The Instigator
amigodana
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
hect
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
hect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 71807
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

amigodana

Pro

I will establish that God exists according to who the KJV bible defines God as being.
In order to accept this debate there are two questions that must be answered and established first.

Question 1: Can you obtain a bible today if you so choose?
Question 2: Is the King James Bible in print?

These two questions must first be answered with a yes or no answer, and then you may continue with your understanding as to why God does not exist.
hect

Con

I accept the terms and yes to the questions

I think to make it fair some ground rules should be established however it is your debate so you decide
and perhaps If you wish to discuss the rules make a comment in the comment section
rules:
1st round is acceptance only
2nd round arguments only
3rd round rebuttals and arguments
4th round more rebuttals and arguments
5th round rebuttals and conclusions only no new arguments

I look forward to your opening arguments and the full debate thankyou
Debate Round No. 1
amigodana

Pro

Thank you for establishing that "Yes" we can in fact obtain a bible today.
And agreeing that the King James bible is in fact in print.

As was stated in the opening statement, we are defining who God is by the definition in the King James Bible.

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

(1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

So, we can clearly conclude, and as my opponent has agreed too, the bible - the Word does exist. Therefore, God does exist.

It is now up to my opponent to show that the Word is not God, and that there is no final authority to truth. He must show that there is no final word of truth, and by doing so negate his own words as being false.
hect

Con

In order to be fair to my opponent I shall not use any rebuttals until my next round. In this round I shall present only my opening arguments.

The god found in the KJV bible God and the god my opponent is referring to is a theistic god also known as the Abrahamic God who I shall refer to as throughout the debate.

Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins (a devout christian) says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins (a devout atheist) thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. This is what you have to believe In order to believe in the Abrahmic God, for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, not knowing how disease spread or what earthquakes or storms were all of that for 98,000 years.
The Abrahmic God watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person.
And whats more after this event we are giving no more revelations, no more evidence of his existence nothing at all; and it all comes from a baseless claim in a well known contradictory book which has no historical credibility. And we are meant to believe this as absolute fact. I must appeal to my opponents and the voters better judgment and and see how obviously ludicrous this is.

I would also like to know what prove my opponent has of the Abrahmic God's existence as he has the burden of prove in this debate. I see absolutely no evidence for a theistic god in this universe and would encourage my opponent to present some.

This is my opening argument thank you
Debate Round No. 2
amigodana

Pro

I find it quite interesting that my opponent has presented a lengthy speech, completely diverted from the initial definition of who we both have established and agreed upon as to who God is.

Quote; "The god found in the KJV bible God and the god my opponent is referring to is a theistic god also known as the Abrahamic God who I shall refer to as throughout the debate."

No; the definition that we both agreed to debate is written out for you in the King James Bible and it clearly says;

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This is the agreed upon definition that my opponent has accepted. My opponent is attempting to confuse this debate by addressing a god as;

(Romans 1:22-23) "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, {23} And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

This debate is not about a belief in God, but about WHO He is, we must remember that it is based upon the definition and context of the scriptures in the KJV. And that is how this debate was established. My opponent has agreed that the Word does exist. And so let me say yet again, therefore God exists, by my opponents own words. Unless that is, that my opponent would like to establish that he lied.

I have achieved my burden of proof by his own admonition. Its now my opponents duty to disprove a final authority / word of truth.

I will implore my opponent to stay within the agreed upon definition of this debate or forfeit.
hect

Con

I shall first refute my opponent's arguments and the present my own.
"As was stated in the opening statement, we are defining who God is by the definition in the King James Bible"... umm... no I never agreed to this only you did, "I will establish that God exists according to who the KJV bible defines God as being", "I" being the key word here not "we" the only thing I agreed to was "Question 1: Can you obtain a bible today if you so choose?
Question 2: Is the King James Bible in print?" I agreed that you can get these books but in no way does that grant the validity of the book. I am simply referring to the God described in the book. I would no way advocate that because one can obtain a printed copy of harry potter that harry potter must then be real and that the book is prove of that.

So "These two questions must first be answered with a yes or no answer, and then you may continue with your understanding as to why God does not exist." now it's clear what the terms actually were I will continue with my "understanding as to why God does not exist".

Therefore my opponent is pushed back to where he started without having an argument as I have already brought to attention the authority/ validity of his reference the bible.

