The Instigator
GorefordMaximillion
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God does not exist

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 5 votes the winner is...
GorefordMaximillion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,212 times Debate No: 27462
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

GorefordMaximillion

Pro

I would like someone to challenge my position that there is no God. ("God" being a creator of the universe. Not any specific Religious deity)

The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence. I can only prove alternatives and fallacies in arguments for.

Challenger can open debate with any/all arguments for.

Following rounds will involve me debating opponents arguments and possibly offering my own alternate scenarios.

Also, opponent can offer modifications to the debate parameters which I will either accept or deny.
RationalMadman

Con

God is not physical, and is scientifically unfalsifiable.

God made you think you were pro on this matter and will control any argument you make against god. God will decide whether or not con or pro wins this debate. God allows you to exist and to be atheist until it (I don't call God a 'he') wishes you not to be.

God is so powerful it is immeasurable by human means.

God is so undetectable it is indeterminable by technological means.

God is great.
Allah hu'akbar.
Peace be upon it.
Debate Round No. 1
GorefordMaximillion

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge RationalMadman.

Note: I don't believe "unfalsifiable" is a word, however I take it to mean "unable to be proved false."

Con has failed to meet the burden of proof in round 1.

"The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence"

Con offered no modifications to this requirement; therefore it is assumed he has accepted the burden. Con"s argument seems to be that God is not provable nor improvable however, and his points can be argued against.

"God is not physical,"

Con has declared something that "God" is not (physical), however con has not offered any alternate state or being of God. Also, con has offered no proof or reasoning for this declaration.

" and is scientifically unfalsifiable."

Con has again made a declaration with no proof or reasoning behind his argument. Also, the state of being un-falsifiable does not equate to being at all. He is merely claiming that science cannot prove that "God" is non-existent. I would tend to agree as proving a nonexistence of a thing is virtually impossible. One can prove alternate explanations of causes, and then scientifically/logically verify said causes; however, a "physical" or "metaphysical" thing can only be proved to exist.

Ex: I cannot "prove" a unicorn does not exist. However, the burden of proof to show a unicorn does exist rests on the shoulders of the claimant. This is why debate conditions set forth in Round 1 give the burden of proof to con. Non-existence is assumed until existence is proven.

"God made you think you were pro on this matter and will control any argument you make against god. God will decide whether or not con or pro wins this debate. God allows you to exist and to be atheist until it (I don't call God a 'he') wishes you not to be."

Again, con has offered no proof, whether in the form of logic/reasoning, science or other, to his declaration. He has merely made a statement.

Ex: If I replace the word "God" with the word "unicorn" in con"s previous assertion, it is no more proof of a unicorn"s existence then it is of a "God"s" existence.

"God is so powerful it is immeasurable by human means."

Being in an "immeasurable" state does not prove existence, just as claiming "God" cannot be falsified does not prove existence.

For example: "I have an infinitely long brick that cannot be measured because it is infinitely long." Claiming I have a brick that cannot be measured does not prove that it even exists.

"God is so undetectable it is indeterminable by technological means."

Con"s claim again falls short in the same way his previous claims have. Saying something is "unfalsifiable,"
"immeasurable" or "undetectable" does not prove it exists. In addition, con has offered no proof for any of his claims.
It is my position Con has so far failed to meet his burden of proof and has only made claims without any reasoning, logic, science, or any other possible form of proof. Therefore, con has failed to prove "God" exists.

As Con has failed to prove existence, it cannot be assumed using con"s arguments that "God" exists.

Furthermore, con"s claims seem to show he cannot prove the existence of "God." If this is true, con has lost the argument by default as it is upon him to prove the existence.
RationalMadman

Con

THIS DEBATE IS THAT 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST' YOU ARE PRO.

YOU HAVE THE BOP AS YOU CLAIM GOD DOES NOT EXIST. I AM NOT PRO 'GOD EXISTS' MERELY CON TO THE ASSERTION THAT HE DOES!
Debate Round No. 2
GorefordMaximillion

Pro

RationalMadman, it is not necessary for you to type in all caps (yelling). I"m not sure if you are mad or upset, but I would imagine that to be bad etiquette.

"THIS DEBATE IS THAT 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST' YOU ARE PRO."
You are correct. I am pro (for) the statement that God does not exist.

"YOU HAVE THE BOP AS YOU CLAIM GOD DOES NOT EXIST."
If you look back at my round 1 declaration, I said:
"The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence. I can only prove alternatives and fallacies in arguments for."

"I AM NOT PRO 'GOD EXISTS' MERELY CON TO THE ASSERTION THAT HE DOES!"
I"m not sure I understand what you mean here?

I am new to the site, if you wish to forfeit this debate and challenge me to a new one that is your prerogative.
RationalMadman

Con

How can I prove god exists?!

You are being impossible.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
http://debate.org...

Debate that needs votes
Posted by Cometflash 4 years ago
Cometflash
According to many, God is beyond our reality. If God exist, and this assumption is true, there will never be an evidence that God exists, even know my initial statement take account that God does exists.

So if that is true, even if God exists, searching for a proof that he does or does not, is not possibly feasible.
Posted by DaileyScience 4 years ago
DaileyScience
Im not saying the term god or the imaginary thing of god is real. Im saying god does not exist until further information is brought forward proving otherwise. Which there is none. Sure anyone can make up an imaginary friend and to him may be real. But only in his mind. God is just a popular imaginary friend lol.
Posted by Cometflash 4 years ago
Cometflash
I love you too sr RationalMadman. :)
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I agree to cometflash even though he is stupid in 1=1.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I agree to cometflash even though he is stupid in 1=1.
Posted by Cometflash 4 years ago
Cometflash
So I'm guessing concepts are not real.

Even if you say concepts is not real, by the definition of real, you cannot say concepts does not exists. So if concepts are not real, something does not have to be real to exist.
Posted by DaileyScience 4 years ago
DaileyScience
Have you ever heard of the flying spaghetti monster. I have doesnt mean hes real
Posted by poorenglishspeaker 4 years ago
poorenglishspeaker
I believe in God so many times a day,
If God does not exist ,why does the word God exist?
We don't coin a word without recognition.
Posted by DaileyScience 4 years ago
DaileyScience
Have you ever heard of russells cosmic teapot?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by imnotsayingimjustsaying 4 years ago
imnotsayingimjustsaying
GorefordMaximillionRationalMadmanTied
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 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: con gave up after he couldn't figure out an argument
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
GorefordMaximillionRationalMadmanTied
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: Secondguy accepted the debate without paying enough attention to the OP to realize that he had the burden of proof. Once he realized that---surely he figured it out at some point---he had a choice. He could have tried to rise to the occasion, made the best argument he could; or he could have confessed error, and asked for a draw. Instead, he threw a shouting temper tantrum. Persuasion and Conduct to Pro. Advice to Pro: When you want Secondguy to argue first and have the burden of proof, you should style yourself as Con; and reverse the phrasing of the resolution ("Resolved: God Does Exist."); and make a rule that Secondguy, because he argues first, doesn't also get to argue last: he doesn't get to make a substantive post in the last round. A side effect of all this is that your opponent will be more likely to notice and understand that he is to argue first and have the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
GorefordMaximillionRationalMadmanTied
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 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: Conduct and arguments to Pro as Con trolled the round.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
GorefordMaximillionRationalMadmanTied
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 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: Stop bickering about the BoP. It's obviously on you.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
GorefordMaximillionRationalMadmanTied
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 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: This is a very obvious vote. Con failed to prove god exists and seemed to be confused about his posistion. Conduct to pro for cons unnessesary yelling.