The Instigator
UtherPenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Fkkize
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Generic "Does God Exist" debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
Fkkize
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,798 times Debate No: 78458
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (3)

 

UtherPenguin

Pro

(Debate impossible to accept, will open the debate if anyone is interested, probably won't be opened until this Saturday or Sunday)

It seems that everyone has done a debate like this before, So it's time I do one. Here are the rules:

-Burden of Proof is on Pro

-No Semantics or Kritiks

-Be civil

-If Con finds the rules inaccurate or unreasonable then he/or she may alter the terms before the debate but only with an argument as to why.

-Faliure to abide by the format by either side will result in a loss of conduct during the voting period.

Terms:

God: The all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe.

Exists: Having objective reality or being.

Format:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Arguments (No rebuttals)

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Conclusions and/or More Rebuttals (No new arguments)

Once more to clarify, I'll be arguing that God exists, my opponent is to argue otherwise.
Fkkize

Con

I accept and patiently await my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
UtherPenguin

Pro

UtherPenguin forfeited this round.
Fkkize

Con

Although the BoP is on Pro, according to the structure I am supposed to present my arguments and don't rebut. Well, I sure won't have problems abiding to the latter part. Anyway, I am merely going to present one argument, as I expected this debate to be shorter.

Since 'God' was not clearly defined I am going to stick to the typical definition as the omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good, creator of the universe.

The Evidential Argument From Evil

Below I present the problem of evil as formulated by William Rowe (1).

1.There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

2.An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

3.(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.


1) The first premise is sometimes called the factual or evidential premise. To support it I have to give examples of pointless, intense suffering mentioned in the premise. Note that this is not an argument that attempts to establish logical impossibility of God's existence, it merely establishes theism is unlikely to be true.
Every fish that gets caught in plastic waste, every bird that gets tainted by oil, every animal killed by predators, dies an utterly pointless death, without any benefit gained from it.
No child that dies from easily preventable diseases, no war refugee, benefited in anyway himself or others with the horrendous suffering they have endured or still endure.
To defeat this premise my opponent needs to give a very compelling reason why a God, as described above, would let these things happen.

2) The second premise is sometimes called the theological premise, because it seems to follow from what theology tells us about God. I take this to be rather uncontroversial as it appears to be a huge concesion on the theists part to say that a wholly good being would potentially let his creation suffer for no apparent reason.

From this, the conclusion follows.

Sources
(1) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
UtherPenguin

Pro

Apologies sincerly. But due to my poor mangement of time I must concede this debate for now.
Fkkize

Con

Thanks anyway.
Debate Round No. 3
UtherPenguin

Pro

Concession extends
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Unbelievable.Time// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly recognizes that the concession warrants argument points go to Pro. While the conduct point isn't really explained, it can be inferred that it's been provided on the basis of Pro's concession and apology. It's not enough reason to remove this vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
Don't get too into debating these types of things, or you'll end up in flame wars.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
Sure, take as long as you want.
Posted by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
I'll post my arguments thursday morning. I'll be gone till sunday or monday, could you please wait with your arguments as long as possible?
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
In the mean time please continue with your opening arguments, I'll merge my rebuttals/arguments next round.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
Huge apologies for the forfeit. All of my arguments were ready, but my internet shut off yesterday for a few hours so I couldn't post the argument (I know it's a little hard to believe). I will try my best to make up for the forfeit in the next round.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
What exist can not be debatet..What can/can not exist..can..The never ending dream...
Posted by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
I kind of hoped <ou would have posted your argument by now :/
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I'm fairly sure this is going to be KCA . . .

@Uther: Run something a bit more fun and tough to refute, like the MOA or something...
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
I'll edit it to make it more clear.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
UtherPenguinFkkizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
UtherPenguinFkkizeTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
Unbelievable.Time
UtherPenguinFkkizeTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes