The Instigator
killerqueen
Pro (for)
Losing
54 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

God is holy

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,514 times Debate No: 3042
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (37)

 

killerqueen

Pro

Ok yes its hard to start an argument but as a catholic i am very offended when people try to say God doesnt exist because how can you prove that He doesnt He created you and me its as simple as that and another thing we know He exists through the Bible the Prophets and through His son. plus there are multiple sitings of Him and His son and the Mother of God so why do people think that He isnt real when throughout history every little detail about it started out with God creating the world. i mean he gave us free will and thats why the world went bad because of adam and eve but we dont need to keep going on and on about being evil we dont need to be evil because God is real and we can now make it to heaven because of Jesus. ok so basically my point is i dont want to be a commy anymore and i like God and he is holy.
Danielle

Con

How can God be holy if God does not exist? First prove to me the EXISTANCE of God (oh wait... you can't), and then I'll debate whether or not this "god" in question is in fact holy.

Anyway, just to throw this out there -- You say that God created me? Prove it. You say that God exists through the Bible and the Prophets; I say that Tom Sawyer exists through Mark Twain, but that doesn't make him real. There have been multiple sightings of "Him" you say; I say that there have also been sightings of Big Foot... and me. People have seen me. That doesn't make me holy just because I say I am. And if people wrote a ridiculously famous book about how holy I am, that was edited and re-written and passed on over hundreds of years, that STILL would not make me holy. It'd just mean that it was a Helluva book ~ I'll leave it at that.

Adam and Eve is a fictitious story; even the Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged it (and most other stories in the Bible) as a proverb or something not to be taken literally but instead to teach a lesson or moral obligation. This is because not only can these Biblical stories not be proven, but there is also factual evidence AGAINST most of them.

Jesus was a real person, but he cannot guarantee my entrance to Heaven (if such a place exists). He may have been the most influential historical figure; however, he is no more human or holy than you or I.
Debate Round No. 1
killerqueen

Pro

u cant prove tht he doent exist and there hav been multiple sitings of God in the world and u kno that im a commy rite so u cant beat me cuz im a commy and catholic that is the best combo u can hav and i will hunt u done and go boom
Danielle

Con

There have been multiple sightings of God? Well how can these "witnesses" prove that it was God that they saw?

Communists always get beaten, and I disagree - I think being a part of the Marijuana Party and Catholic is the best combo you can "hav."

Ps. What does this have to do with g0d being holy?
Debate Round No. 2
killerqueen

Pro

don't bring my ethinicity into this debate i didn't write that down someone else did and then submitted my argument. but anyway God has been sited by multiple and significant people in history. God comes in all shapes and sizes and helps people in multiple ways. No one really knows what He looks like but He's out there in every shop or business you and I go into. God's simplest form of being real is that He heals people and answers their prayers each and everyday.
Danielle

Con

This is a joke.

You started this debate; you are responsible for presenting factual evidence (a little logic and reasoning would be nice too) along with a coherent and cohesive argument. My acceptance of your challenge and my position of Con would therefore make me responsible for refuting your statements and including a rebuttal of my own. However, you have failed entirely thus far ~ your words and statements are confusing, irrelevant, and speculatory. First provide facts to back up your claim and I'll respond respectively. For now:

1. I challenged you to prove to me that God even exists (for "Him" to even be considered holy). I'm pretty sure that you will give me the typical response of, "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist" and if that's the case then don't waste your time. Stick with citing factual evidence to support your claim that he DOES, and let me worry about the latter.

2. Why should anyone believe in someone/something based on blind faith? To do so would be detrimental to any culture or society. Therefore it is not blasphemous to expect proof of what large groups (like governments or religious groups) say is true -- especially when there is money/power involved. We all know that the Catholic Church is amongst the richest organizations in the world. We know the political prowess that Catholocism and other dominant religious affiliations have had over the course of History. We also know that many religious ideologies conflict with one another. How can you just accept that one is truth and the others are lies without the facts?

So, I am asking you to provide factual evidence that God is to blame for healing people - as you said - or other miracles and the answering of prayers, etc, instead of them just being coincidences or having scientific explanations for their occurances. If you can manage this (which I'm sure you can't based on previous rounds), well, I guess you'll have to wait and see.
Debate Round No. 3
killerqueen

Pro

killerqueen forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

My opponent's "arguments" were incoherent and inconsistent with the topic of the debate. I'm assuming he/she forfeited the last round because they could not come up with an even sub-par rebuttal (considering the ridicoulessness of their previous arguments).
Debate Round No. 4
killerqueen

Pro

killerqueen forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Again my opponent did not respond...

Anyway, to re-cap: The burden of proof rested upon my opponent who did not deliver. In his first argument he made an attempt to try and "prove" (is that what it was?) to me that God exists because... the Bible tell us so? It was very incoherent and not put together well at all. And! It proved absolutely nothing.

In his second argument, my opponent brought up the fact that he is supposedly a commy and additionally lowered my IQ by about 10 points just for the mere fact that I actually read his POS rebuttal. He again made no sense in round 3, and blabbed on about supposed sightings of God. And again, not only did he not prove that God is holy (or even attempt to), but he completely strayed off topic all together. Both rounds 4 and 5 were forfeited. So! In terms of this debate, my opponent clearly failed and barely gave me anything of remote substance to even bother responding to. Thus, vote Con (depite your own religious beliefs). Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HellKat 9 years ago
HellKat
Science never uses logic... I'm pretty sure that's a contradiction of terms.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Science never uses logic... let's see if you'll accept a challenge from me...
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
My friend,science never use logic, they use reasons to prove and disprove of things. Prove to me that he did not create the universe. challenge me
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
"absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

true, but evidence makes things far more persuasive.
Hmmm, I can not prove that "god" doesn't exist, thanks to the healthy little fact of you can just make it up as you go along... like people have for thousands upon thousands of years. I can however prove that he could not have possibly created the universe through logic.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
lol, to bob.

"absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

if you think science can prove everything, then prove that God doesnt exist by showing evidence that are not merely absence.!! challenge me
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
Agent D...
wow, I honestly do not know where to begin correcting you... or you could just be a joke account like killerqueen?
Let us assume that latter.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
For spiral,

you dont believe in God? well most atheist do, hehehe if God doesnt exist, then where your existence come from? from inorganic matter? according to science theory? then logically your existence is only a theory. then BURDEN OF PROOF RESTED ON THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. for theist Bible and faith is enough proof.
Posted by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
Haha I love this sort of rhetoric
"How do we know god exists? The bible tells us so."
"How do we know the bible is true? God tells us so."
No circular logic issues there at all...
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
I saw that killerqueen's account was closed down; I don't think they'll be responding to this debate.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
This one was stillborn I'm afraid. Possibly because Pro could see it was hopeless.
37 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
killerqueenDanielleTied
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: 0-0
Vote Placed by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
killerqueenDanielleTied
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: lol, it wasn't a votebomb, it was completely accurate vote.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamic 9 years ago
Jamic
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DorothyDorothy 9 years ago
DorothyDorothy
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by HungryAssassin 9 years ago
HungryAssassin
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by GleefulJoker 9 years ago
GleefulJoker
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Fantasticlover 9 years ago
Fantasticlover
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JeffGordon 9 years ago
JeffGordon
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by HoldenMcGroin 9 years ago
HoldenMcGroin
killerqueenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30