The Instigator
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
elvislives
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God probably 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 525 times Debate No: 37082
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

MysticEgg

Con

Welcome to this debate, everyone! This is a common topic that is oft debated and I want a piece (or another piece...) of the action, so to speak. Now, for the purposes of this debate; I will define God as following:
The (notice the definite article - only God) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator of the Universe that is described in the Bible. The rules are as follows:
1) First round is not for acceptance only, Pro must present opening arguments in round one.
2) Fifth round is closing statements only, no new arguments or refutes.
3) A forfeit of a round is an irreversible breach of conduct. If both players forfeit; conduct is "tied".
4) The BoP is on Pro. Con can give arguments to show that God probably doesn't exist, but that is not a necessary burden.
5) You agree with the definition of God as described above.
6) You agree to these rules by accepting the debate.
I believe that's all; if anyone has any questions, please post a comment. Good luck to all, and allez!
elvislives

Pro

I accept your challenge I believe this will not be a hard debate to prove whatsoever. I also believe this debate will be an interesting one.
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, but I must ask my opponent to present his opening case first. My opponent should have done this in round one - so I will assume my opponent will present his case in round two now. I await my opponent's opening argument(s).
elvislives

Pro

Well first off I will open with saying that if you're one of those people that believe in the "big bang" theory for all things that just were created you have one heck of a imagination. My question, and many other people to you would be who created us. I could answer that God! The Bible proves it.
Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument, and I will respond appropriately.

My opponent makes no argument at all, however, merely makes several fallacies. First, he proposes that the big bang theory created everything, which is wrong. First, if one wanted to be technical, the big bang didn't created me, you, the Internet, or cars, among other things. Second, if my opponent didn't mean "everything" when he said "everything" and he meant the creation of the Universe, that would be incorrect, too, because the Big Bang Theory describes the early development of the Universe, not its creation.[1]

So, I'd agree that if I believed that the Big Bang created everything by definition or "everything" as I think my opponent meant it; I would have one heck of an imagination! My opponent then states:
"who created us.[?]" My opponent asserts that the Bible proves God created us. The Bible is the name given to a collection of books that, when put together creates the Holy Scripture of the Christian faith. My opponent has not given any proof that I am inclined to believe the Bible. The Bible makes claims that, while some may be true, others (such as the existence of God) cannot be verified. If they can, my opponent gives no evidence for this. I have thus far met my burden of refuting my opponent's suggestions.

I await my opponent's response(s)!

Source:

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

Pro

http://www.existence-of-god.com...
http://www.gotquestions.org...
Here is some proof showing that it's not all seeing you need to believe its also spiritual.
Debate Round No. 3
MysticEgg

Con

My opponent makes no arguments, merely cites sources. Sources are used to back up claims with evidence, not make claims. If my opponent wants me to address any arguments found by following these sources; he will have to type them up in an argument. Until he does, he has not met his burden of proof.
elvislives

Pro

Those are my responses it is people reading quotes front the Bible I could also read quotes from scientists but what would that prove it's just words. As is what you are saying so we are basically saying that it's all abouelieving. Its also has said that in many explanations of proof showing that God exists or not. It what you believe in or what you don't want to believe.
Debate Round No. 4
MysticEgg

Con

My opponent has made no argument, once again, and I will not deny I am slightly disappointed about this debate. However, as my opponent did not make an argument, he has not met his burden; and I need not refute anything. I will say no more, except thank my opponent, elvislives, for this debate and hope we might debate again the future.
elvislives

Pro

As I have debated its all about believing. I guess the apposite debater did not understand what I was trying to prove..
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
MysticEggelvislivesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly doesn't know how to argue for his case. His attempts to make an argument were all refuted. Con seemed on the right track but he didn't offer his arguments for why God's existence is improbable, but he stills gets arguments because he was way more convincing.