The Instigator
Lel-Derp
Con (against)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
stylishBOY
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points

Does god really Exist? If so, why does he not care what we believe in?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 8 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,141 times Debate No: 61804
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (8)

 

Lel-Derp

Con

For Example: Ever noticed that somebody who didn't believe in god never get punished so severely? (Except by the crazy religious people). What do you think about believing in god? Is it a good thing not to let a make-believe being cloud your judgments? Or is it the right thing to let such a deity lead your decisions?
stylishBOY

Pro

yes God do exist.
There are many logical that prove god's existence. A new one that came out a few days ago is the catological argue.

THE CATOLOGICAL ARGUE

We first observe, then we think on the feels then we deduce. I need not guide you to do this. the body does it automatically. I encourage everyone before reading the argument to take a deep breath and open up your body for the feels and logic.

Premise one: Observe the video to the right and let your body do its work
Premise two: Realize that god exists
Premise three:?????
Premise four: Profit.
Conclusion: God exists

Therefore: God exists

QED: there is a being called god.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUE

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: Any property entailed by"i.e., strictly implied by"a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

Now we move onto the theorem.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

THE DNA ARGUE

Scientists at bob Jones university examined the DNA code of junk DNA and tried to translate it. Linguistic professors examined the code and found

The Language in the "Junk DNA", the DNA that scientists had for years discarded as useless, was indistinguishable from ancient Aramaic. Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script it contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse found in the bible. And at times contained direct biblical quotes.

On the human gene PYGB, Phosporomylase Glycogen, a non-coding transposon, holds a linguistic sequence that translates as "At first break of day, God formed sky and land." This bears a stunning similarity to Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gene Bmp3 has a Retrotransposon sequence which translates to the well-known 1 Cor 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own." This is repeated over and over throughout the entire sequence of human DNA: embedded equivalent genetic code of ancient Aramaic that seems to translate as the word of god to his people. -

This is undeniable proof of the Christian god.

The proof is in the pudding I win

http://witscience.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Lel-Derp

Con

What if:
Well even if this celestial being did exist, why would he or she even care about something that evolved from an ape?
If belief did have this so called power, then if everyone on the world believed in ghosts, would all the ghosts of dead people rise from their graves and haunt the living?
Truly, and again, why would a being that "apparently" created everything even care about one little planet when he or she has billions apun billions of universes to "watch" over?
And it's not like we can go in a space-ship and fly to the heavens and go talk to it,
And have you noticed that in all of the old paintings it shows them in the SKY, so we go to the moon, right? and once we are at the moon we see NOTHING like the so-called heaven.

Back to the whole belief in something and how it can make it real,
Let's say... everyone believed that the world would end at 2012, well that didn't work, and now let's say the world will end at 2020. It won't happen, because SCIENCE has proven that the world will only end when the sun goes into a supernova.
That would happen in only a million years. We would all be dust by then and nobody would even know we existed.
stylishBOY

Pro

Its not about what you're evolved from.
GOD treats every creature the same way. Its only the humans, who has brought in discrimination and other socio-injustice in society.
As my oponent stated that In old painting God were showed residing in skies. Yes thats true. The old painting do show that. But it doesn't mean that God realy resided there. It might have been the painter's belief at that time. Evrything depicted in an old painting can't be believed blindly.
Now, about the end of the world. There was a reumer that World will come to an end in 2012. But it was just a reumer started by the Mayans. No one said that it would be true. It was just a belief of a group of people. It has nothing to do with existence of God.
Debate Round No. 2
Lel-Derp

Con

Debate.org welcomes you but it has committed suicide since it knows that you believe in a fictional being.
thank-you
stylishBOY

Pro

Well gentleman that was a smart move .
For your kind knowledge , let me point it out that the fictional kind of points were first pointed out by you.
I was just opposing your views and defendind my statement that "GOD DO EXIST".
Well I would love to see what you post as your next argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Lel-Derp

Con

"God do exist"? maybe you should take your time typing your argument and here's a correction "God does Exist to some people" You can't always just run into a room and yell "GOD EXISTS" Because...
1: People may think you lost your marbles.
2: Only some people would agree.
3: People may shake their head at you (saying that your crazy ;] )
So doge with it mate.
stylishBOY

Pro

What makes the world go around? Cash Money? PROOF GOD EXIST!!!





Now my opponent will assert that this is not proof, I ask the reader to use God given common sense that my opponet deny's even exist. Who told The President to put it there? Please do not insult me and the reader, by explaining to us, the history of the dollar and when God's name was put on the money, of the greatest nation ever on earth?

https://www.google.com...
http://www.livescience.com...

