If we want to abide by the scientific approach, then the debate format itself must be scientific. In other words, we must design it in such a way that reduces or removes any human influence or interference from the result. This is why we must agree on all the parts ahead of time in a way that can be checked in a computer, should the need call for it.


The proper debate format is made up of 5 elements, a proposed (yes or no) question, 2 opposing arguments,  a criterion (condition to be met), and the judgement (an unbias means to determine whether or not a criterion was met).  Those 5 elements must be clearly and explicitly identified in order for the structural intergrity of both arguments can be maintained.  However before we begin setting the values for all these paramaters, the topic must be considered before we begin designing which specific tools we need.

                I should begin by saying that contrary to what seems to be the common belief among religions and their proponents, I don’t believe faith is required to believe in God or a religion.  Afterall how are we to distinguish truth from falsehood if there is a faith element in a religion?  It is very contradictory for a religion, which in most cases asserts it is from a Creator God, to ask its believers the one thing that our Creator gave us to distinguish and evaluate information presented to us.  With this in mind, and before we can start looking at different religions to evaluate them, we need to know a little more about what God is?  So the first debate will be focused on determine if there is such a thing as a God, and if there is then what is the proof?  But first let’s define and state the arguments:


The ?:

                Is God real? (does God exist?)

The opposing arguments: 0

                The atheist argument, in short, is all religion is man-made and there is no such a thing as God because there is no evidence that proves the need to believe in him.

My opposing argument: 1

                There is evidence that prove the need to believe in God.

The judge:

                Well you be the judge, just be honest with yourself and the truth will be quiete apparent to anyone who can see.

The criterion:

                In order to set the criterion, we need to know what exactly we are measuring.  If we were debating the temperature of a liquid, we can set the criterion to be the thermometer reaching the proper temperature; if we are debating if a car is fixed or still broken we can set the criterion whether or not it turns on.  I just wanted to highlight that the criterion can be drastically different reflecting the topic being debated.  So what instrument do we use to check if I was successful in my proof? To answer this we will first need to look at the nature of what we are proving, and as a result we must define God beforehand.

                So first we need to define God, and this is where our journey begins.  See definition of God.  

Because science is specialized in the study of spacialtemporal objects and ideas, i.e. the material world and God is by definition outside those things then it is incompatible for measuring what the existence of God because God is outside existence. 

                See definition of existence.

From that section we were able to deduce that we cannot prove that God exists, because God doesn’t exist he created existence.  So instead we have to scientifically prove that God must be in order for existence to be.  So what does that mean? How can we scientifically prove that God is real if we can’t measure him scientifically?  Well in order to answer this question, we must familiarize ourselves with science and what a scientific proof is.

See scientific proof.

So we know scientific methodology is based on mathematical models which are formulated bsed on fundamental ideas of logic.  And since logic is the essence and the powerhouse engine for all maths and sciences, I will use it to orchasterate a new system designed to prove whether or not God needs to be for existence to be.  And because we are using the same science is built on, it would be just as powerful and significant of a proof as the simple thermometer test, otherwise you will be discrediting and crippling the entire field of science if you were to deny it (hypocracy).

So what is this system and how can we construct it?

See the trixal       first duality, then causality then trixal.



So taking into consideration everything discussed so far, it becomes obvious that trying to prove that God exists is a senseless statement.  God does not exist because he cannot be perceived and therefore cannot be part of our existence.  The statement that God IS, will be the one proved.  This will be done by proving that existence cannot be without God.  

And any appropriate debate must begin with an open mind and fair balanced view.  So the onus of proof will have to fall on both parties to show who’s statement is more true, more consistent with itself.  And my proof will be establishing that the best and the only consistent and noncontridectry statement explaining our existence dictates that God is.     





Purity of intention

Devotion to reach a conclusion

The Setup:

Design Considerations-

  1. Relativity- implementation of Null Hypothesis Method and its reverse for each candidate, and then cobining each coupled results to arrive at 2 scores to be compared.

The Presentation:

Types of Evidence and Means of extracting information-

  1. Here is where it is established who represents each side of the argument. Usually the accepted authority nominated by each party that is interested in finding the truth.
  2. The the two representatives would agree on The Debate Setup, Presentation, and Judgement that is fair and suitable to both candidates as we are doing right now.
  3. Since I am inviting any and everyone to this debate, I am using the most general Mutual Grounds I can think of, assuming everyone would agree with. But this assumption is obviously open to objection if anyone doesn't agree with any of the points I am listing. Then I will be glad to discuss that objection with them and find out where an error was made.
  4. Objectivity- It is important to refrain from any personal bias in examination of the evidence and look at everything with neutral eyes.

The Judge:

Who, what and/or how the net result is determined.

  1. Independent/Blind standard- no bone in the fight.

2. Mutually Ground-Agreed upon by both sides

3. Qualifies to perform the evaluation accurately.



So with everything I mentions above, I think we can all find it to be a fair assessment to measure my claim in the following way-Subcatagoriezed in two groups:

A. Check the applicability of potential candidacy of my claim. (combines logic and religious beliefs)

B. Check the evidence to see if the evidence approves or refutes my claim. (requires only logic and fair play)



A. Check the General Theological Identifiers (Pre-requisites):

1- Check if my derivations that suggest we are in The Prophesied Time-by testing the logical consistency of the basis upon which they were derived.

If 1 is passed then:

2- Check if my derivations that suggest the place of emergence match The Prophesied Place -by testing the logical consistency of the basis upon which they were derived.

If 2 passes then:

3- Check if my derivations that suggest my physical description matches The Prophesied Physical Description -by testing the logical consistency of the basis upon which they were derived.

if 3 passes then:

4- Check if my derivations that suggest my name matches The Prophesied Name -by testing the logical consistency of the basis upon which they were derived.

if 4 passes then:

5- Check if my derivations that suggest the place of emergence match The Prophesied Place -by testing the logical consistency of the basis upon which they were derived.

if 5 passes then:

6- Check if my derivations that suggest my bloodline matches The Prophesied Bloodline -by testing the logical consistency of the basis upon which they were derived.

if 6 passes, then it would be considered that the tests or repuierements for my elgibility have been met or passed.

Then we would move into the next phase of examination


1- Check if my derivations that suggest my economic plan will accomplish The Prophesied Promise -by testing the logical consistency of the basis upon which they were derived.

if 1 passes then:

2- Check if my mathematical proof will accomplish The Promised End of Atheism and Grand and Final Proof of God.

3- Check if my claim of Divine Guidance meets the criteria for its classification.

4- Check if signs do

5- Check Ark

6- Anti-Christ

7- Interpretations

8- Knowledge