The Instigator
The-Holy-Macrel
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PepePopo2012
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

God Debate Switch-a-roo 2

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 89625
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

The-Holy-Macrel

Con

Con-- Me, I am christian and will argue that god DOESN'T exist.
Pro-- You, you must be atheist and will argue that god DOES exist.

The purpose is that after I calmed my christian bloodlust against atheism in my first month here i got bored of the god debates that take up about one-fifth to one-seventh of our beloved site.

So i want to spice it up a bit.

And the christian god as described in the bible (for standard lets use the KJV) is the god we are arguing about existing.

I have a url for you: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org......

////////////

VOOOOOOOTERS!!! VOTERS! Hey voters! Please read the rules below as they must be enforced. Thank you!

////////////

Modified Definitions & Rules (MD&R)

--Rules--

1). Con must be christian and argue against god's existence.
2). Pro must be atheist and argue for god's existence.
3). Exception for pro: If you are agnostic i will let you argue pro.
4). When pro or con unless specified uses a word for which i have provided a modified definition for its definition is always the modified definition i have provided.
5). Pro may also create these "modified definitions" but cannot change or make another modified definition for a word i already have done so for. Mine are universal and necessary to be specified for the debate to go smoothly.
6). All modified definitions must be created in the first round.
7). If rules 1, 2, or 3 are not followed it is an automatic loss for the offender.
8). If rules 4, 5, or 6 are not followed the offender is to be voted by all voters as having bad conduct. If BOTH of us break any of them then voters are to vote that we had equal conduct.
9). Disobeying the round specifications is to be punished by the voters by awarding the opponent "convincing arguments".

--Modified Definitions--

God- The christian god as described in the KJV Bible. Is an entity that is thought to possibly exist.

Entity- Something capable of thought.

Thought- The creation of ideas and opinions.

For all definitions not modified refer to here: http://www.merriam-webster.com......

////////////

--Rounds--

Round 1 -- Acceptance/Introduction
Round 2 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 4 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 5 -- Conclusion/No new arguments or rebuttals

////////////

--For pro:--

You hold BOP.
You must be atheist or agnostic.
You are arguing for god's existence.
Good luck.

////////////

Hello, i am The Holy Macrel.

I will be arguing against god's existence.
PepePopo2012

Pro

I accept your challenge, taking the opposite side to your own position it's always a creative way to expand your thinking.
I define God/Gods as an entity/entities with knowledge and power enough to create the rules which govern our universe. I won't take part in any particular religion, but the concept of God itself.
Debate Round No. 1
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

From other debate that is identical:
(i canuse it because i posted it)

So for a pre-emptive anti-god bullet...

No. Evidence.

He doesn't allow any to exists so
we will have "free will" supposedly.

So good luck with that one.

You cannot prove he exists without evidence.
PepePopo2012

Pro

Quite a poor argument, but since you believe God does exists this was expected.
As I said I'll defend the existence of an entity with enough power to create the set of rules which govern our universe.

So according to this statement, evidence of God is the Universe itself. He could have created the Universe and then leave to do more important God stuff, to give a fun example, he/she could have "programmed" this Universe and then leave Universe.exe running while he/she went to do something else. You would think you have free will but you wouldn't actually, since all of your actions are determined (not in a 100% deterministic way, but maybe "determined" by a probability distribution) by the set of rules he/she set in this Universe.

You can't prove the existence of something without evidence, that's true. However you can propose the existence of something without any kind of evidence, then see if this proposition you made contradicts with anything already established and if it doesn't then you can not disprove its existence neither. In fact if everything works just fine with this proposition of yours you could assume it is a possible solution to your problem. Here our problem would be for example, how was the Universe created and why does it have the set of rules it has. One possible solution is "some kind of entity with power and knowledge created it". This is a very common method used in solving differential equations, you propose a solution and if that solution solves your differential equation you take it as one possible solution from all of the possible solutions.
Debate Round No. 2
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

But it might exist.

You have burden of proof.

