The Instigator
ChandanB
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
TheNamesFizzy
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

God as explained by all religions does not exist.

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 3 votes the winner is...
TheNamesFizzy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 822 times Debate No: 66044
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

ChandanB

Pro

Anybody who believes in any kind of religion is challeneged by me to accept this debate. I believe that God, as described by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, folk.. anyone is absolutely wrong and has no proof for their claims and does not exist
TheNamesFizzy

Con

Obviously a very controversial issue. You made the claim that god does not exist, therefore, you have the burden of proof in this debate to prove that he in fact, does not exist. Personally, I am an Atheist, so this should be quite interesting for me.
Debate Round No. 1
ChandanB

Pro

Aah! Playing the Devil's Advocate I guess???
Well firstly the proof for existence/nonexistence of god is shared. In this round,I will put forward arguments as to why the God as we know it does not and cannot exist,followed by more arguments and rebuttal in Round 3,more rebuttal in Round 4, and end with a conclusion.
Here I will prove that Gods explained by some major religions does not and cannot exist and I will do this religion wise, that is I will debunk the Gods of the religions one by one.
According to http://www.pewforum.org...# The major religions of the world are-
1.Christian
2.Islam
3.Hinduism

1. Christians
Concept of God- Although there exists many groups and sub groups among them,the way they describe God contain some common attributes or features. They are-
1. SELF-EXISTENT: God has no cause; He does not depend on anything for his continued existence.
(Ex. 3:14; John 8:58)(John 5:26) (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 3:14; 21:6; 22:13)
2. IMMANENT: (Deut. 4:7; Jer. 23:23; Acts 17:27) (Psa. 139:7-10; Jer. 23:24; Acts 17:28)
3. IMMUTABLE:(Psa. 102:26-27; Isa. 51:6; Mal. 3:6; Rom. 1:23; Heb. 1:11-12; James 1:17; Heb. 13:8)
4. ETERNAL(Ps. 90:2; 93:2; 102:12; Eph. 3:21) (Psa. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8)
5. OMNIPRESENT: (1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:48-49) (Psa. 139:7-10; Acts 17:28; of Christ, Matt. 18:20; 28:20) (Jer. 23:23-24; of Christ, Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11)
6. OMNIPOTENT: He can do all things consistent with the perfection of His being. God cannot do the self-contradictory (e.g., make a rock He cannot lift),
Nothing too difficult (Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:17, 27; Zech. 8:6; Matt. 3:9)
All things possible (Job 42:2; Psa. 115:3; Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27; Eph. 1:11)
God cannot lie, be tempted, deny Himself, etc. (2 Tim. 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18; James 1:13)
7. OMNISCIENT He knows all things. Knows all events to come (Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7)
8. INCORPOREAL:God is spirit (John 4:24) God is not a man (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29)
Implied by doctrines of self-existence, transcendence, omnipresence, and creation.
9. ONE: God is a perfectly unique and simple being, existing as one infinite Being called God. There is therefore only one God (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5-7, 21-22; Zech. 14:9; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:5-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19)
10. CREATOR: God is the One through whom all things have come into existence (Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3) (Isa. 44:24)
Implied by doctrine of self-existence
11. PERSONAL: God, as the author of personhood in the created universe, cannot be less than personal Himself; thus He experiences relationships with other persons, or self-conscious beings. Note that God may be more than personal, indeed, (e.g., Gen. 1:3, 26; Heb. 1:1-2; etc.)
At this point I would request judges and opponent to check the sections from bible given above from www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ or any other viable book/site
ASSUMPTION Now it is safe to assume that whatever/whoever entity has the attributes same as that of God is God. Also, any entity who/which does not have at least one of the attribute is not God according to Christians.
Therefore I will put forwards sections from bible to show that he does not actually possess the attributes as mentioned in bible itself and logic.
ARGUMENTS
OMNIPOTENCY- (Luke 1.37)- "For nothing will be impossible with God." So a simple example as given 7 is that he CANNOT do the self contradictory. He CANNOT create a stone he CANNOT lift. So there exists things God cannot do.Thus God is not omnipotent.
SELF EXISTENCE/ASEITY- This says that God is self dependent and does not need us. (Exodus 3.14)(Genesis 1:31) He created us because he is creative and did what PLEASED HIMSELF. This implies he is depended on us for his pleasure,thus he is not self existent.
Therefore since he lacks some of the attributes of the christian god,he doesnot exist. (I will put more fallacies in next round as needed)

