Does God exist?
Debate Rounds (5)
(I'm new to this site please forgive me if I did not define or explain or something. I'm not looking for a win, but trying to anyway.)
And you claim that something does not exist unless you see evidence for its existence is not only illogical, it demonstrate you have a mental illness. indeed, Pluto existed for many years before anyone knew anything about it, demonstrating your claim is absurd.
And I did give evidence. You just did not understand it. Study up.
Now, for the second paragraph.
What if I told you that there is a plant that has eye-like parts that can see color and feeds on snakes? Absurd, right? You need evidence to back up what you see/know/hear/sense. That is how human minds work. If not, you'd fully trust everything, anyone. Also, please be respectful. Pluto, indeed was unknown to man and everyone didn't know of it. But in that time NOBODY claimed, 'Pluto is real!' But here, without any evidence, you sir are claiming 'God is real!'
And by your 'evidence', do you imply that I have to assume God exists to not assume God exists? If not, please clarify.
And it does not matter if no one claimed Pluto did or did not exist. You said if there is no proof of a thing, that thing does not exist. This is the position of the delusional.
If God does not exist, there definitely no such thing as proof. But you giving evidence, is what you signed up for when participating in this debate. And no, I do not believe God exists, I am just asking for evidence for the sake of debate to prove me otherwise.
You have mistaken what I said. I said if there is no EVIDENCE, that thing does not exist, not proof. Before Pluto was discovered, we had already known of other planets, hence giving the possibility of Pluto's existence. That is evidence. Eventually we found unshakable evidence (seeing it in a telescope), thus PROVING its existence.
You still have given no evidence that God exists, just babbling about the possibility of his existence.
It would also be appreciated if you would read the rest of what your opposition has to say, instead of reading only one sentence.
The remark was suggested by you actually, in Round 3. I just added a 'definitely'. You do realize you have confirmed your own claim that God doesn't exist?
I am still waiting for evidence, and have grown tired of your constant beating-around-the-bush.
Not only is this evidence, it is deductive proof, which is necessarily true if the premises are true. You have conceded the premises.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Okay, so as much as I don't like seeing people instigate as Con and thrusting the BoP onto the contender, Pro had the BoP and didn't even come close to fulfilling it. Furthermore, he insulted his opponent, talked down to him, and refused to back up his argument for God's existence with anything more than the claim that it's self-evident. As such, I give Con both arguments and conduct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.