The Instigator
Fanath
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Land_Sharkz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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 3 votes the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 660 times Debate No: 56163
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

Fanath

Con

Resolution: God exists

In this debate, we will use the Christian God.

Rounds:

Con

(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/rebuttals
(4) Rebuttals/Closing Statements

Pro

(1) Contentions
(2) Contentions/Rebuttals
(3) Closing statements
(4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else

Rules

(1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he or she will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss.
(2) 10k character limits.
(3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff.
(4) Plagiarizing results in a FF.
(5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started.
(6) It is accepted that the BOP in this debate is on Pro.
Land_Sharkz

Pro

God exists because the Bible talks about God, and how he's everything. Tell me your argument of how how doesn't.
Debate Round No. 1
Fanath

Con

Since Pro hasn't made many contentions, I'll just make a quick argument. I can't attack Pro's arguments until next round as the rules say, so this is going to be a pretty simple round:

Problem of Evil:

1. God is supposedly omnipotent, pure, and omniscient.
2. If god was pure, he would want to destroy all evil.
3. If god was omniscient, he could find evil.
4. If god was omnipotent, god could destroy all evil.
5. Evil exists
6. Therefor, god does not exist.

It's a pretty simple argument. An omni-benevolent God that the bible speaks of can't possibly exist.

Thanks...
Land_Sharkz

Pro

Land_Sharkz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Fanath

Con

Waiting for Pro's argument...
Land_Sharkz

Pro

Land_Sharkz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Fanath

Con

This is a clear win as I've presented arguments, refuted pro's, and pro has broken the rules multiple times.
Land_Sharkz

Pro

Land_Sharkz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Have you noticed that William Lane Craig likes to play "Poison The Well" in his debates.
He gives the audience his prediction of what the opposition is likely to argue and essentially tells them to ignore it or that it is inconsequential to the debate.
Thus poisoning the well for his opponent.
Which is a form of Fallacious debating tactics.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
William Lane Craig is a NutJob, all his arguments for God are extremely Fallacious.
I've watched many of Craig's debates.
I used to like Alphabet Soup Debates (Semantic Debates) but debating with Craig would be like tackling a Fallacy Soup Debate.
Though that is to be expected, since Craig's own personal beliefs are Fallacious.
He bases his own belief and assertions concerning God on a personal Hallucination, that he calls an experience and believes others will experience the same calling.
That is a fallacious ( Sample Size Of 1, Anecdotal Experience Fallacy).
Thus William Lane Craig is a Living Fallacy!
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
I've actually seen some pretty good arguments for God. If say William Lane Craig accepted this debate he wouldn't fit either of those categories. Likewise with any experienced Christian debator.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
Not at all. I just think whoever accepts must be inexperienced, or just likes to lose.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
Lol you didn't ruin anything. The pro side logically has the BOP. The burden of proof is always on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. Should I ignore this rule because "it's to hard" for one side?
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
I'm sorry for saying that in the comments and maybe ruining your debate.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
@Fanath - I was referring to the requirement that Pro have the burden of proof. This seems impossible to prove either way, so whoever has the burden of proof almost automatically loses.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
@Emris - You should start a debate about what people should debate about. In all seriousness, though, religion is one of the most, if not the most, corrupt and divisive forces in recorded history. It is not always merely the fault of institutions that misinterpret or abuse religious teachings, but is often the fault of the teachings themselves. Sound reason should be applied to everything, the least of which should not be the pattern by which you live your life.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
The person who has the burden proof is logically the person who should start off...
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
@Doomswatter: What's wrong with the rules?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
FanathLand_SharkzTied
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: FF and uncontested arguments
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
FanathLand_SharkzTied
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: Con's argument was too strong for Pro, Pro spat the dummy. Giving Con a better conduct vote.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
FanathLand_SharkzTied
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: ff.