Existence of God (Christian)
In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept.
God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe.
Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods.
Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods.
Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future.
Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.
Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals.
A forfeit is an automatic loss.
My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round.
Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.
Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.
“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “
From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection.
Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.
Now onto my second point.
People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.
A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.
Now onto my last point.
The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent the best of luck.
The Holy Bible
Secondly,the evolution of the earth or more commonly know as "the big bang theory" shows that there is a creator to have made this universe.
Thirdly, God made this world perfect which means without sin, but since we have freewill to choose there was sin.The feelings lust and envy is also sin that only man have ,but as for your statement "God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more." Let me ask you a question :Can you know of something without having to experience it.can you know of murder without having to kill somebody.
Thank you for that response Pro.
Pro didn’t have much to say but whatever.
“First of all are we debating about the existence of God or whether God is perfect ? If we are debating about the first your quoted are then useless.”
To answer your question, we are debating God’s existence, it said so plainly in the 1st round, please explain how you were confused on this.
I don’t understand how my argument was useless. (This is also a rebuttal, which is illegal. This is cheating, but I will continue anyways.) My argument proved how God cannot exist since perfection is impossible. Please explain how this is useless.
“Secondly,the evolution of the earth or more commonly know as "the big bang theory" shows that there is a creator to have made this universe.”
This is absolutely false. I think you have Creationism and the Big Bang, two rival theories, somehow intertwined. These are two separate theories, I don’t understand how it is possible to think these two are the same. Please explain.
“Thirdly, God made this world perfect which means without sin, but since we have freewill to choose there was sin.”
This contradicts itself. You say the world is perfect, which means everything in the world is perfect. Then say that free-will is imperfect, yet exists. It is impossible for free-will to exist in a perfect world. This argument is a fallacy. I am confident the voters will see the obvious contradiction.
“The feelings lust and envy is also sin that only man have ,”
Ah, but you accepted the definition of God as omnipotent, which means all-powerful. If God were to exist he would be all-powerful and not having something that only men have would falsify the omnipotence making the being not a god. You prove yourself wrong in this argument.
“but as for your statement "God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more."
This is yet another rebuttal and will be ignored and penalized.
“Let me ask you a question :Can you know of something without having to experience it.can you know of murder without having to kill somebody.”
I can see what Pro is trying to do this time. I’m pretty sure this is an attempt at defeating my argument about lust and envy. This is again against the rules, cheating, but I will continue anyways. You word your response incorrectly. The correct rebuttal would have been, “Can you know about death without knowing about death?” It is not about experience, my argument was proving God cannot exist through the avenue of omnipotence. An omnipotent being would be able to know about death, without knowing about death. Which is impossible, which is why omnipotence is impossible.
In my opponent’s short response, Pro managed to break the rules three times, get two rival theories mixed up, state wildly incorrect information, contradict himself and fail to give an argument. Whatever, looking forward to my opponent’s response.
i clearly stated that the feelings lust and envy are feelings that only man have, not only man can have.
"An omnipotent being would be able to know about death, without knowing about death. Which is impossible, which is why omnipotence is impossible."
you did not state how it was impossible ,one can know about death without having to experience it.
The world was made perfect ,but since we have freewill it was our doing that had caused sin ,freewill is not imperfect it is our choices that are imperfect.
“Scientific studies show that for the big bang to have happened it would have to be planned because even if there was a minute mistake we would not exist ,”
Please give links to the scientific studies that prove your point.
If the Big Bang was not controlled, then it is impossible to have any mistakes. Only living things can make mistakes, a rock can’t make a mistake.
This sentence has zero worth.
“for it to have just happened without being planned is like the chances of getting tails 1000000000000 when your flipping a coin”
Even if this were true, it still doesn’t have any value for it only states it is improbable, it does not prove it wrong.
There are estimated to be at least 100 BILLION galaxies, and HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of galaxies in each one. Resulting in MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of planets. The chances that on one, just one of these planets life would occur is reasonable guess given that it had 14 billion years to do it. Saying that this is improbable is false.
“i clearly stated that the feelings lust and envy are feelings that only man have, not only man can have.”
The bolded words that obviously contradict each other, “I am the only one who feels lust, I am not the only one who feels lust.”
If only man know lust and envy, then that is something cannot do making him not omnipotent, not a god. Bu if God knows lust too, then he has broken moral perfection, resulting in God cannot exist.
“you did not state how it was impossible ,one can know about death without having to experience it.”
Yes I did. You totally misunderstand again. The argument knows, you cannot know death and not know death, not about experience. I’m pretty sure I’ve said this multiple times.
“The world was made perfect ,but since we have freewill it was our doing that had caused sin, freewill is not imperfect it is our choices that are imperfect.”
If free-will is not imperfect it is perfect. A perfect cannot make imperfect things therefore, the byproduct of free-will; choices has to be perfect, you entire argument is false.
My opponent has cheated in the second round by stating rebuttals. I have defeated all of my opponents arguments while she has defeated none of mine. My opponent obviously has lost the grammatical part, his arguments were all defeated and none of mine were. This debate is over for me now, I thank my opponent and VOTE CON!
As for your statement
"Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists."
You too have stated an improbable as an argument.
As for your statement about "I have clearly stated that the feelings lust and envy are feelings that only man have, not only man can have."
You misunderstood the meaning of the sentence, only man have the feelings but it does not mean that the feelings can only be possed by man, God can have those feelings but he doesn't because it is a sin.
And finally, one does not need to die ,to know what death is.
I have defeated cons arguments but he chooses not to accept,
I have not stated any grammatical errors but con has already stated a few. Just incase it is unclear, minute means small.
|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:||7||0|