The Instigator
diety
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Winning
64 Points

God created everything

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 11 votes the winner is...
patsox834
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,770 times Debate No: 8613
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (11)

 

diety

Pro

Ohhh yes! I the name of the fatha and the son and the wholy spirit! God created everything. We exist and worship him as he is the light and the love and the spirit and that is proof that he exists!

Halliluya!
patsox834

Con

Haha, thanks to deity for creating an amusing little debate. I'm sure it'll be rather amusing.

<"We exist and worship him as he is the light and the love and the spirit and that is proof that he exists!">

Not only is the above reasoning fallacious in nature -- but it doesn't support the resolution; this debate isn't about god's existence; it's about whether he created everything. He can exist without having created; therefore, my opponent's rationale is irrelevant to the debate (God created everything.)

...to me succinct, my opponent hasn't in any way shown that God "created everything," and considering he's the claimant, the burden of proof is on him.

I guess I'll wait until deity provides a relevant rationale to throw a retort his way...I'm definitely looking forward to seeing his reasons.
Debate Round No. 1
diety

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate

You evil atheist, you're not pleasing God! The all loving God will eternally torture you if you don't behave!

And he says I don't have proof that God exists. I'll tell you the proof: DNA is the proof. The code is like TCAGTAGTA: its so complicated. Only God could create something like that. Also, our universe is so pretty and perfect and what you atheists think it occured like that for no reason? Our planet is at an extremely perfect spot in space and that's because of god!

And God did create everything because He is Holy and all loving and all powerful. He loves everything so much that he used His powers to create it! See, I've proven to you that God exists.

Is God not your everything? Is He not the way, the light, and the justice? Shame on you!

I'll prove to you that god exists and created everything: God will bless me with winning this debate!

There! Halyluya! Praise the lawd!
patsox834

Con

Thanks again to deity.

<"DNA is the proof. The code is like TCAGTAGTA: its so complicated. Only God could create something like that.">

Heh, this is a non-sequitur (1); such a rationale could be used to support the idea that satirical deities "created everything," as well.

<"Also, our universe is so pretty and perfect and what you atheists think it occured like that for no reason? Our planet is at an extremely perfect spot in space and that's because of god!">

My opponent's premise can be used to support varying conclusions (existence of the FSM, for example), so this is a non-sequitur, too. Humans are fine-tuned to the earth -- but I fail to see how that affirms the resolution. The earth didn't adapt us -- *we* have adapted to the earth.

<"And God did create everything because He is Holy and all loving and all powerful. He loves everything so much that he used His powers to create it! See, I've proven to you that God exists.">

To be all-powerful is to be logically contradictory; to be logically contradictory means god can't exist logically; if god can't exist logically, then it isn't logical to think he "created everything." That which cannot logically exist cannot logically create.

...but yeah, saying "god is holy, loving, and all-powerful; therefore, god created everything" is non-sequiturial logic, as well; being all-powerful, loving, and holy doesn't necessarily mean god created.

(1) = http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
diety

Pro

Oh father please help pastox for he is a lost soul.

"Heh, this is a non-sequitur (1); such a rationale could be used to support the idea that satirical deities "created everything," as well."

It could if other deities existed, but only the Catholic Christian God exists. It is logically impossible for any other deity to exist because they aren't all loving and all holy like God.

"My opponent's premise can be used to support varying conclusions (existence of the FSM, for example), so this is a non-sequitur, too. Humans are fine-tuned to the earth -- but I fail to see how that affirms the resolution. The earth didn't adapt us -- *we* have adapted to the earth."

We adapted to the earth? Obviously my opponent must be kidding. This isn't a game of pokemon: things don't evolve. I mean what, all of a sudden did a chimp get the experience and evolved into a human? You have got to be kidding me! As far as the premise supporting the flying spaghetti monster, it says in the Bible that God created man in His image. Does the flying spaghetti monster look like a man? No! So the perfect universe and our existence only serves as proof of the Christian God and not the FSM.

"To be all-powerful is to be logically contradictory; to be logically contradictory means god can't exist logically; if god can't exist logically, then it isn't logical to think he "created everything." That which cannot logically exist cannot logically create."

God created the logical and therefore exists above logic. Things that seem impossible are just things that our imperfect, inferior minds can't comprehend whereas the superior, almighty, all loving god exists!

And yes, being all loving and all powerful does mean that god created everything because he loves us so much he uses his power to create us!

:)

In the name of the fatha, the son, and the wholy ghost, I pray that you vote PRO. For the fatha!

