The Instigator
DeadSpace
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
TheMrkanyewest01
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

An all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God" does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
TheMrkanyewest01
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,987 times Debate No: 30513
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

DeadSpace

Pro

I would like for someone to supply logical reasoning that an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God" does in fact or could in fact exist. Please be thorough with your argument.
TheMrkanyewest01

Con

I believe that the God described here does in fact exist,and it is professed by various religions including the major monotheistic religions including Islam,Judaism, and Christianity. God exists because we exist,nature exist,justice exist good and evil exist because the universe exist. The Kalam argument that there is cause for the universe to exist everything and everyone has a purpose this is why they currently exist,if you think about it for a moment there isn't many things that exist and do not have a purpose so my argument is just BECAUSE were discussing god it makes him real or he exists .God is omnipotent in the fact that he created the universe it takes quite a skilled hand to create such a thing like the Earth,the Earth is the perfect size and is perfect in it's distance from the sun any variation in degree could mean we burn up or we freeze. God is loving in the fact that he loves all his creations. I am finished and await my opponent's rebuttal Thank You.
Debate Round No. 1
DeadSpace

Pro

I asked for logical reasoning that could potentially give evidence to an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God." You started off your argument by stating "I believe". Beliefs do not suffice as any form of logical reasoning. It is possible to say that the universe has existed at every point in time and that at no point in time has there been no universe. Time is an aspect of the universe. There was no "time" before the universe. Without a time before, the idea of cause no longer appertains. Later you say: "so my argument is just BECAUSE were discussing god it makes him real or he exists".. so essentially by that same logic, if we were to go on and discuss a flying spaghetti monster, would that too be real or exist? No, that is completely illogical. I would like to see your sources on the supposition that "the Earth is the perfect size and is perfect in it's distance from the sun any variation in degree.." No 'proof' that the perfect "God" I described exists was given.
TheMrkanyewest01

Con

When I said I "Believed" I said that to state my personal belief in a god in no ways did I express this as "Proof" of god's existence. Well on "the variation of degree" my opponent should note how other planets are inhospitable they don't and can't sustain life Earth is perfect size, [1] The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter, Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. So now there is one explanation for the "just right" conditions of Earth a creator who knows what he is doing and does not see science as an enemy but rather utilizes science for his creations.

[1] http://www.rationalresponders.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DeadSpace

Pro

The source provided is not viable, it is an atheist forum where everyone is disproving God.
What I am getting from what you just said is because of the fact that our planet in this solar system contains life, that must mean that there is an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God? I would gladly disagree with that. My opponent is making a broad generalization. Please understand the massive size of the universe we live in. How does a single planet being inhabited prove there is a "creator"? My opponent later says "...does not see science as an enemy but rather utilizes science for his creations." This creator uses science for his creations and yet allows 99.9%[1] of species to inhabit this planet die out? Does that logically make sense that "God" loved his creations so much that he would let the vast majority of them go extinct? This "creator" is either impotent, uncaring, or non-existent.

[1]http://mjperry.blogspot.com...
TheMrkanyewest01

Con

Well, speaking of logic how can 99.9% of the species die out if the Human Race and Animal Kingdom are still very much vibrant and alive unless he means death which is a natural process. And just because the atheism forum contradicts my argument doesn't mean it's not valid. The evidence I present,which my opponent has barely one example for his argument,is that God can explain the inconsistencies of evolution such as how life began or how anything began. My other example will be the Genome code which is an [1] extremely sophisticated genetic language necessary for even the simplest life forms to exist. Called by Bill Clinton "The Language of The Creator".So my argument is as follows 1. that everything has a cause and 2. there is evidence for design. Now,I will ask to those that will be voting to look at HIS evidence which is minimal,he has not supplemented his argument but has only rebutted my arguments. Other than that I like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate vote PRO.
http://www.andrewcorbett.net...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
So here's the deal kids, here is what religion is teaching our children: Every time god makes something beautiful, that pesky devil finds a way to twist it and make it ugly. Stupid devil!

Perverting the act of sex is the main way the devil goes about hurting god and people. satan is so sneaky that he uses sexual temptation to lure us into degrading ourselves, without god in your life, the devil will win because you are weak, you are nothing, you need god, you are nothing without him, without god you are a sick pervert, he is your master, he is the one calling the shots, he is running the show, you are just a puppet slave in a fictional masochists world :)

Plus since we were born with sin, its in our nature to just give into satans lie that "if it feels good do it". Thats satans way of tricking you. You are just a dumb, worthless, stupid perverted human without god, and god protects you from satan, because if he doesnt protect you, you will give in to degrading yourself because you are weak, you are sick and you are nobody without god, and dont you forget it :)

The bottom line is this according to religious doctrine, the world, our flesh and the devil, have twisted our sexual impulses so much, that god had to step in and set some "laws" so we can know "good sex" from "bad sex".

If god doesnt step in and set some rules, who is gonna protect you from the devil? You are just a measly human, youre stupid, youre impulsive, youre ungrateful and worthless and you are not in control of your life, god is and dont you forget whose property you are, god bought you at a price you worthless twit, now bow your head and pray or go to hell :)

Humans get smarter and more conciously aware as we evolve, thats why slavery, womens right to vote, sitting in the front on the bus, are Not issues anymore, we had to grow up.

Now most will grow up, well the smart ones do, the slower, weaker humans, will still cling to outdated ideals because growing up is scary to a pansy
Posted by TheMrkanyewest01 4 years ago
TheMrkanyewest01
Yeah,I understand but it kinda hinders the debate if we don't debate at our fullest potential Thanks for the debate good luck
Posted by DeadSpace 4 years ago
DeadSpace
Thank you for debating, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I apologize for the "limitation" on words, but I too only have 1,000 words per round to argue. This is a fair debate that you chose to accept, so I am not sure how you can complain. Thanks again!
Posted by TheMrkanyewest01 4 years ago
TheMrkanyewest01
I would just like to complain that I am very limited in words I would like to go to further detail about the science involved in my argument.
Posted by DeadSpace 4 years ago
DeadSpace
TheMrkanyewest01 Yes, absolutely.
Posted by TheMrkanyewest01 4 years ago
TheMrkanyewest01
I would love to debate this topic with you,may I?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
DeadSpaceTheMrkanyewest01Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering qopel's vote and giving the win to Con. Pro had burden of proof for affirming his resolution, but didn't even present any evidence for his claim that God doesn't exist. All he did was attempt to argue against Con's points. That doesn't work in a debate when Pro is the one making the positive claim.
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
DeadSpaceTheMrkanyewest01Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no evidence, just claims and opinion.