2. MUSLIM
Concept of God- In Islam, Allah,the islamic god has been given 99 attributes/features/qualities through 99 words http://www.whyislam.org... Now,mostly similar to the christian god,my arguments for why if allah doesnot have at least one of the qualities as listed is thus not allah is already put earlier in the christian section. Since I have already talked about aseity and omnipotency, here I will discuss why allah does not have a particular quality (disproving one quality should be sufficient to prove he is not allah) which would be omniscience.
ARGUMENT
OMNISCIENCE
-According to muslims,Allah is omniscient,therefore he knows everything that has happened or ever will. This implies that everything is already determined (this shows,religion recognizes the absence of free will) This implies that when people die, it is allah who has planned it. But then again he is al-rahim (most merciful) Then why is it that he designed the world to be full of sadness and death? Does he like the things going out here? Does he gain pleasure from the activities going here? This implies he isnt al-aziz (self suffiecient) He needs us for fun. Self contradictory qualities of allah shows he is either al rahim or al aziz. Therefore allah does not have 99 qualities. Therefore allah doesnot exist.Therefore islamic god doesnot exist.


3.Hinduism
Concept of God- Hinduism is probably the religion with the widest varieties. It is polytheistic and displays its Gods to have human like characters but much more powerful and immortal. Therefore I will use a separate argument to prove Hindu gods donot exist. Now, Hindus are familiar with stories related to gods which are very large in number. The stories are mainly recorded in the Puranas.
ARGUMENT
If we were to assume that the Hindu Gods are true,we can therefore say that humans (writers of puranas) must have seen/observed the important if not daily activities of the gods in both heaven and on earth. The writers of that time must have seen/heard directly/indirectly about the gods getting married,giving birth to children gods and saving their thrones in the heavens. They also must have seen/heard how the demons from hell would come to disturb human activities and then be protected by the gods. If all of this is true,how is it that NONE of these things or activities similar to these are now no more observed or seen. Have the Gods disappeared or they never existed other than in stories?

After my arguments stated above,I hope that I have been able to prove to all in a satisfactory manner that GODS AS EXPLAINED AND UNDERSTOOD BY RELIGIONS IS SELF CONTRADICTORY AND HENCE NOT PRESENT.
TheNamesFizzy

Con

Thanks for my opponent for creating such an interesting debate. As a brief roadmap, I only give my case in round two, I will not be doing rebuttals until round 3.

Observations: As the Con in this debate, in order to win the round there has to be a presentation of logical arguments for the likelihood of gods existance according to the descriptions of different religions. In contrast, Pro has to prove that god as explained by all religions does not exist.

C1 - A theory for gods existance, regardless of religion, is just as valid as other theories for origins:

A: First, we must define a theory as "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." There are fundamental logical flaws that exist with all theories of origins, but these logical flaws ultimately don't disprove them. For example, The Big Bang Theory has evidence to support it, but the problem lies in the questions that cannot be answered. It's the same idea with religious deities; no doubt there will be some logical questions that cannot be answered, however, just like these logical questions don't disprove The Big Bang Theory, they also don't disprove gods existance.

B: Specifically, my opponent is not attempting to prove that god doesn't exist, but he is merely trying to prove that no god explained by a specific religion exists. First of all, there are plenty of religions that were not recorded throughout history with literature. There is no viable way for him to disprove all of the religions throughout history without knowing what they actually believed. It's entirely possible that a religion we haven't discovered could have been one that actually presents the truth.

C2 - The likelihood of a god existing from one of the hundreds of thousands of religions throughout human history is likely:

A: What is the chance of Yahweh not existing? What about the Christian Trinity? Vinshnu? Zeus? Allah? Isis? Each probability might be close to one: each God may be unlikely. But multiply them together and the chance of none of them existing drops way down and makes it much more probable.

B: How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable? The best explanation for this is probably god defined by religions. Science can observe these laws, but at this moment in time, religion offers the best explanation, not necessarily for origins, but for big questions such as these.

C3 - Religions and contradictions:

A - Shintos: Shintos believe in kami. They are spirits which take the form of things and concepts in life, such as wind, rain, mountains, trees, rivers and fertility. In contrast to many monotheist religions, there are no absolutes in Shinto. Much like all other religions, there is no way for the Pro to actually prove none of these gods exist in this resolution. He can point out contradictions such as the omnipotence idea etc, but not all religions have these flaws. In fact Shintos, I would argue, have none of these contradictions that major religions such as Christianity have. They have logical flaws, yes, but logical flaws as I've discussed briefly in C1 do not disprove an idea.

