God Debate Switch-a-roo 2
Debate Rounds (5)
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)
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".
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......
Round 1 -- Acceptance/Introduction
Round 2 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 4 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 5 -- Conclusion/No new arguments or rebuttals
You hold BOP.
You must be atheist or agnostic.
You are arguing for god's existence.
Hello, i am The Holy Macrel.
I will be arguing against god's existence.
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.
(i canuse it because i posted it)
So for a pre-emptive anti-god bullet...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exerpt: (from modified definitions)
"God- The christian god as described in the KJV Bible. Is an entity that is thought to possibly exist."
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.
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.
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.