The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
rhema
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 30135
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

KingDebater

Pro

I'll allow Rhema to start with her arguments.
rhema

Con

ok...i accp not bcoz i thnk ill win...bt bcoz i love my lord. He accps me wen no one else does. And as i said in my previous debate.....no one who does not exist will be able to answer prayers. i claim my belief in him through few incidents:
my sis ws born premature with some disease called septisemia. she ws a high risk child n that time due to some problems in the hospital, she ws nt evn very well cared for. i had been pleading my parents for a baby sis for some yrs now n ws shoked that wen they finally gave me my wish, she might be dead without evn once seeing me. i prayed hard bt aftr 15 ays she had to be discharged even though she was nt completely well; prayers of family nd church saved her. well, i knw tht u will use scientific thngs for ur support. well, let me tell u this, science doz nt prove His existence it doz nt evn prove that He doz nt exist.
another thing, i've seen lame people walk and blind people see by prayers in front of my eyes. i have even seen the dead come alive.
more to come, but let me 1st clarify that i dnt understand gr8 eng words, so plz use simple language
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

These stories that Con has brought up wouldn't prove the existence of God even if they were true, which we have no reason to think they are. I'll now bring up my arguments:

#1: Anti-Omnipotence
(P1) God is supposedly maximally great.
(P2) A maximally great being is omnipotent.
(P3) An omnipotent being would have the ability to create a rock that is so heavy that the being cannot lift it.
(P4) If it does this, there's something it cannot do;
(C) Therefore, God nor any other being can be omnipotent or maximally great.

The main objection to this argument is that an omnipotent being not being able to do something is self-contradictory, but this argument explains that no being can be maximally great or omnipotent, so the being was never maximally great in the first place, as no matter when the being tried to do this, it would prove to not be maximally great or omnipotent. Another objection is that I'm misunderstanding the definition of omnipotence, and that God cannot do anything that is self-contradictory, but as I've explained, it's not self-contradictory since no being can be omnipotent and therefore the being was never omnipotent in the first place, not the word 'supposedly' in the first premise.

#2: The WSA argument from evil
(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.
(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.
(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good;
(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all-powerful and all-good.

I think this argument is pretty self-explanatory.

#3: The argument from reasonable Non-belief
(P1) God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and wants people to believe in him.
(P2) God wants people to believe in him, so he'd be willing to do what it takes for people to believe in him.
(P3) God is omniscient, so he knows what he needs to do for people to believe in him.
(P4) God is omnipotent, so he is able to do whatever it takes for people to believe in him.
(P5) Atheists exist;
(C) Therefore, there is no God who is omnipotent, omniscient and wants people to believe in him.

#4: The argument from Non-Cognitivism
(P1) There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified.
B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.
C. Relational Attributes - What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute.
(P2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
(P3) The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
(P4) Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
(P5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
(P6) Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless; (From 3, 4, 5)
(C) Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

I look forward to Con's response.
rhema

Con

ok let's take a look at what pro has said.
his argument #1 i have no objection
his #2: evil should not exist if there was god. that's not true. don't we all know that to appreciate the good, we need to know the bad? God wanted man to live as he wished (he, ie, man) it is because of man that all evils have come into existence. God has nth to do with this.
#3 god knows everything. Well, He does. As I mentioned before, God wants man to have his own desire. He wants him to believe in him but He does not run after it the way some men run after money.
#4 before you tell that to me, you should learn who god is. There is an A component in god. People have heard His voice, and a person who doesn"t exist should not have a voice. Thus, both B and C are also present in God

now for my arguments:
#all things exist: it is understood.
#someone must have created them: almost everything we use today except for people animals and natural resources, almost everything we have is man-made. these also must have been created by SOMEONE. and that someone is god.
#if god was not there nothing would have been in this universe.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

#1
My Claim: (P1) God is supposedly maximally great.
(P2) A maximally great being is omnipotent.
(P3) An omnipotent being would have the ability to create a rock that is so heavy that the being cannot lift it.
(P4) If it does this, there's something it cannot do;
(C) Therefore, God nor any other being can be omnipotent or maximally great.

