is true just because something hasn't been disproven, when you are doing exactly that, but in inverse.

I have no idea where ca,e that came from because that its not what I said. I said that you can't assert something is true because you believe it to be true.

>At best, you can say we have insufficient evidence to believe in God and maybe even argue that God's existence is unlikely, but you can't disprove it, and that's actually what you have to do in this debate since you have the presumptive burden of proof.

Actually, that's a fallacy argument because you acknowledge that you lack sufficient proof to establish God, then you haven't proven God, and therefore, it, by definition, is not proven. Thus admitting that God can't be proven.

While it is true that the person trying to prove God's existence typically has the burden of proof, once you claim non existence the burden shifts to you, and the murder comparison doesn't stand up.

The fact is you can't assume a universe created by God is less likely than a universe that popped into existence or always existed.

You completely misunderstand the burden of proof. Generally speaking, the Pro position is assumed to have the primary burden of proof in a debate, which means that you would have to prove that God doesn't exist. It's funny that you bring up that you can't assert something is true just because something hasn't been disproven, when you are doing exactly that, but in inverse. You're assuming that God doesn't exist because his existence hasn't been proven. Either way, it's the logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. At best, you can say we have insufficient evidence to believe in God and maybe even argue that God's existence is unlikely, but you can't disprove it, and that's actually what you have to do in this debate since you have the presumptive burden of proof.

Actually, proving the non-existence of God is quite straightforward. It's akin to why we don't accept accusations of murder without evidence: proof is required. God's existence cannot be verified as there is no scientific method available for such a verification. You may argue, "But you can't prove He doesn't exist." Yet, this is a logical fallacy that contradicts the principles of evidence. When asserting the truth of any claim, whether it's the existence of God or anything else, one must substantiate it with evidence that can be presented to others. To assert that something is true simply because it has not been disproven is to misunderstand the burden of proof and the nature of objective evidence, expecting others to disprove an unestablished claim.

In essence, if the opposition cannot prove the existence of God or that it can be proven, then I have won the debate since my position is the exact opposite.

I appreciate that you found merit in my initial argument, but it seems there was a misunderstanding. My point was that the concept of God creating the Universe is incompatible with the Universe's eternal existence. This is rooted in the first law of thermodynamics, which asserts that matter cannot be created or destroyed; something that was never created can't have a creator because there was never a time when it did not exist.

I believe there's a crucial aspect being overlooked. Evidence isn't reciprocal. Given that my stance starts with skepticism, it falls on the opposition to demonstrate that God's existence is provable. I'm not required to prove God's existence is unprovable, as that would be contradictory. Clearly, if something is provable, then I can't prove it's not. The existence of God is not within the physical or testable realms of science, thus making the absence of evidence apparent. To counter this, Con would need to claim that there is, indeed, a method to prove God's existence and then proceed to demonstrate it.

Yeah, it does seem like the more inefficient route.

There is an argument for that, but he focused on the second one in round 1.

If he proves the first one, it seems like the second one is a given.

Pro has given himself two burdens.

He must prove that God is not real

And

He must prove that God cannot be proven

Yeah, it's an interesting approach to take. The "universe can't have a creator because there was no time before the universe" argument is something I didn't expect, but I do see a few ways Con could argue around that.

I've seen that done before. I remember looking at old debates on this site and seeing a debate where bsh1 argued against the existence of God by defining God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity, and ended up winning. However, bsh1 wasn't actually trying to argue that God didn't exist, but that it was more reasonable to not have faith in his existence than to have faith, and he clearly defined 'God' in the description of the debate. Here, Pro just defines 'God' as the entity who created the world, and is just using an argument from ignorance to try and 'prove' his non-existence

Pro's best bet would be to use an all-good, all-powerful definition of God and then argue the problem of evil or something.

Unless you think you can literally prove that god does not exist, your burden of proof in this debate is literally impossible to meet.

You folks that run from me, this is definitely not the topic to challenge me with.

Good luck proving that God doesnt exist