The Instigator
Calagh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rafalaf
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
rafalaf
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 76683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

Calagh

Con

Hi, I would like to thank pro for accepting this debate. As you see I'm new here, and so I wish i can have an easier opponent.
rafalaf

Pro

Accepted. I want to thank Calagh of making this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Calagh

Con

Well the theory of evolution has been proven which just makes god fake.
http://www.patheos.com...
rafalaf

Pro

Though you can not prove that evolution wasn't caused by God, and things like death can also been caused by God.

Also your own site says that we don;t know if it was proven.

To add on, I would like to state that omnipotent beings are still omnipotent when non-existant. For example, an unexistant orange is still orange, despite it's unexistance. There's a whole philosophy concerning non-existant objects, which supports my point. Objects, or at least non-existant objects, all exist. In fact, every language that I know of calls unexistant objects existant. Words like "something" or "someone" allow us to create unexistant objects and use them in reality. In the sentence "Someone ate my lunch", that someone doesnt officially exist, yet we think he does. Lets use Santa as an example. Santa (MAJOR SPOILER) doesn't exist. And so nobody could argue against the fact that Santa is an unexistant person. Deriving from that is the statement: "There is an unexistant person, namely Santa". And so Santa (MAJOR SPOILER FOR ADULTS) technically does exist, but as an non-existant person. But let's think for a minute. How does the real Santa, if he existed, differ from the non-existant one? Well, the real Santa is exactly the same, except he exists! He has the same traits as the non-existant one, and the same job! Back to God. If God does not exist, we can safely say that God is an unexistant person (or is he an object or place?). And if God is an unexistant person, that means that there is an unexistant person, namely God. But, since God is omnipotent in his unexistant form as well as his existant form, he can create/de-create himself and freely travel between the barrier of existance. This means that he could have created the bing bang, being omnipotent and unexistent, and made himself.
Debate Round No. 2
Calagh

Con

I give up.
rafalaf

Pro

I further exdend my points.

I ask you one question... did Con convince you that god doesn't exist? I have rebuted his only point, therefore... vote Pro ;D
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: voxprojectus // Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Sources, Arguments, S&G) 1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I'm a person of faith, but I only ended up sympathizing with Con's frustration and feel quitting was the right decision.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Voting based on personal bias.
===========================================================================
Posted by rafalaf 1 year ago
rafalaf
Sorry Tejretics and mfigurski80.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Just cite it in the cokments, we'll be good.
Posted by RatedRex 1 year ago
RatedRex
well that was anti-climatic...
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@rafalaf - you plagiarized mfigurski80's arguments from my debate -.-
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
First of, this is my argument, which was not cited at all. And secondly, let me explain:

Notice that I, nor my brother who is winning this debate, said that non-existant objects actually exist. And that is why we can prove God is necessary. Here's my thought process:

1. God doesn't exist
2. God is an non-existant object
3. There IS a non-existant object, namely God.
4. The non-existant God is omnipotent, and therefore he can create an existant copy of himself.

If you cannot understand it now, I really don't know how to do transmit it.

Quote - "Good God, what a pathetic display of inteligence"
At least I actually displayed mine, unlike you.
Posted by gestotamoseke 1 year ago
gestotamoseke
This is the stupidest argument i've ever seen. Non-existant things actually exist? riiiiiiggggghhhhhhht.

Just because we have names for things like santa clause or the spaghetti monster - doesn't make them an actual reality - this isn't south park's imagination land. good god what a pathetic display of intelligence.
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
Kryptic
idk man, con had a pretty convincing argument
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Hey! Why u no cite mmy debate?!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 1 year ago
KeytarHero
CalaghrafalafTied
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: Con gave up, and used another site as his entire argument. Clear victory for Pro.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
o0jeannie0o
CalaghrafalafTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfit- conduct points to pro, Con did not refute- arguement to pro
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
CalaghrafalafTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by SlenderKitty 1 year ago
SlenderKitty
CalaghrafalafTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
CalaghrafalafTied
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: Con gave up.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
CalaghrafalafTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Concession.