You must prove it to a certainty.
(i stated this in round 1)

Amd even if you did you must
prove that it was the christian god.
PepePopo2012

Pro

I stated in round 1 I wouldn't take any part in any religion. It is almost a trivial task to disproof a God as christians define it.
You haven't made any argument against mine, I stated God as a possible solution to the problem of the Universe's creation and you didn't even try to disprove that.
So I'll make a stronger argument and state God (or a set of Gods) as the most probable creators or entities who created the rules which govern our Universe. I stated this because Universe and its rules allow for a lot of complexity (like humans) with a very simple set of rules. It's not the rules of the Universe the one that are really complex but instead their combination the ones that can fabricate such a beautiful complexity like the one we find on this planet.
Debate Round No. 3
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

Then you lose as it clearly states that it must be the christian god.

Exerpt: (from modified definitions)

"God- The christian god as described in the KJV Bible. Is an entity that is thought to possibly exist."
PepePopo2012

Pro

"I define God/Gods as an entity/entities with knowledge and power enough to create the rules which govern our universe. I won't take part in any particular religion, but the concept of God itself."
That's my modified definition, can't you argue against the existence of God? I still haven't read any kind of counter-argument from you.
Defend the idea of a Christian God is impossible, since the premise is false from the beginning. Trying to defend the existence of God as christians think of him it's like making the statement:
1+1 = 5
using the real number axioms and common number notation.
Can't you open your mind to the existence of God as a general idea? Instead do you need to be closed minded about the existence of your christian God only?
I'll try by asking you directly, since you've been avoiding my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

Why did you accept this if you didn't like my rules and regulations?

I said it must be the christian god for this debate.

And you cannot change a modified definition as stated by rule 5.

Changing it is punishable by rule 8, you recieve bad conduct.

I will let it slide once.

If it is impossible then why did you accept my debate?

You sholdn't have.

You can't just change specifics, especially what we are even arguing about.

Conclude as specified in my rules.

Failure to do so is punishable by rule 9.

I conclude that Pro suffers a forefeit for not
reading the rules and specifications clearly
set out in round one.
PepePopo2012

Pro

And I conclude you're a closed minded person unable to conceive the possibility of the existence of a God unless it is the Christian God, I find that not only boring but also dull. I took the debate in order to argue for the existence of a God in a bigger panorama than yours. You're giving quite a poor reputation to those who are Christian by being so closed minded, but I'm not someone who judge a group of people based on one subject only.
You haven't answer any of my question, and you haven't counter any of my arguments so I would consider that you're the one who's forfeiting as you're unable to go beyond a set of rules you established even when I told you I'd be pro for the existence of God without being specific to any religion.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 1 year ago
JoaquinBarzi
I dont think The-Holy-Macrel is the same as viceregent. The debate he is trying to have is the same one an atheist and a christian would have regarding the christian god, only with the roles changed. I consider it intresting, since it makes you think harder about the opposing views points.

Vice regent just posts stupid questions and then disregards any response, contradicts himself, etc.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
But i am disproving my own god here for experience.

I will become a debating warlord.

This will also help me aquire my goal in life.

I have one.

Become the ********* ** *** ***.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
"Almost"

=)
Posted by jordandtu 1 year ago
jordandtu
these kinds of debates peevs me off so hard. "made up definitions" you gave good definitions to start off.. however atheism is the rejection of any god, christianity god is still the creator? and is it not the same god as jews and islam and muslims etc?, his arguement was 100% valid as he actually was talking about god more in general, christianity is just 1 religious belief of god, you cant argue gods existance threw christianity alone, you have to find god in order to know he exists and you havent even argued back, you are the one who lost this debate

"It is almost a trivial task to disproof a God as christians define it."
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
Also "And the christian god as described in the bible (for standard lets use the KJV) is the god we are arguing about existing."

Y u no read thoroughly?
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
Universe.exe

XD
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
It has to be the christian god.

Exerpt:
"And the christian god as described in the bible (for standard lets use the KJV) is the god we are arguing about existing."
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
I am not vice.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Oh no. More of this vice regent crap...
WHY ?.. Keep your god when you can not get a life without.
No votes have been placed for this debate.