The Instigator
Your_Conscience
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Mitch3lTh3Rathbone
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

An Impersonal God makes more sense than a Personal God.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Your_Conscience
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 55974
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Your_Conscience

Pro

First Round is an acceptance round.

For the purposes of this argument, let both Pro and Con assume they are talking about the monotheistic God.

Thank you.
Mitch3lTh3Rathbone

Con

I think it would make sense if we all gave up on religion all together as we as people would be more productive there would be no way to be raceist towards people for their religion and there would be no wars over religion.i am respectful to religious people I just don't think it is nessesary . That you belive in something we don't really know that exists or not
Debate Round No. 1
Your_Conscience

Pro

That doesn't seem to be the point of this debate, but it's okay.

I was trying to have a conversation on whether or not, by assuming there is a god, a personal one makes more sense, or a personal one.

To clarify, we are assuming god exists.
Mitch3lTh3Rathbone

Con

Mitch3lTh3Rathbone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Your_Conscience

Pro

Con forfeited this round.

I beseech (hehe fancy word) the voters to vote for me, out of his/her forfeiture.
Mitch3lTh3Rathbone

Con

Mitch3lTh3Rathbone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Your_Conscience

Pro

Again, the opponent forfeited.
Mitch3lTh3Rathbone

Con

Mitch3lTh3Rathbone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ChickieBobbie 2 years ago
ChickieBobbie
Not all "Christians" are personal god believers take deists such as thomas jefferson. The question is logically what are the implications of each and do these relate to out world?
Posted by Your_Conscience 2 years ago
Your_Conscience
It may seem that way, but God could have been solely a creator and nothing else.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
An "impersonal God" seems oxymoronic.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Lol just say "monotheistic God" if you want to exclude polytheism.
Posted by Your_Conscience 2 years ago
Your_Conscience
Apologies for making it confusing. I was only trying to limit the arguments by the Con, in which he/she continues to point to the New Testament. And I only said Christian God to avoid the confusion of polytheist gods, and since most people on here are Christians. I just thought it would be easier for people to relate to.
Posted by CaptainBallarms 2 years ago
CaptainBallarms
This is a bit confusing, if you are agreeing on the Christian God, then why refrain from using religious texts? It seems rather counterproductive considering the subject matter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Your_ConscienceMitch3lTh3RathboneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct-Forfeit. Con did not make any case. He made an opinion about God. He did not, at any point of this debate substantiate it with credible evidence. That, along with straying away from Pro's topic deliberately for the sake of his opinion. It either results in derailment or failing to understand the resolution. Either way, Pro wins this without a doubt.