The Instigator
PanduOfficial
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GeminiContractor
Con (against)
Winning
10 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 2 votes the winner is...
GeminiContractor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 58571
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

PanduOfficial

Pro

Hey!
I would just like to tell you that this round is not used for debating but is for validating that you will accept the challenge in the debate! I am saying that God exists! You will be debating and trying to prove why God doesn't exist Good Luck :)
GeminiContractor

Con

I accept your challenge.
Godspeed!
Debate Round No. 1
PanduOfficial

Pro

PanduOfficial forfeited this round.
GeminiContractor

Con

God does not exist because the soul does not exist.

Soul
"The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person's death."
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Thoughts and personalities are from the brain, which is physical, and, as such, problems from damage to and/or defects in the brain (e.g. amnesia, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia) are capable of affecting those thoughts and personalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
PanduOfficial

Pro

PanduOfficial forfeited this round.
GeminiContractor

Con

Nothing to add yet.
Debate Round No. 3
PanduOfficial

Pro

PanduOfficial forfeited this round.
GeminiContractor

Con

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
http://www.debate.org...

Please check out this debate and comment with what you think? I don't have enought completed debates to actually vote yet..
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Where's the medical report for the so called Deaf boy receiving hearing, sounds fishy.
Miracles are extraordinary occurrences, and extraordinary occurrences require extraordinary evidence to validate them as genuine.
Without the complete medical record, before and after the healing, we cannot believe any witness, as a witnesses testimony, such as yours is not Extraordinary Evidence.
Even personal experiences are not extraordinary evidences, they can mostly be hallucinations.
A Critical Thinking person would not consider your evidences as valid at all.
I did a Critical Thinking Course and what you have described is one of the things they warn against believing.
Because you lack real evidence for your experiences and perception.
Oh, what, you didn't see the Cochlea Implant???
:-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Modern Young Earth Creationism was started by the Hallucinations of Ellen G. White, who believed she went to Heaven with Jesus and saw God (separate persons, polytheism) create the world in just six of our days.
She led the Seventh Day Adventist movement and they preached Young Earth Creationism.
A follower of Ellen White, George McCready Price, wrote the first books stating that there is proof of the Genesis Flood and Creationists have plagiarized his writings ever since.
Even though he was not a fully qualified Geologist, so his work is mostly nothing but Bunkum.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Wiley, I've had more experience than you at lots of things, even seemingly spiritual.
I've had many Out Of Body Experiences, I know them all to be Hallucinations.
Most personal spiritual experiences are illusions or Hallucinations.
That is why I'm studying Neuro-psychology, to understand people's and my own experiences.

Joan of Arc performed her quest due to a personal experience that made her believe that she was doing God's will, but, a careful study of her own comments and answers made it obvious that here experiences were Hallucinations.
Very likely the God of the Bible was created by Abraham having a Hallucination.
Same for Jesus and his hallucination concerning Satan while in the wilderness.
Hallucinations can be caused by something as simple as dehydration, so Jesus did not drink enough water while in the wilderness and suffered a hallucination that his imagination turned into a Satanic scenario as this may be how he was feeling about his surroundings at the time.

Such as I know that if I feel good about my surroundings I have fairly good and even great hallucinations.
If I feel a little frightened or uneasy about my surroundings, I will have bad and even seemingly evil hallucinations.

Personal experiences are always Proof of absolutely Nothing.
To consider them to be evidence of God is Fallacious.
Anecdotal Evidence is never accepted as Evidence in any Law Court for that reason.
Posted by GeminiContractor 2 years ago
GeminiContractor
@WileyC1949
Those events could probably be explained without the necessity of a god, just as cancer 'miracles' can be explained.
Also, a few acts of kindness do not equate to being omnibenevolent, as omnibenevolent means "All-loving, or infinitely good", not "Partially-loving, or finitely good".
http://en.wiktionary.org...
http://en.wiktionary.org...
http://en.wiktionary.org...-
http://en.wiktionary.org...
http://en.wiktionary.org...
You can see in Malachi 1:3 and other verses that God is not all-loving.
"but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

How can you use the OT people's primitive understanding as an excuse?
I think that it would be somewhat hard to misunderstand this:
"This is what the Lord Almighty says: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
1 Samuel 15:2-3

I think that 'it' is a perfectly fine pronoun for an intelligent being with no gender, as it comes from the neuter form of the word that 'he' is derived from.
'it'
"The third-person singular personal pronoun used to refer to an animate entity of unknown gender."
http://en.wiktionary.org...
'hit'
"nominative and accusative singular neuter of hiz"
http://en.wiktionary.org...
'he'
"Refers to a male person or animal already known or implied."
http://en.wiktionary.org...
'hiz'
"this"
http://en.wiktionary.org...
While 'he' can be used in the same way as 'it', it seems more appropriate to call a genderless being 'it', as 'he' implies a male being.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Sagey and Gemini Hardly wishful thinking. I fully believe that if you had some of the experiences which I have had you would believe the same thing. Suffice it to say that my experiences have been proof to ME. These include actually seeing a boy whom I personally knew was deaf from birth receive his hearing at the touch and the prayer of a "healing priest", an "out of body" experience in which I saw the tunnel of light and a figure of light who told me it was not yet my time. I was able to confirm this event by being able to repeat the conversation of friends who were 1/2 mile away. A vision of my grandmother predicting her peaceful death, and a number of other events as well. None of these are "proof" for you, but they certainly were proof for me. So yes, I can say by my experience He certainly is omnibenevolent. In as far as the OT you are talking about a primitive people with a primitive understanding. The entire OT is the story of one people's GROWTH in faith and understanding of God.

Oh, and I am terribly sorry that the English language does not have the proper pronoun for an intelligent being who is not a he, she or it. Sorry, but that was a rather lame objection.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yes GeminiContractor:
Wiley is showing signs of extremely irrational wishful thinking.
Or they are more like False Assertion Fallacies.

Though Omnibenevolence automatically rules the Bible God out of the picture.
It's impossible to go from OmniMalevolent (Bible God) to OmniBenevolent (Wiley's God).
Posted by GeminiContractor 2 years ago
GeminiContractor
@WileyC1949
You said, "I fully believe that if and when we discover that greatest, or Supreme Being, we will find that He has the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, and that He was in some way responsible for what we call the physical world.."

1. What leads you to believe that the "Supreme Being" would be a He, instead of a She or an It?
2. What makes you think that it would have the trait of omnibenevolence?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yes Wiley, it is your assumption that there is an outside reality /plane of existence.
There is likely no outside plane of existence, this is it, our only existence and very likely nothing more to the universe than we perceive in science.
Science is about reality telling humans about itself.
It is not humans interpreting reality in a way that suits a human contrived belief system, that is not science but Creationism.
Intelligent Design is not God applying design to nature, it is humans asserting a design that suits a preconceived religious belief system.

Only Science has a valid measure of Truth, because it is nature telling us how nature works.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. It is not a quid quo pro that superiority in one are automatically leads to a deficit in another. The fact that you can point to it in humans whom I think you would agree are no where near the "greatest" beings in the universe does not necessitate that it happens to more advanced life forms inside or outside of plane of existence.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
PanduOfficialGeminiContractorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited without putting up an argument giving Con all the Argument, source and Conduct points.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
PanduOfficialGeminiContractorTied
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: Forfeiture. No one get's source, because wikipeadia is not a valid source. If you want to use wikipeadia then please use the links at the bottom of the page.