The Instigator
jktroll
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustinAMoffatt
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

God Is Not Present, Not Here. (Non-Existing Here On Earth and Around Earth)

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 3 votes the winner is...
JustinAMoffatt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 863 times Debate No: 35817
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

jktroll

Pro

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
God - noun
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
[1]
My argument therefore: no physical evidence of 'God', therefore 'he' does not exist 'here' and is nothing but a theory and fantasy. 'The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. That would in this case be the one claiming that there is such a thing as a god.' I need not disprove him but you must prove God's existence and presence here (Earth, the Universe..). Evidence is needed and 'spiritual feelings' and 'omnipresent' BS isn't evidence here OK.
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
JustinAMoffatt

Con

4 things I'd like to mention in my limited (2,000 char. limit/5 min) speech as Con.

C1: BOP is on the one affirming a statement.

The statement is that God is not here. No matter who Pro "says" the BOP is on, it would be illogical and impossible to fulfill the BOP from the Con side.

C2: KCA provides logical need for creator.

Essentially, everything in this earth (that we know) required a creator. Therefore, a God must have existed to create the earth.

Also, therefore, he must have been around earth.


I have never had such a ridiculous constraint of both time and characters to make an argument, (thanks for the challenge, my opponent) but there you have it.


My opponent failed to meet BOP.

God is required for earth by logic. Since my opponent didn't
rebut, I win this point.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
@Shadowguynick Actually... that depends on the kind of evolution you're referring to. Microevolution is practically a scientific fact at this point. However, macroevolution has no proof whatsoever. In fact, more assumptions have to be made to support macroevolution that to support creation!
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Science should really change scientific theory to something else. Theories are debatable, and are formed for the purpose of putting forth a new idea. A scientific theory (such as evolution) is a theory with so much scientific backing behind it that only major new evidence that has been extensively studied can put it into doubt or a normal theory again.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Anyway, God is not supernatural, or fantasy. Well, maybe supernatural, but I've experienced some supernatural thing, but, anyway, God is not fantasy. Tinker Belle and vampires are fantasy. Evolution and Big Bang is a theory. If you call God a theory and fantasy, then you would consider the Evolution and Big Bang a fantasy too. I agree with dj21.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Stop this ridiculous talk about things being proven to be real. It's just ridiculous talk. It's not true. Yes, it's impossible to prove that something non-existing to exist, but how can you know for sure? If it's impossible to prove something that doesn't exist to exist, it's impossible to prove it doesn't.
Posted by PhantomZyrus 3 years ago
PhantomZyrus
jktroll.
I would just like to say that I agree with you.
Very powerful points.
I am atheist but I was going to argue your points for fun.
Then I saw how strong they were.
You will win this one.
If you don't, I will be surprised.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
"It is impossible to prove that something does not exist."

Incorrect.
Posted by jktroll 3 years ago
jktroll
'fantasy suggest..' stop right there and use correct terminology before you start trying to get clever. the debate isn't about that. You (Con) have to prove there is evidence of God
Posted by dj21 3 years ago
dj21
You say God is "nothing but a theory and fantasy." Those are dramatically different things. Fantasy suggests no hint of reality. Theory suggests a plausible (even likely) but unproven link with reality. Evolution and the Big Bang are theories. Do you consider them fantasies?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
jktrollJustinAMoffattTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "God is nothing but a theory and fantasy." The Evolution and Big Bang are theories, but if you say that God is "nothing but a theory and fantasy", you would say that The Evolution and Big Bang are fantasies too. Another thing, if you can't prove something that doesn't exist exists, you can't prove that it doesn't. It's not true that everything has to have evidence to be real. It's just a bad habit of believing so.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
jktrollJustinAMoffattTied
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: What johnlubba said.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
jktrollJustinAMoffattTied
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: A one round debate on the existence of God was not enough for Pro to build a proper case. Also Pro only asserts God doesn't exist and does not fulfill the burden of proof as the instigator.