I affirm, back to you con.
Debate Round No. 2
ChandanB

Pro

A.The Big Bang Theory has evidence to support it, but the problem lies in the questions that cannot be answered. It's the same idea with religious deities; no doubt there will be some logical questions that cannot be answered, however, just like these logical questions don't disprove The Big Bang Theory, they also don't disprove gods existence.
Questions raised against a theory does not disprove it (agreed). A theory stands as long as at least a single evidence against it is found. Questions on a theory only means the theory is incomplete. There are many questions related to big bang that have are unanswered,it means its incomplete. However there is not a single evidence or proof that goes against it. Much like evolution, a single logical evidence against it is enough to prove it wrong. (kindly dont get into the game of semantics here)In a theory,when there are contradictory proofs,they are changed or discarded. However in over thousands of years,the religions have been describing god in a contradictory manner and yet havent agreed to change the description,the initial description still remains.
a} The exists a theory/religion named L with statements x,y,z

b} x and z are contradictory
c1.} x and z are discarded or amended c2} x and y are not discarded or amended

d1} L still exists but now as L' (L' similar to L) d2} L doesnot (cannot) exist in any way

B.Thank you for understanding. I am not exactly debating against theism but theism as explained by religion. Discussion about the presence of a secular god should not contain religion as a factor as religion is the creation of man. It is true that there are thousands of religions in the world and there is no viable way each of them can be disproved separately. However it is also true that all religions have described their god as being almighty, (omnipotent,omnipresent etc etc) or have described the presence of spiritual/supernatural entities. At this point I would request opponent to show a religion who describe almighty that is not fallible scientifically and logically. (Although that should be difficult to find as religions are based on faith and not logic)

A2.What is the chance of Yahweh not existing? What about the Christian Trinity? Vishnu? Zeus? Allah? Isis? Each probability might be close to one.But multiply them together and the chance of none of them existing drops way down and makes it much more probable.
All religions state that their gods are true gods and the rest will be punished. And the people following the true religion will be protected by god. Right? How is it then that people get killed irrespective of the religion they belong to? How is it that people from no particular religion seem to more blessed?
As for religions who accept the coexistence of other religions, are not really a religion as they accept that their god is true but also accept that other gods from other religions also exist. This means they have doubt over their own beliefs. Etheir their god exists or the other religion's god exist. The mid way religions donot make sense.

B2. The explanation for these questions MAYBE/MAYNOTbe explained by a god. But definitely not the ones as shown by religions. Gods of religions are intolerant of people who donot believe in him. As said before, that would lead to only people belonging to the true religion to be prosperous and the rest sad and unhappy which is not what we see on earth (unless of course all religions are true and each's god kill people of the other religions)
TheNamesFizzy

Con

Thanks Pro,


As a brief overview, as my opponent has conceded there are plenty of religions we know nothing about. This means there is no viable way for him to prove the affirmative side in todays debate, as he cannot prove they don't exist without actually knowing what they believed.

His arguments are a lot of contradictions we can find in many religions, however, as I addressed in my case, Shintos don't believe in omnipotence and a lot of these conditions my opponent defines. There are also many religions that don't go in detail about these specific ideas, therefore, my opponent cannot presume all gods must have these contradictions.

"Then why is it that he designed the world to be full of sadness and death? Does he like the things going out here? Does he gain pleasure from the activities going here?"

A very good question. The accepted answer to this question is to allow humans the free will to make decisions for themselves. If a deity removes all suffering, then we would live perfect lives, which is the purpose of heavan. It's a way to test individuals for the character and integrity to see who should enter eternal paradise.

" If all of this is true,how is it that NONE of these things or activities similar to these are now no more observed or seen. Have the Gods disappeared or they never existed other than in stories?"

It's important to recognize a lot of religions don't believe in divine intervention on a regular basis. The Greeks did, however, the reason we don't observe them is because first of all, they appear more on an individual on individual basis as explained by Hindu scriptures. God doesn't appear in front of audiences and crowds. You could argue that again, this is just stories, however the lack of eye witnesses directly does not disprove an event. Much like how a lack of eye witnesses in a court of law doesn't mean the suspect has to be innocent.

I negate.
Debate Round No. 3
ChandanB

Pro

# At this point I feel the need to define,what is a religion?
  • A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
  • Now there are many groups which are marked as religions but are more like a culture or 'a way of life' that is, a philosophy.
  • They do not describe the existence of supernatural entities but define things that are morally wrong or right, the culture of a particular group of people,their traditions. Listening to rock and living by its philosophy is a way of life. They are different from religions. They teach how to live rather than who created life and how creator wants us to live life.
  • IF A 'RELIGION' DOESNOT SPECIFICALLY EXPLAIN OR DESCRIBE CREATOR, AND FOCUSES ON HOW TO LIVE A GOOD LIFE,THEN IT IS NOT A RELIGION BUT A PHILOSOPHY.

