The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Calvincambridge
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

God Exists

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 4 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 991 times Debate No: 19134
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Resolved: An all-powerful perfect good god exists.

I propose that we debate this resolution. I will be con. The first round will be for acceptance, then we shall begin with opening arguments and rebuttels. I wish you luck if accept. :)
Calvincambridge

Pro

I accept but reject all powerful and all good. I believe God is the most powerful being in the universe. God does what he wants and thats fine with me.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Greetings, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and would like to wish him the best of luck because he is going to need it. Now on with the debate!

Intro

I will be affirming the resolution that a almighty omnipotent deity does not exist. My arguments will be mostly from logic and common sense. There will be three of them, which in the end will show that god is only a myth , not a reality.

C1: Problem of Evil

My first argument the 'Problem of Evil', will be put forth in a syllogism that goes as follows:

P1: If god exists, then evil would not.
P2: There is evil in the world
C: Therefore, god doesn't exist.

If there were a god, there wouldn't be evil in the world. Yet, there is war, murder, death, greed, disease, famine, etc. If a god were to exist he would surely be good enough and powerful enough to get rid of all of these things that plague humanity.

C2: The Paradox of the Stone

In this next contention I will be arguing that the very existence of a perfect all powerful good god is a controdiction.

This argument is based soully on one question, and that question is:

Can a god create a stone that is so heavy he could not lift it?

If a god does create the stone, then he will not be able to lift it, and if he can't he is not all-powerful. Therefore, it is impossible for a all-powerful god to exist.

C3: Imperfection in 'Creation'

In this argument I will expose imperfection in the socalled 'creation'. I will start with a syllogism.

P1: If a perfect god exists, then his creation would also be perfect.
P2: There are biological defects in certain species of animals (including humans).
C: Therefore, a perfect god doesn't exist.

If there is a perfect good god then there would be no imperfections/defects in his 'creation'. Yet, there are mental and physical defects in many people and animals. There are people who suffer permanent retardation, and all species of the earth are seseptable to diseases and viruses; even death is a imperfection. These imperfections exist and therefore, a perfect good all-powerful creator/god doesn't exist.

I await my opponents responce to my arguments.

Vote Con!
Calvincambridge

Pro

ALL of you arguments are fslicious because I clearly stated God is not nessiceraly all loving. I stated he is not ALL powerful but the most powerful being in the universe.
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I thank my opponent for his reply even though it was somewhat short.

My opponent is wrong, because by definition God must be perfect in every way. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines the word/name God as:

'the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe'

So therefore, if God is to exist then he must be perfect. I have stated logical evedence that shows that he is not perfect, and you have refuted them successfully.

I await my opponents response. :)
Calvincambridge

Pro

Your argument is based on a logical fallicay. As Encarta world English dictionary defines God as
"supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe"
http://www.bing.com...

But I accept omnipotence and omniscience but blatantly reject omnibenelovence. God hates. He tells us he hates. God is all good, but not what we define as good since good is God God cannot be evil.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

My opponent has accepted my definition with the exclusion of all loving, yet he has failed to show how any of my arguments are fallacious. Since none of my arguments have to do with the 'all-loving' part of the defintion of God, my arguments still stand.

Vote Con.
Calvincambridge

Pro

Now that we have come to a clear defenition I will rebutt all of your points.
"P1: If god exists, then evil would not.
P2: There is evil in the world
C: Therefore, god doesn't exist."

This is not at all true God says he will deal with it until the end of days. God can do anything including the logically impossiable. Therefore YHWH is immune to Aristotle's discoveries.

P1. God can do anything including logical impossibalties
P2. Lifting a stone you cannot lift is an action
C. The stone paradox fails.

"If there is a perfect good god then there would be no imperfections/defects in his 'creation'. Yet, there are mental and physical defects in many people and animals. There are people who suffer permanent retardation, and all species of the earth are seseptable to diseases and viruses; even death is a imperfection. These imperfections exist and therefore, a perfect good all-powerful creator/god doesn't exist."

All of these 'Imperfections" are a result of orginal sin. It is a punishment from God. Therefore he himself brought these inflictions upon humanity. If these things dident exist it would be proof God DIDENT exist.

VOTE PRO and vote for YHWH as your ,lord, father and god.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JackSpades64 5 years ago
JackSpades64
Calvin's sources were less in quantity, but the Bible is a less trustworthy source. The reason for this is because in order for The Bible to be true, or a good source, God must exist. In order for the Bible to be a source, we would have to assume God exists, thus undermining the topic of this debate.

I assumed that Calvin's "all loving" is synonym for "omnibenevolent." If this is correct, then he was arguing against the problem of evil by saying it, although his comment in round 2. When Calvin stated that God is not omnipotent in round 2, he would be arguing against the stone argument, although this argument loses support, which will be shown in the following paragraph.

A person inclined to support Calvin would have to give the points for more convincing arguments to Death Before Dishonour, because Calvin changed his definition in round 3, God became omnipotent, when he wasn't in Round 1.

Calvin's text:
"I accept but reject all powerful and all good. I believe God is the most powerful being in the universe. God does what he wants and thats fine with me."
Here Calvin rejected omnipotence and omnibenevolence. The text is from Round 1.

"But I accept omnipotence and omniscience but blatantly reject omnibenelovence. God hates. He tells us he hates. God is all good, but not what we define as good since good is God God cannot be evil."
Here Calvin accepted omnipotence. The text is from Round 3.
Unfortunately I cannot vote at this time, however, I wanted to post my analysis of this debate.

Death Before Dishonour's spelling was acceptable. Calvin's spelling was atrocious. Examples: "fallicay," "rebutt," and "DIDENT."
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
ok then prepare for crushing. >:D
Posted by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
yes
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Question are we still debating the christian god?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
DeathbeforedishonourCalvincambridgeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was trolling, accepting a debate when he had no intention of arguing against the instigator's position. I have blocked Pro from accepting my debates, and recommend that others do the same. If you want to vote in another debate in which the Contender had no intention of arguing against the Instigator's position, go here: http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Problem-of-Evil-Proves-that-Tri-Omni-Gods-Do-Not-Exist./1/
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
DeathbeforedishonourCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't get past Con's objections to even make his own case for God's existence.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
DeathbeforedishonourCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Part of this is to counter 16kadams vote, which is ridiculous. Another part is to give DBDH the win for actually debating.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
DeathbeforedishonourCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: poor debate, but it was close so i gave scources to con and arguments to pro