The Instigator
Draconis
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
stubs
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Does the Christian god exist?

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 2 votes the winner is...
stubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 25446
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Draconis

Con

Can a Christian prove to me that their god exists and that he is he omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. First round acceptance. Second round he/she gets questions from me then replys. Third round he/she questions me then I answer. last round general ending. No new arguments on the last round. The bible is the claim of god not evidence of him.
stubs

Pro

I accept this debate.

However, the formatting is flawed. I can not ask questions and then you answer in the third round because my post will be after yours.

I suggest the following format:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusion

If Con would like to use a different format then that is fine with me, but the one he proposed is logically impossible.

I am looking forward to a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Draconis

Con

Draconis forfeited this round.
stubs

Pro

First I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as thank my opponent for setting up this debate.

The ontological argument:

1: It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2: If it is possible that God exists, he exists in some possible world.
3: If God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world.
4: If God exists in every possible world, He exists in the actual world.
5: Therefore, God exists in the actual world
6: Therefore, God exists
7: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

When philosophers talk of possible worlds, they just mean the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet or universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. We can use unicorns as an example. Unicorns do not in fact exists, but there is some possible world in which unicorns exists. There are many mathematicians that think numbers exists in every possible world. That is to say they exists necessarily. God is the greatest conceivable being. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. What would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and he would exists in every logically possible world. Let's look at the implications of this. If Gods existence is even possible, then if follows that God must exist. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it exists in all of them. That's part of what it means to be maximally great. So if Gods existence is even possible, he exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

The atheist has to maintain that it is actually impossible for God to exist. The atheist has to say that the concept of God is not even possible in any possible world. Take for example a married bachelor. There is no possible world in which a married bachelor exists. My opponent would have to show that God is something like a married bachelor, not existing in any possible world. The problem is that God does not seem to be incoherent in that way. The idea that a being is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and exists in every possible world is coherent.
Debate Round No. 2
Draconis

Con

Draconis forfeited this round.
stubs

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Draconis

Con

Draconis forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jeff.Wilhite 4 years ago
Jeff.Wilhite
It's a shame that most of the debates about the existence of God involve a reductionist view of Him as omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. The only time I ever think about God in those terms is when I am talking to atheists. There are so many more descriptive and illustrative metaphors that are much more relavant to the actual Christian walk: Father, Shepherd, Lover, Friend, Savior, Teacher, Guide.

The faceless, characterless, sterile "omni" God of apologetic debates is so far removed from the personal God of the Bible which billions of His children lean upon daily for strength and peace and comfort and joy, that these debates end up being largely academic. Even a slam-dunk argument from the atheist often evokes no more than a "well, I don't believe in *that* God either."

Unfortunately, the "omni" God description is so much easier to argue about than something more experiential like "the Lover of my Soul." So, I guess we'll keep seeing these.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
DraconisstubsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con. Pro's argument goes completely unrefuted.
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
DraconisstubsTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Full Ff.