Thank you

:)
patsox834

Con

<"Oh father please help pastox for he is a lost soul.">

I'm beyond saving...haha.

<"It could if other deities existed, but only the Catholic Christian God exists.">

Haha...well, usually, I'd ask for proof, evidence, or just some logic -- but considering this is the last post in the debate, such a thing would be useless.

What I'd like to point out, though, is how that refutes...well, nothing I said.

I said that premise *could* be used to support their existence -- *not* that they actually exist, so telling me that they don't exist seems futile for my opponent to do; it's a misrepresentation of my argument. And whether the satirical deities exist or not doesn't change that my opponent's rationale isn't valid due to it not following his conclusion, as I showed with the mock deities example.

<"It is logically impossible for any other deity to exist because they aren't all loving and all holy like God.">

So, my opponent's argument is this: other deities don't share the same characteristics of god; therefore, other deities can't logically exist. This is another non-sequitur; just because other deities mightn't be as loving as the Christian god doesn't mean they can't exist; those traits and their existence aren't mutually exclusive.

<"This isn't a game of pokemon: things don't evolve. I mean what, all of a sudden did a chimp get the experience and evolved into a human? You have got to be kidding me!">

Hahaha, greatness, man. I wish it was a game of Pokemon, especially since in my Silver version, all I'm missing is a Bulbasaur, and I have one in an egg. Too bad the game won't work, though.

But yeah, seriously...evolution doesn't state that chimps evolved into humans, which means my opponent is setting up and attacking a false argument -- one which I never used.

<"So the perfect universe and our existence only serves as proof of the Christian God and not the FSM.">

Haha, the supposedly "perfect" universe only works as proof of the Christian god because...god made man in his image? Another non-sequitur. There's no logical connection in my opponent's above argument.

Not only that, but my opponent misrepresented my point, which, in a nutshell, is that the concept that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove that god exists, nor that god "created everything." That line of reasoning is, like I said, a non-sequitur, which means it's fallacious, which means it's invalid.

<"God created the logical and therefore exists above logic.">

If god is above logic, then he mustn't exist within the confines of reality; if he doesn't exist within reality, then he mustn't exist. My opponent's argument is self-refuting.

In essence, if something can't exist within reality, then not only do we have no reason to believe it exists, but it *can't* exist.

<"And yes, being all loving and all powerful does mean that god created everything because he loves us so much he uses his power to create us!">

Being all-powerful, in and of itself, is an inherently flawed property. But I digress...

Well, that's essentially a rehashed version of this: <"And God did create everything because He is Holy and all loving and all powerful. He loves everything so much that he used His powers to create it!">

And yeah, it's still non-sequiturial. Just because god's supposedly loving and all-powerful doesn't necessarily mean that he created.

To summarize, my opponent carried the burden to prove that god created everything -- but he has failed to do so.

Heh, anyway, thanks to deity for this debate. And yeah, I urge all the readers to vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Frosty5794 6 years ago
Frosty5794
Not exactly sure which way to vote....

Con obviously won the debate but I think they were both equal in success in disproving the resolution.
Posted by pickpocket094 7 years ago
pickpocket094
I would have voted for Con on this one. The bible itself brings up the question, how does the first reference to God blowing wind across the oceans make sense. If the Lord was really creating each thing on Earth, how why does the story start with water already created. Similar questions can be raised about having a light in the sky before the sun was created. Kinda wish this debate was a bit more "formal" lol.
Posted by Lee002 7 years ago
Lee002
I agreed with Pro both before and after the debate...though not for his reasons. I think Pro was a parody, as most of the debate was (very obvious) circular reasoning.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"No, actually I voted for you.">

Hahahaha, I actually find that to be rather funny.
Posted by diety 7 years ago
diety
@ pastox

No, actually I voted for you.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
diety, you've always had the burden of proof. You have to use different arguments if you have the burden of proof. That's why the other debates were okay, but this one was just a failure.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"I'm still wondering how I've gotten a single vote on this debate.">

I assume you voted for yourself?
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
This is the worst debate. Diety lacked major knowledge and understand of the existence of God, like all atheists.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
I'm afraid, diety, your arrogance has blinded your better judgement. That being said, I agree that you shouldn't have gotten any votes beyond spelling & grammar.
Posted by diety 7 years ago
diety
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Hey, if these were legit arguments then so is mine in this debate
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
dietypatsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
dietypatsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Lee002 7 years ago
Lee002
dietypatsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
dietypatsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
dietypatsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
dietypatsox834Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
dietypatsox834Tied
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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
dietypatsox834Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
dietypatsox834Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
dietypatsox834Tied
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:07