The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

God does 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 5 votes the winner is...
Anti-atheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 28066
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

round 1 is for acceptance.
emospongebob527

Con

I'd like to thank Anti-Atheist for erecting such a wonderful debate!

Since you decided not to put forth definitions, I will do so myself.

God- the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.

Omniscient- the ability to know all things that have happened, that are happening and that will happen.

Omnipotent- the ability to do all things; including the ability to violate logic.

Omnibenevolent- having unlimited goodness and love.

does- present 3d singular of do

exist- to have real being whether material or spiritual.

Otherwise, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

I'm OK with the definitions proposed.

Does God exist? I would say definitively yes, as it's a fact of nature. Such an inescapable fact.

1. The Ontological Argument

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
2. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
4. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

2. The Moral Argument

Do you believe in objective morality? I.E. an objective morality would be that something such as rape is always wrong. If objective morality doesn't exist then show a case where rape is right.

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
2. Morality is objective and absolute.
3. Therefore, God must exist. If morality is objective and absolute,

3. The Christological argument
From carm.org/easter-story-true

3a. Jesus' Tomb was Empty (JET)

In additon to the crucifixion, there are numerous reasons to believe that the tomb was indeed empty on that Easter morning. This evidence can be summarized by the acronym JET: J - Jerusalem Factor, E - Enemy Testimony, and T - Testimony of Women. First, the disciples preached the gospel in Jerusalem in the midst of opposition. It would have been virtually impossible for Christianity to survive and expand in Jerusalem if the body of Jesus was still in the tomb. All the opponents of Jesus would have had to do was produce the body of Jesus and squelch this Christian movement.

Second, early enemies of Christianity never disputed that the tomb was empty. Instead, they argued that the disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).

Third, and perhaps the strongest evidence, the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. Sadly, the testimony of women was not regarded highly in antiquity. The Jewish Talmud states, ""Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman" (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)." Furthermore, "Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women" (Talmud, Sotah 19a). However, in the Gospels, the apostles are the ones who are cowardly hiding from the Jews and the women bring them news of the empty tomb! If Christians were going to invent the empty tomb story, they most certainly would not have used women as the primary witnesses.

3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian Faith

The early disciples of Jesus did not expect their great Messiah named Jesus to ever face crucifixion and rise from the dead. In line with the current Jewish thoughts of the day, the disciples's Messiah was to triumphantly defeat the Romans and deliver the kingdom of God to the nation of Israel (cf. Acts 1:6). It is clear that the disciples did not expect the crucifixion. It was indeed an embarrassment to their faith. Their chief leaders had abandoned the faith and become skeptics and doubters. Of all people, women were the first to bring them news of the resurrection!

But, something happened to radically change these pitiful cowardly disciples from trembling doubters to bold proclaimers of this radical notion of a dying and rising Jewish Messiah in the midst of a hostile culture. These disciples were willing to die for their faith, and many of them would actually face death (all of the twelve apostles died by martyrdom except John). Radically, they changed their primary day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, they began to worship this man named Jesus while still claiming to be faithful Monotheistic Jews, something that was extremely radical and was blasphemous to the Judaism of the day. They did this all because something happened on that first Easter morning.

Due to all of these factors, it is certainly reasonable to conclude with the former church persecutor, then turned Christian, the apostle Paul,

"Death is swallowed up in victory. 55'O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 15:54-57).
emospongebob527

Con

1. The Ontological Argument:

With the axioms you posit I could willingly place the premise; "It is not possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness." And you would come out with an opposite conclusion. Now, Anti-Atheist, for me to address you, you must make a logically deductive argument. All of the premises you have put forth are merely groundless claims with no philosophical backing whatsoever, and my negation will not be put forth until you back up your arguments deductively.

2. The Moral Argument:

1) It appears my opponent wants me to show a case where rape is right, but since he is the affirmative side, he must show that rape is always wrong.

2) Again, I could easily put forth a different Premise 1; "If morality subjective and not absolute. God must not exist." I would come up with an opposite conclusion, and like I said, you are merely positing groundless assertions with no evidential or philosophical backing, until you make such effort to do so, I will be able to address your arguments.