The main objection to this argument is that an omnipotent being not being able to do something is self-contradictory, but this argument explains that no being can be maximally great or omnipotent, so the being was never maximally great in the first place, as no matter when the being tried to do this, it would prove to not be maximally great or omnipotent. Another objection is that I'm misunderstanding the definition of omnipotence, and that God cannot do anything that is self-contradictory, but as I've explained, it's not self-contradictory since no being can be omnipotent and therefore the being was never omnipotent in the first place, not the word 'supposedly' in the first premise.

Con's Claim: his argument #1 i have no objection

Con has no objection to this argument, and since this argument's conclusion is that no being is maximally great or omnipotent and the definition of God is 'a maximally great being who created the universe', I conclude that God does not exist.

#2
My Claim: (P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.
(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.
(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good;
(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all-powerful and all-good.

Con's Claim: his #2: evil should not exist if there was god. that's not true. don't we all know that to appreciate the good, we need to know the bad? God wanted man to live as he wished (he, ie, man) it is because of man that all evils have come into existence. God has nth to do with this.

I said that if there was an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good, not that if God existed then evil wouldn't exist.

#3
My Claim: (P1) God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and wants people to believe in him.
(P2) God wants people to believe in him, so he'd be willing to do what it takes for people to believe in him.
(P3) God is omniscient, so he knows what he needs to do for people to believe in him.
(P4) God is omnipotent, so he is able to do whatever it takes for people to believe in him.
(P5) Atheists exist;
(C) Therefore, there is no God who is omnipotent, omniscient and wants people to believe in him.

Con's Claim: #3 god knows everything. Well, He does. As I mentioned before, God wants man to have his own desire. He wants him to believe in him but He does not run after it the way some men run after money.

Con has not refuted my argument. When you are willing and able to do something, you do it. Therefore, a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and wants people to believe in him does not exist as atheists exist.

#4
My Claim: (P1) There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified.
B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.
C. Relational Attributes - What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute.
(P2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
(P3) The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
(P4) Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
(P5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
(P6) Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless; (From 3, 4, 5)
(C) Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

Con's Claim: #4 before you tell that to me, you should learn who god is. There is an A component in god. People have heard His voice, and a person who doesn"t exist should not have a voice. Thus, both B and C are also present in God

People have only claimed to hear the voice of God. We have no reason to actually believe that this is true. Thus, the god-concept is invalid.

Thus, all my arguments stand.

#5
Con's Claim: #all things exist: it is understood.
#someone must have created them: almost everything we use today except for people animals and natural resources, almost everything we have is man-made. these also must have been created by SOMEONE. and that someone is god.

Con makes a baseless assertion, the assertion that someone must've created everything. Until Con provides proof to back it up, this argument is invalid.
rhema

