The Instigator
Ockham
Con (against)
The Contender
Unjust_Life
Pro (for)

God exists.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Unjust_Life has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 102205
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Ockham

Con

The proposition is that God exists. Pro will be defending the proposition that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists.

Pro can define the God they want to defend, within reason. An example of a reasonable definition of God is "an omnipotent, all knowing, perfectly good being." An example of an unreasonable definition of God would be "love" or "the universe." The point of this requirement is to allow Pro some freedom to define what they believe in or want to defend, while preventing people from cheating by using a definition that no one would normally think of as God.

Pro can start presenting arguments and evidence in the first round - there is no "acceptance round."
Unjust_Life

Pro

God exists. If you want to logically stay true to self-preservation then a god that allows for people to have after lives must exist. Thus the logical option to choose would be to believe in a god that does just that. Of course for most people the previous statements don't cut it due to their want for truth. If you want the ultimate truth, God is like that one cat in the box that was involved in an experiment. You could say God both exists and doesn't at the same time. We will never know until god is observed even then there would be doubt on whether the "god" is actually a god or just a powerful being. But like I said in my earlier statements, it would be safer to believe in a god that gives people after lives (One example would be the Christian god.). Let's say god does exist. People would prefer to believe that that god is good. Right? WRONG. If an all powerful being such as god did exist, he would not be a good being nor an evil being. Rather that god wouldn't believe there is true evil and true god. God would see the universe as existing and nothing else, a complex chain of reactions that for some reason he observes.
Debate Round No. 1
Ockham

Con

My opponent has not defined God, as I said they could in Round 1, so it's not clear what we are actually debating. I invite them to provide such a definition in Round 2.

In addition to not providing a definition of God, my opponent has not really presented any arguments or evidence in favor of the existence of God. What they have argued is that we should believe that God exists, not that God objectively exists. Establishing that God exists objectively, as the resolution says, requires arguments and evidence.

My opponent's sole argument for the claim that we should believe that God exists (which is, again, not the resolution), is: "it would be safer to believe in a god that gives people after lives." He or she does not provide any arguments or evidence for this claim.

Finally, my opponent has effectively conceded the debate. He or she says:

"If you want the ultimate truth, God is like that one cat in the box that was involved in an experiment. You could say God both exists and doesn't at the same time. We will never know until god is observed even then there would be doubt on whether the "god" is actually a god or just a powerful being."

This is clearly an admission that my opponent is unable to establish that God exists, which is the resolution.

In conclusion:

1. My opponent has not defined God.
2. My opponent has not presented any arguments or evidence for God's existence, which is the resolution.
3. My opponent's sole argument for the irrelevant claim he or she argued for is an arbitrary assertion.
4. My opponent has effectively conceded that he or she is unable to establish the resolution.

Since my opponent has failed to meet his or her burden of proof, we should negate the resolution.
Unjust_Life

Pro

Yeah I can't think of anything. You should close the debate. Sorry I couldn't live up to your expectations and sorry I skimmed and thus misinterpreted the purpose of this debate. Please close the debate. I can't think of any pros without immediately disproving myself. I could give you probabilities of whether evidence in favor of the existence of God is true or not, but I don't think that would provide for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Ockham

Con

I can't close the debate. What we do now is just post something short for each round until the debate ends.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 3RU7AL 1 year ago
3RU7AL
Your best proof of "god" is going to be Baruch Spinoza's "Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata".
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
You shoud define "exist".."Spiderman 3" exist...As a movie. Gods exist in books..And talk about a books.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.