# Coming to the Shintos, Shintos do believe in 'kami' which are spirits of certain things or villages. According to shintos, all the kamis arrive from the first kami Amenominakanushi who created the Universe. http://eos.kokugakuin.ac.jp...
As easy it is to discard the shinto god who created Universe, I will not waste much time on it as it is clearly nothing more than a mythological story with no evidence whatsoever. Similarly there is no proof for the existence of the spirits of things.

#Now, as said before, it is not possible to disprove the gods of all religions one by one.

  • However,there is a reason why Christian and Islam is put under a same group called RELIGION.
  • Just like in nomenclature of animals, where organisms belonging to the same class/phylla/kingdom HAVE TO HAVE A COMMON FEATURE TO BELONG TO THE SAME GROUP,similarly there is a reason why all 'religions' religion. It is because they have some features in common, that is the existence of god and it being the creator of the universe and protecting humans. There are certain points where all religions agree (it is just that the name of the god changes) http://theharmonyinstitute.org...
  • As for minor religions and extinct religions which might have been truly describing god which remain unknown to us, as mentioned by opponent, the first question that arises here is that HOW DID THE 'TRUE RELIGION' COME TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF GOD? The few possible explanations can be- Either they saw the true god, or they deduced the features of the true god or it was merely a lucky guess by them. (Other possible explanations are welcome) ----->
  1. If the saw the true god, how is it then that the true god stopped visiting or was not seen by any one over a period of so many years? If true god had come to give them a visit to tell them about the 'truth', why did he not tell other people of the world and only to selected people? If he had visited all people of the world (at the same or different time) NO OTHER RELIGION WOULD HAVE EXISTED AND WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING THE TEACHING OF THE TRUE GOD.
  2. Had it been that true religion had deduced the features of the true god using logical reasoning (the reasoning which is unknown to us) why did their religion became extinct or is unable to make a major impact? If they had used infallible reasoning wouldnt more and more people follow them ultimately leading to it becoming a major religion?
  3. If the description of true god by a religion is correct by lucky guess,well it may make the god true,but it does not make the religion true. Also if the guesses were correct, it would still result in explaining a true god in an infallible manner which leads to my argument in 2.


Opponent - The accepted answer to this question is to allow humans the free will to make decisions for themselves. If a deity removes all suffering, then we would live perfect lives, which is the purpose of heavan. It's a way to test individuals for the character and integrity to see who should enter eternal paradise.
Firstly why would god want to 'test' our characters? What do get if we 'pass' the test? According to religion it is HEAVEN right? Why does God want to gift us residence in Heaven or Hell in the first place? Just so that he can spend his time doing all these things?? This then implies again that god is depended on us and therefore NOT OMNIPOTENT [If the feature of omnipotence is not a feature of a god of a particular religion,then it proves the 'god' is nothing but merely an entity just more powerful than us]
If the true god exists and he created us, how can we then say that he did not create our character too? Then who is it that created our character? If humans have free will to be 'good' or 'bad' or 'ignorant', WHO IS IT THAT GAVE HUMANS OPTIONS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BEING GOOD, BAD OR IGNORANT? WHO CATEGORISED OUR ACTIONS AND DEEDS INTO THESE 3 GROUPS? Surely it has to be god (would love to know a different opinion of these questions)
The point that I am trying to make above is that it is not possible for god to give us 100% free will. There has to be some degree of determinism done by god. This thus implies that in an indirect manner if god exists, our future is pre determined, if not by 100% Here, I once again reinforce my point that THIS PROVES THAT GOD HAS OUR FUTURE DECIDED AND IS MERELY TOYING WITH US (SHOWING THAT HE IS NOT OMNIPOTENT AS DESCRIBED BY MAJOR RELIGION,thus not god)(If the feature of omnipotence is not a feature of a god of a particular religion,then it proves the 'god' is nothing but merely an entity just more powerful than us)


TheNamesFizzy

Con

Migraine. Not going to finish response, sorry.
Debate Round No. 4
ChandanB

Pro

I hope that con gets cured fast and is good enough to put a rebuttal and a conclusion in 1 round (I dont mind rebuttal in last round)
Here I conclude my arguments in short statements-
1.Gods as explained by major religions of the world are self conradictory and hence cannot exist.
2.Religions which are now extinct or minor is because the god explained by them are unsatisfactory,had fallacies and hence were not accepted by people.
TheNamesFizzy

Con

Why you should for Con.