Con

i m not furrther thinking abt pro's #1 and 2
#3: god created people so that we could think what is right and wrong for ourselves. He gives options, we choose. He knows that believing in Him is necessary for us but He does not force us to do so. He does want us to believe. but not forcefully, He wants us to want to believe in Him and He doesn't WANT to make us want sth we don't want without force. In short, God doesn't want us to go against our will.
#4: i still claim that god exists. except hearing His voice, people in times of old testament have seen him and bible was written in that time, so if it was a fake story, people would have claimed that those stories were fake and they didn't, which is enough proof that those stories were true. thus, god has an A component and thus both the others as well.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
i will not reply any more comment now onward.
so just avoid me .
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
i am not arrogant.
some peopels use slag here. which hurts. even you kind debater. you did it. no body dares to insult my prophet. we are not here for the insult of our prophet or ALLAH. recently ALLAH said to me leave them. what they want they will see that. the time is not far. but we still care for you and come here. and talk with you and show you right path. we have answer for you each and every question. but you must learn at passe.
we are not arrogant but you are. relying a simple theory. theory has same credibility as faith. you insult ALLAH or GOD.
if we become angry. we only use sensible words. like idiot or ignorant or non sense or fool. but see what you use.
you are simple human beings just like us. you mind that so much. but what you use for our prophet saww or ALLAH. we can give our lives for them. but how could be bear. still we don't respond they way you. we must respond in sensible way.
well leave.
you have to wait for atleast a year.
if i foud time within time i will have debate. i deleted the account from Facebook and many other media to focus on my studies.
mean time i found this place to check so i will come back some time to have debate regularly.
but i am stuck here. huge demands of debates.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
well my debates would help many peoples.
i will surely do with you.
i am very busy man.
i must finish my study soon. i need to have married life.
but i must be on my own feet. for that i must finish my study.
should i damage my life only because of you. why you cant hold for some time.
my fiance is waiting for me loll.
when i will finish my study and merry her.
at least now onward dont disturb me. let me finish my last debate. than i will come later after my marriage.
i promise with you.
i already have answer for all of you. these matter are not matter of only one debate. it would make a series. on one topic a series of debates.
which will never last.
i will make my collection.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
every thing i said is mention in Quran.
you may know the first step in scientific method is observation.
and we know when NASA launches the Hubble telescope.
and there were many theories before. and they had not seen the universe. but which thing the observed to come with hypothesis. than theory.
still they can do experiment as not possible for them. so that that remain theories.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
dear at least do search what we says.
i already told you whenever you study. be positive.
than you will find the truth.
we call it knowledge what you say. and accept what right you say.
like all medical facts its your contribution. but go and see the history who provide you the base.
it was Muslims who put experiments in the way of Greek scientist. who only had theories.
i mean the scientific methoh was invented by muslims scientis.
see whatever you say is also said in Quran.
i must say you scientist have taken it from Quran.
eg.
the big bang. the black holes. the wormholes. the dark matter.
the shapes of planets or starts.
etc etc.
there is lot
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
keep in mind in the verse its mention " in its rounded course"
not in other's
ok
i will tell you what ALLAH said.
the night and day. its earth rotation around its own axis. which is rotatory motion.
but than he talk about circulatory motion of moon and sun.
so mention it separately.
he has talked about all motion at different places many time.
but here.
only these.
the moon circulate around earth. and sun circulate around center of galaxy.
see how wise he is.
is is talking about the correction motion of two light source.
like he said the created the day and night.,
than talked about the both source at the same time.
means the sun the source of light in day and the moon in night.
well the moon reflect the light which comes from sun. but it make it source. as if we dont had sun than there would be no reflection and in night the night would be purely blind.
indeed it provides the ultraviolet or infrared rays source which is important for many animals. those who hunts in night.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
sorry the google links where images. but the wrong links were copied.
well leave see the above link.
the sun is not stationary but it move around its onw axis.
which is rotatory motion.
and also revolve around the galaxy. and the time peiod is mention for both.

you found now. but we 1400 years ago.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
hahhahahah.
hahhahaha,
i told you na. your are ignorant.
when i was in 4 grade. it was in our science boook. that sun is stationary.
lol
is it joke.
about 1998.
but recently science get know the sun is not stationary.
this post was also posted in a forum.
i will send you link.
kids grow. and its time for to to go out from solar system to galaxy.
the sun revolves around the center of galaxy.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
KingDebaterrhemaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's S&G is so bad that I stopped reading in her first line.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
KingDebaterrhemaTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Con conceded at least argument #1, so this is a very straight-forward win for Pro. I also award spelling and grammar to Pro as Con was difficult to comprehend.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
KingDebaterrhemaTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Nothing from Con was coherent. Couldn't understand most of what she said. I have no other choice but to give arguments to Pro
Vote Placed by rogue 3 years ago
rogue
KingDebaterrhemaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I am so sorry King Debater got stuck with such an unworthy opponent. This is an important argument and there is no way to actually prove that god doesn't exist so Pro should have lost but Con was...ugh...terrible...
Vote Placed by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
KingDebaterrhemaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote on your debate you say? no.jpg