The Instigator
atheismo
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
CryptonZ
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Does the god exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
atheismo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 38133
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

atheismo

Con

i will be argung against the god of the christianity. i will be using science and logic. if my oppnent doesnt use science and logic, he forfeits the arguement. if you win, that means you dont forfeit.

god of christians is defined as the god of the bible. the god who spoke to jesus and moses and the wandering jew. he gave us the 10 commandments and died for our sins. etc. blah blah.

i will be arguing against this god using science. to preview my arguments i will be using too.

anti-kca arugment from consciousness
1. everything which is sentience has a cause
2. the Judeo-Christian god is sentient
3. therefore the Judeo-Crhstian god has a cause

imperfect god argument
1. nothing perfect can exist
2. god is perfect
3. therefore god cant exist

i will not defend them now buti will defend them later. i will also be using science and reason so have prepared.

PLEASE ONLY EXCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU WILL NOT FORFEIT BY USING BS ARUGMENTS LIKE THE MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ONE
CryptonZ

Pro

I accept.

I have never taken a debate on the existence of God and I have always wanted to do one.

Since it would honestly appear we both seem to be rather inexperienced with these arguments, I gladly accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
atheismo

Con

yeah um im def not inexperienced with these arugments. in fact i have taken ten courses in philosophy. i have studied all the arugments intensely. in fact i have taken ten courses in philosophy of theism alone. that enough should prove that i know wtf im talking about. seriously.

anyway here is the frist argumentation.

1. everything which is sentience has a cause
2. the Judeo-Christian god is sentient
3. therefore the Judeo-Crhstian god has a cause

this is intuition. everything which is sentient has a cause.

"First of all, sentience is really about the nerve functioning in the body." - Compelling Interest, roger resler

"Current research in cell biology is is suggesting that sentience is a function of living structured water in and around the cells of our body" - Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy: Volume Two, Volume 2 by Michael Shea

the brain is caused so sentience needs a cause ok

here is the second arg.

imperfect god argument
1. nothing perfect can exist
2. god is perfect
3. therefore god cant exist

1 is true bc as we all know "pobodys nerfect."

2 god is supposed to be perfect. like in the bible jesus says "god is perfect"

3 follows from the rules of scientific laws.

let me remind my opponent that he has to use reason and science otherwise hes being fictitious and stupid so he needs to use real ones. the best theist arg i can think of right now is probably the wavefunction one whre the wave of the unverse neds god to observe it because its based in science. well i think that one is prety "godamn" stupid too (pardon the pun i said god and im an atheist lmao) but its the best one. i would use that one if i was the opponent.
CryptonZ

Pro

CryptonZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
atheismo

Con

cryptographyz has forefeit. this means that my args are just too strog and powerful to win. my argumens have been proven true about fourteen times by philosophers all over the terran planeat earth. eveyrhting is just false dead wrong about cryptonx.
CryptonZ

Pro

CryptonZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Voting Pro at this point. New accounts are fun
Posted by iUnderdog 3 years ago
iUnderdog
All of your arguments are natural laws. God us is a supernatural being. God does not follow natural laws.
Posted by DhuiLim 3 years ago
DhuiLim
This question is quite silly and there is no meaning to debate about it.
There are no good arguments for his existence, and so for the reverse. Its like debating about the existence of extraterrestrial. You are challenging your intelligence limit with your so-called arguments.
Just to say, why do we need to prove "there is no" ? People (not all) will just trust god's existence, even they didnt see her, touch her, etc. Do they need to prove her existence for better lives? Do you?
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Cryptorn, he's stating that none of the arguments have any reality. his point that we, no longer, explain disease with the idea of demons is PERFECT!
Posted by CryptonZ 3 years ago
CryptonZ
Lol, you're silly.

I will demonstrate the existence of God and refute my opponents arguments in this debate. In the meanwhile, of you really care you should look at some of the top debates done on here over the existence of God. Then, I want you to tell me there are no good arguments for his existence.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
Why are we still debating this? I have never, in my life received a good argument for the existence of the Christian God, and maybe even just a God. It is just the lazy response to our ignorance. Why don't we use demons for the reason why people get sick anymore? Because, science destroys philosophies that religion came up with, and did so with the thought of microorganisms. I don't understand why people pick the ignorant, first philosophy, rather than our modern day theories and facts.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
wave form...hmm. You're right, Atheismo, it's stupid too.
Why would a wave choose ONE planet out of all that there is and be jealous AND mean,
all the while stating "love" like a husband does when he beats his wife?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
atheismoCryptonZTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins because of the forfeit. His arguments were ridiculously bad, Crypto could have had this one.