1.) The claim made in todays debate is that "God as explained by all religions does not exist," but then that raises the question -- how can we disprove "all religions" without actually knowing the existance of every religion? My opponent presents logical problems with current religions, and then applies them to all, but not all religions present the same deity. For that reason alone, you should vote in negation.

2.) In his second rebuttal he asks questions revolving around why would some religions know but not everyone. The problem with this is that he's trying to apply secular logic and reasoning to a deity that is not wordly. God in all the religions I know of, is generally very mysterious, as you would expect for a deity infinitely more powerful and capable than a human. These questions kind of remind me of watching Law and Order, you ask a lot of questions throughout the episode, but by the end you come out with a better understanding. Death, in this instance, being the end of the episode. So while logical questions can be asked, it doesn't disprove the idea of a deity.

3.) "Firstly why would god want to 'test' our characters? What do get if we 'pass' the test? According to religion it is HEAVEN right? Why does God want to gift us residence in Heaven or Hell in the first place? Just so that he can spend his time doing all these things?? This then implies again that god is depended on us and therefore NOT OMNIPOTENT [If the feature of omnipotence is not a feature of a god of a particular religion,then it proves the 'god' is nothing but merely an entity just more powerful than us]
If the true god exists and he created us, how can we then say that he did not create our character too? Then who is it that created our character? If humans have free will to be 'good' or 'bad' or 'ignorant', WHO IS IT THAT GAVE HUMANS OPTIONS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BEING GOOD, BAD OR IGNORANT? WHO CATEGORISED OUR ACTIONS AND DEEDS INTO THESE 3 GROUPS? Surely it has to be god (would love to know a different opinion of these questions)
The point that I am trying to make above is that it is not possible for god to give us 100% free will. There has to be some degree of determinism done by god. This thus implies that in an indirect manner if god exists, our future is pre determined, if not by 100% Here, I once again reinforce my point that THIS PROVES THAT GOD HAS OUR FUTURE DECIDED AND IS MERELY TOYING WITH US (SHOWING THAT HE IS NOT OMNIPOTENT AS DESCRIBED BY MAJOR RELIGION,thus not god)(If the feature of omnipotence is not a feature of a god of a particular religion,then it proves the 'god' is nothing but merely an entity just more powerful than us)"

I'm going to give an odd example, but I hope it comes across as semi understandable. Deus Ex Machina in the anime The Future Diaries is a "god." He can control space and time, but he also allows wiggle room for the humans to make their own free decisions in the world. A god, while he might have created the first humans, could allow wiggle room for them to reproduce and create their own societies and develop as people. A residence of heaven and hell (not just in the traditional sense), could help sort out the people based on conditions or standards the God sets. It could be morality, or based on the challenges they overcome, or even just on the people who worship him. Regardless, do these standards actually matter in determining his existance? He could be an unjust God according to our standards, but that doesn't disprove him being a deity.

In summation, the Pro has not sufficiently proved that these Gods do not exist, and I urge a vote in negation.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
Thanks for being cool, good debate.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
Thanks
Posted by ChandanB 2 years ago
ChandanB
its okay! i will put my argument later so that you get time to heal and then put a conclusion and rebuttal together
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
cheyennebodie
[ree-al-i-tee]
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. (Philosophy) philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them
Wow what a statement.
You my not be aware there is only one reality.
Any other reality claims would at the least be imaginary, at the most delusional.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
Ugh, I said "affirm, back to you con" it was supposed to be the other way around :'(.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What makes you think that the only reality is what you can see and feel?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
God belief, with no explicit standard to be compared to, is subjective because it is based on faith. Faith is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share. Faith is also an unreliable and irrational basis for singling out one religion and claiming that it is true while all other religions, as well as any competing secular philosophies, are false. Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The only way you can positively say God does not exist is to have peeked over past your own death and saw there was nothing there. Otherwise you have to take by faith he does not exist.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
ChandanBTheNamesFizzyTied
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: Very well argued by both sides, unfortunately Pro was just not able to support his claim and so my vote goes to Con. Well done both of you.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
ChandanBTheNamesFizzyTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued for the absence of the God of some religions, but failed to prove the absence of the God of ALL religions and therefor fails to uphold burden of proof.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
ChandanBTheNamesFizzyTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The bop was NOT shared. Pro made.the positive claim and was the instigator. Definitions need to be proposed in the first round. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, so arguments to Con. Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.