Also my opponents is using a type of ontological argument or as I call it the ontological fallacy, this is possibly the poorest argument for god's existence and is almost never used by theologians anymore. Basically because 'there is a word for god therefore god exists', and in reference to my opponents argument that word is literally "Word" so if I ask someone what another word for 'silly' is do they say 'stupid' or 'god'? Also there is a word for unicorns, leprechauns, dragons (even in the bible) e.t.c. so this must mean they all exist to. I think it painfully obvious the ridiculousness behind this argument. It is also known as a 'Non sequitur' (definition: is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a 'non sequitur', the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion).

Now for more evidence the Abrahamic God does not exist, I shall use a rather common argument in the existence of god debate which I have yet ever had an honest answer to:
The Paradox of the Stone
Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Either he can or he can"t. If he can't, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.
Either way then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent,though, is not God.

The ball is now in my opponent's court to try to present a credible argument.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
amigodana

Pro

We may have a problem here, because I am not quite sure of WHO this god is, that you are claiming dose not exist.

The God of the King James bible is the God that I claim exists and His name is;

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

So, you are going to have to give me a scripture showing me WHO you are talking about.

And if you cant find a verse describing WHO you are talking about then I wont disagree; That god dose not exist.
The bible / the Word speaks of there being many gods, however, there is only one true God.
So, again I wont argue about all the others not being real.

You will have to give me a verse about which god you are talking about, WHO is he?
hect

Con

As I already said I am referring to the god found in the KJV bible also known as the Abrahamic God there's only one Abrahamic god or the god of Abraham or the the judeo christian god whatever you want to call him. I don't know how clearer I could have been on that. We both know we are talking about the same god. Pick any vere you want it makes no difference. Also you could have put the question you just posed in round 4 in to the comment section so to not waste an entire round in clarification.
Debate Round No. 4
amigodana

Pro

"As I already said I am referring to the god found in the KJV bible also"
I am glad that you are!

"whatever you want to call him. I don't know how clearer I could have been on that."
I am glad that you are conceding to the definition that is given in the scriptures.

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

(1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

You said in the beginning of this debate that we have the Word, therefore you admit that God exists, it is that simple.
In fact, you just reinforced that confirmation with your previous answer, thank you!

Lets not complicate things, God is the Word. Plain and simple without confusion. God the Word exists.
hect

Con

"You said in the beginning of this debate that we have the Word, therefore you admit that God exists" I already refuted this ontological fallacy and showed how it is a non sequitur, my opponent's argument makes absolutely no sense. I refuted every single argument my opponent put forward whilst my opponent did not even address one of mine. In no way shape or form did my opponent prove 'god exists' which was the topic whilst I put forward credible arguments against the notion.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
voting is open
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Thank you Ian. I tried explaining this to him on another debate, and he kept saying God is real because the bible says so lol. He doesn't listen.
Posted by amigodana 1 year ago
amigodana
Ok.
Posted by ianm11714 1 year ago
ianm11714
That furthers my point. Because the Bible told you these things about God, you believe these things about God. Your scriptures mean nothing to me, they aren't evidence nor are they even verifiable, so unless there is anything of your belief not stemming from the Bible, then how can you even form a formal argument?
Posted by amigodana 1 year ago
amigodana
Not exactly, you see;

(Romans 2:14-16) "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: {15} Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) {16} In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

(Jeremiah 31:33-34) "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. {34} And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

You should consider what these are saying.
Posted by ianm11714 1 year ago
ianm11714
So you believe that God exists because a book told you he exists?
Posted by amigodana 1 year ago
amigodana
(1 John 3:1-3) "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. {2} Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. {3} And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

I simply believe, and no man can gainsay the Word of God.
Posted by ianm11714 1 year ago
ianm11714
A troll is someone who likes to get on the internet for shits and giggles. You fit the description because well, you seem to be now arguing for the shits and giggles.

I don't doubt that you believe in the scriptures. Great for you. That doesn't relate at all to what I have been saying.
Posted by amigodana 1 year ago
amigodana
I am curious, please explain as to how I could fit the definition of being a troll. And what is a troll?

I believe the scriptures, of which you can search my previous debates and comments to verify exactly what I believe.
Posted by ianm11714 1 year ago
ianm11714
Either you're a troll, you've never debated in your life, or you just can't accept loss.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 1 year ago
ldow2000
amigodanahectTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro - this might seem a bit cheap, buy one word could have won your debate. I have to give it to Con that your entire argument is flawed because in your opening statement, you used "I will establish that God exists according to who the KJV bible defines God as being," rather than "we." Con does not agree with that statement, and so it becomes a question of what is more reliable: two quotes from the KJV, or Con's more elaborate opening statement. In this case I side with Con.