The Instigator
Edvin_321781
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrRepzion
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

God exists

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 4 votes the winner is...
MrRepzion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 41318
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Edvin_321781

Pro

jesus is the son of god. you might not believe it, but there is proof of his existence. LOTSSSSS. therefore, you're wrong about being an atheist.on lots of wesites
MrRepzion

Con

Alright. God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". I will be developing arguments against his existence.[1]

Rebuttal(s):

"jesus is the son of god"

Yes. Jesus Christ is a teacher and prophet whose life and teachings form the basis of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus to be Son of God and the Christ.[2]

"you might not believe it, but there is proof of his existence. LOTSSSSS."

In that case, why would anyone choose not to believe in the monotheistic God? I can also say that many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments against the existence of God.

Also:

"It would be equally absurd to just say that there is a lot of proof and there is a lot of refutations against God's existence without reffering to one or presenting YOUR resolution. It would sound like all you did was wander around the Internet, looking for websites that prove God's existence without reading it"
SubjectiveMorality[3](Credibility Issues)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Presentation(s):

1) I understand that God won't do anything that is in violation of his existence and nature, but nonetheless:

"Omnipotence has been defined as the ability to do literally everything, as this is even borne out by its roots, omni (all) potence (capability). [3] So we know that under the currently used and currently uncontested definition of God, God has teh ability to do anything. What this entails is a long string of paradoxes. For example, if God can do anything, then God must be able to think of something that He can't do. In which case, He wouldn't be able to do it, and wouldn't be omnipotent. God would have to be able to create a rock that weighed so much that he couldn't move it. If he can't create the rock, He isn't omnipotent. If he can create the rock, then He can't move it and isn't omnipotent. God would have to be able to create another omnipotent God that could beat Him in an armwrestle. Which would mean that since one of the two Gods couldn't beat the other in an armwrestle, one of them wouldn't be omnipotent. So omnipotence itself is intrinsically impossible, and so under our current and uncontested definition, God is intrinsically impossible"[4]
Lazarius[5]

2) In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change"it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. The law implies (requires) that during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.[6] Therefore, God didn't create energy and matter.

Source(s):

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[3] http://www.debate.org...

[4] http://www.debate.org...

[5] http://www.debate.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
MrRepzion

Con

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfill the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.
In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistomology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.[1]

Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations definitely does not equate to "no evidence." However, that does not intrinsically and/or scientifically prove God's existence either.

The particular evidence he presented to establish the resolution that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God in fact, exists is him being "healed" simultaneously by God after being diagnosed with an incurable disease. Then after extensive and intrusive testing, his doctor delivered the news that he had ulcerative colitis.[2]

You have divulged tons of information about it. However, like my friend's ancestors quote:

"If you will use alleged supernatural occurences material to the resolution, you still need to prove that that occurence ACTUALLY occured."

Source(s):

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.patheos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Edvin_321781

Pro

YOU ARE AN *SSHOLE I WILL NEVER DEBATE YOU EVER F*CKING AGAIN!mmm
MrRepzion

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has conceded that he lost the debate. Therefore, vote for con!

I thank pro for requesting this long-awaited, ontological, specific debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by derDepperte 3 years ago
derDepperte
It is true that many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God. However, most are contradictory. Not everyone agrees with them.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Pretty sure this dude is just trolling religious people.
Posted by knockinrockin 3 years ago
knockinrockin
Truth be told, no one knows the truth for sure...
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
proofthatgodexists.org.
Posted by Peter12345 3 years ago
Peter12345
I believe in God, what does it matter, everyone has their own opinion.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Edvin_321781MrRepzionTied
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: All points to Con. No need to explain, it's obvious.
Vote Placed by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
Edvin_321781MrRepzionTied
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: This is why religion makes no good.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Edvin_321781MrRepzionTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited all arguments, insulted Con, used poor grammar in his first round and subsequent rounds, and had no sources.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
Edvin_321781MrRepzionTied
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: CON is on the wrong side, but he won for obvious reasons. But God does exist.