Christiologial Argument:

My opponent last contention will be extremely difficult to address because I can find no revelance in it to this debate and the more conservatively and carefully I read it I cannot draw conclusions on my opponents true intentions for this argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. The ontological argument

You must prove it's impossible. Since we don't have all knowledge of the universe we have to conclude it's possible.

2. The moral argument

If morality is subjective you have to show a case where rape is right.

2. Sure but you gave yet to show morality is subjective. We have this inside knowledge of whats right and wrong.

3. The Christological argument.

Con evades. Points goto me.
emospongebob527

Con

1. The ontological argument

Why must I prove it's impossible, I'm not the one making the claim that it is possible, you are and you have yet to prove this, I await your arguments.

2. The moral argument

I simply said we could reverse the dichtomy of your syllogism and an opposite conclusion would emerge. Also, I am not the one making these claims you must prove rape is wrong in all cases, why are you trying to shift the burden of proof onto me?

I am not claiming morality is subjective, you must prove morality is objective, what's up with your conduct?

3. The Christological argument.

I most certainly did not evade this argument, I simply did not address it because it is unrelated to the debate topic, unless you can show it is.
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. Ontological

You see. The argument is there. You said we could claim it's impossible for god to exist. But the ontological argument cannot be reversed. It wins you fail.

2. moral

We know rape is wrong and objective. We know it. That's how we know it's objective. We just have that feeling. We know rape is wrong in all cases, we just know. You still haven't refuted this one. Where do morals come from? How do you know what's right and wrong.

3.Christlogical

You did evade. I win on this one, is relevant
emospongebob527

Con

1. Ontological

I will proceed when Pro decides to stop dancing around his burden of proof.

2. moral

I cannot refute an argument you never made.

3.Christlogical

No, I simply do not address because it has little relevance to your resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
Anti-atheist

Pro

You fail hard. You evade like a dirt child on a rider back. Like a politician. I won and u got pwned.

Another win fur JESUS!
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
Pro, you have already dug yourself a hole. You have committed three fallacies: Fallacy of Over Reliance on Authority and Begging the Question in round two and Shifting the Burden of Proof in round three. If you want to win this debate, you also must realize that you can't justify the Bible with the Bible. You can't say for example say that God created the world because the Bible says so. Those are two unsupported claims. Now, I am not trying to discourage you, but do realize you are putting yourself at risk to lose this debate.
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
magic

Hitler wasn't that bad.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
"If objective morality doesn't exist then show a case where rape is right."

What if it was done to someone like Hitler?
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Can you change it to four rounds? I don't like to read debates longer than three rounds (four rounds when, as here, the first round is challenge and acceptance), so I don't want to ask anyone else do so either. Longer debates are mostly disorganized rehashing of previously covered material.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
Anti-atheistemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
Anti-atheistemospongebob527Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to neither; Pro insulted con in the final round and Con forfeited. Spelling and grammar go to neither as both debaters enunciated fairly well Arguments go to Pro for a logical constructive; con fails to offer much in the way of refutation and basically just rejects pro's arguments. Sources go Pro as he actually provided one. Con did not.
Vote Placed by Firewolfman 3 years ago
Firewolfman
Anti-atheistemospongebob527Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Better conduct to emo, as pro insulted con in the last round. Spelling and grammar to emo, as when copied and pasted into word, more mistakes were found in Anti-atheist's arguments. Convincing arguments to emo, as pro shifted the BOP, and strawman's were seen repeatedly from anti, and lots of lawyering from pro, therefre the point goes to con. Reliable sources to con, because pro uses lots of quoted material but fails to provide an UNABBREVIATED source, and does not provide us with any way to view his source other then googling it., which doesn't prove that he used a source at all.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Anti-atheistemospongebob527Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither Pro nor Con seemed to have any talent for rebuttals, but Pro's opening argument was stronger than any of Con's rebuttals.
Vote Placed by emj32 3 years ago
emj32
Anti-atheistemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Con's forfeiture.