My opponent wants proof of God.
This is God's answer to the atheist/evolutionary theorists. See it is a direct answer to my opponent's assertion of theory concerning truth and reality.
Romans 1:19-26
19"For that which is known about God is evident to them"and"made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20"For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature"and"attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible"and"clearly discernible inand"through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],
21"Because when they knew"and"recognized Him as God, they did not honor"and"glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile"and"[a]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
22"Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23"And by them the glory and majesty"andexcellence of the immortal God were exchanged for"and"represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.
24"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],
25"Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).
26"For this reason God gave them over"andabandoned them to vile affections"anddegrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural"and"abnormal one,
27"And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another"men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own"[b]bodiesand"personalities the inevitable consequences"and"penalty of their wrong-doing"and"going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

Want more proof that God exist?
Where did the wailing wall come from? King David and Solomon Kings of Israel. So more proof is right in front of you! God's Land! The Holy City!
Now I ask the reader and the voter to decide how did the bible fortell that Israel would get their Nation back and that nation with influnce world events?
Zechariah 12:3

¶ And in that day will I make Ierusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselues with it, shall be cut in pieces; though all the people of the earth bee gathered together against it.
- King James Version (1611) - View 1611 Bible Scan

"It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.
- New American Standard Version (1995)

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples; all that burden themselves with it shall be sore wounded; and all the nations of the earth shall be gathered together against it.
- American Standard Version (1901)

And it will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a stone of great weight for all the peoples; all those who take it up will be badly wounded; and all the nations of the earth will come together against it.
- Basic English Bible

And it shall come to pass in that day [that] I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone unto all peoples: all that burden themselves with it shall certainly be wounded, and all the nations of the earth shall be assembled together against it.

Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Conduct: CON comment in R3 was quite uncalled for, and outright insulting. I rarely give points for conduct, but that is quite an offense. It is fine to point out flaws in your opponent's reasoning, but to say, even in jest, that "[DDO] has committed suicide since it knows that you believe in a fictional being" is rude. Conduct to PRO, as PRO made no such statements until provoked.

Arguments: The open-endedness of the second question leads me to fully disregard it. Neither debater addressed it. Since these are questions and not statements, each debater has an obligation to offer and defend an answer. CON's required answer is "NO" and an argument must be offered to defend such. PRO's required answer is "YES" and an argument must be offered to defend such. PRO's arguments were never addressed. They are, imo, terrible arguments. However, arguments were at least provided. The DNA "argument" was sourced. If these findings are true, it would seem that a God does exist. CON failed to address this. Even barring the other arguments, this one was left standing. As such, Arguments to PRO.

I only award S/G when it distracts from what I am reading. Since it appears that English is not PRO's first language, no points will be given here. It seems unfair to fault someone who doesn't speak English for messing up English.

Sources: CON offered none and PRO presented several that I have no reason to reject currently. Perhaps if PRO have offered a reason to do so, I would have.
Posted by Lel-Derp 2 years ago
Lel-Derp
You don't poop out a mating practice?
Posted by stylishBOY 2 years ago
stylishBOY
Well I dont sh!t a f*ck
Posted by Lel-Derp 2 years ago
Lel-Derp
hmmm ok... Now that I've found out that your a troll. >:D
Posted by stylishBOY 2 years ago
stylishBOY
You did a good job bro.
May be I should improve a lil more. :)
Next time I'll surely beat you. :P
Posted by Lel-Derp 2 years ago
Lel-Derp
It doesn't make sense :|
Posted by Lel-Derp 2 years ago
Lel-Derp
How am I winning? :O
Posted by stylishBOY 2 years ago
stylishBOY
Ragnar , I respect you gentleman !!
@thet3 no offence but seriously ma'am you should judge the debates better from next time. :)
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
I take deep offense to the suggestion that my vote is in some way biased or invalid.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@YYW
If you wish to defend them, you are more than welcome to challenge me to a debate on it.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by n7 2 years ago
n7
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for plagiarism
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros 1st argument was confusing which is why he didn't get spelling and grammar points. Nevertheless he presents arguments in favor of God's existence. Con doesn't even attempt to rebut them, but makes rhetorical questions. Pro counter argues con's attack on heaven then con resorts to personal attacks. The rest is irrelevant to the debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro trolled hard and good, and most of his arguments were irrefuted, but they did not have to be, for all con needed was logic in his favor to win against such troll.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO has the burden to prove that God exists, and he did not meet that burden. Con wins by default as a result of PRO's failure. So, a very clear Con win. Additionally, CON makes an extremely compelling argument in the first round that I should reject the resolution because having my judgement clouded by a supreme being is bad which pro did not overcome. And yet I voted on this debate... #irony. Conduct to Con because Pro made new arguments in the last round, and solicited votes in the forum in an annoying and inappropriate way inconsistent with site standards. I gave very strong consideration to awarding S/G to Con because Pro mispelled "rumor," but I am merciful so I did not. Sources to Con because Pro's were substantially worse than CON's. As a side note, the images irritated me, as they almost always do in all debates. If there were a formatting category, and I think there ought to be, PRO would surely lose that category as well. Ostentatiousness is not a virtue.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro misspelled "rumor"
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: A clear Con win. Con makes an extremely compelling argument in the first round that I should reject the resolution because having my judgement clouded by a supreme being is bad. Conduct to Con because Pro made new arguments in the last round. S/G to Con because Pro mispelled "rumor". Sources to Con because Pro did not cite his sources in MLA format.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Lel-DerpstylishBOYTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used a significant amount of evidence and Con did not refute most of it.