The Instigator
othercheek
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
SeekTruth
Con (against)
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...
othercheek
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 41032
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

othercheek

Pro

God exists, and I have reasons for it. I'd like to debate this topic with an open-minded person who loves to debate as much as I do.

Rules:
No semantic arguments (god is defined as a holy creator)
No trolling
No ad hominem attacks or other fallacies
You can't rely on the Quran or other myths
Once an argument is proven wrong, it is thrown out.

Good luck! I would like to thank my opponent in advance for a friendly debate.
SeekTruth

Con

In your opening statements you have deemed Quran and myths in the same light what are you ,implying by saying Quran and myths? A myth is something that is unverifiable, when the Holy Quran is the most revered authentic Book in the world there is no book on the face of the earth were a every single letter, puncation, and structure has never been altered. My friend the Quran is a Miracle in its preservation itself were it can be traced back through numerous unbroken chains of narrations directly to the Blessed mouth of the last and final messenger of God Muhammad pub.
Debate Round No. 1
othercheek

Pro

Um, this is a debate about whether God exists, which you most likely agree with. Whether the Quran is a myth is a whole other story. So you are in the wrong place. I suppose we will both have to forfeit all the next rounds.
SeekTruth

Con

My brother I asked you to expound on your statement that says Quran or myth . This is presented in the opening rules I would like some clarity, if you will please. Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
othercheek

Pro

That is not the purpose of the debate I proposed. You are putting me in a situation that I did not agree to be in--and I certainly do not want to be in it. If I wanted to expound on that statement, I would have created a debate dedicated to that topic.
SeekTruth

Con

I do not wish to forcefully pressure into debate my friend if you are unwillingly to contest the topic then I am as well. A couple of words of advice don't state matters you cant go in depth on.

;
Debate Round No. 3
othercheek

Pro

I can go in depth. I just don't want to on a debate that is completely irrelevant. And a couple of words of advice: Don't take up debates to discuss something else. If you want to debate on whether the Quran is a myth, by all means, create that debate and argue with an opponent who willingly submits to the challenge. You put me in a position I did not agree to be in.
SeekTruth

Con

You stated a point that you cant elaborate on, this is not a proper procedure in conversation debates dialogue. we have learned this as young children my brother. On the spot if an individual asks me clarification on something a presented I would make sure I have information to go in depth for him.
Debate Round No. 4
othercheek

Pro

Fine. Here they are. But next time, please don't invade a debate.

http://www.studytoanswer.net...

http://www.islam-watch.org...

I am not debating this.
SeekTruth

Con

No Relevance
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
God is almighty
Posted by AnotherGuy 3 years ago
AnotherGuy
Othercheek, I would like to accept the challenge. I accept ( or rather, welcome with great pleasure) your conditions. I just do not know how to join the debate. If someone could give a few pointers for this please.

I am also willing to concede right away that your belief in your position is as honest and mine is in my position.

To start with, in the meantime, I would be curious to know your precise opinion as to the following:
If for universe to exist, some creator should have been present, then the assumption is that something can not exist without a creator or creating entity. If so, the same logic should apply to the creator who would also need a creating entity. If therefore, at some point in this chain, we have to assume that some entity existed without a creating entity, then why not apply this assumption to the universe itself rather than stretching it to accommodate a 'god'? On the other hand, if you think that 'god' is an exception to this causality rule/logic, then what verifiable basis would you propose to support this 'exception'?
Posted by SeekTruth 3 years ago
SeekTruth
peace be upon him ( pbuh)
Posted by jezzaj14 3 years ago
jezzaj14
@Dragonduelist
You say to prove the big bang is real, yeah we may not be able to prove it, but can you prove that god is real? my guess is no. The point i want to make is that there is fact the back up science, or there usually is unless it is left as a theory. BUT whenever i have a debate with religious people, there argument is always "this is real because it is" and never provide any factual evidence about their arguments.
Posted by Jumbocactuar 3 years ago
Jumbocactuar
We don't know every law of physics in existence there could be an astrological phenomenon that causes something such as the big bang. And the black plague didn't completely turn the population down to 0 it only killed about 40% of the population. Several classes of antibiotics can treat the black plague. Like aminoglycosides such as streptomycin which brings the mortality rate from 40% to about 5% until our immune system grew out of it.
Posted by Dragonduelist 3 years ago
Dragonduelist
God is really and people who say the big bang thery is real give proof and if it is wwho made it is the mighty ruler god. When Europe was vanquished by the black death who re created people god did so he is real
Posted by mitithoerth 3 years ago
mitithoerth
I truly admire with your response, And I appreciate your view as if it actually depends upon each one of us perspective!!
Posted by Jumbocactuar 3 years ago
Jumbocactuar
Personally I do not believe in a god(s) but I don't hate on what other people believe either. The only problem I face is that people with religious beliefs refuse to even consider an alternative even when presented in a purely innocent way. I personally feel it's almost selfish that we as human beings feel we have our own personal God when there are trillions and trillions of galaxies beyond ours to help us with our struggles with man made creations like bills etc.

There have also be thousands of stories in other cultures that would clearly not be plausible or were exaggerated to make simpler. But I also don't think a person who believes in Christianity can fully understand how or why the events that took place, did, without seeing how life is around Jerusalem. Because it's not at all the same as America. But religion can blind people in a way not always in a bad way but not always in a good either. For example when I was very young growing up my parents would take me to church and I'd hear all the stories and I always had lots of questions and when a story had a few fishy parts it was just written off which then I was wondering if one story isn't believed what makes another story believed or not. Where does the credibility come from.

I'm very interested in further comments because I've never been able to debate this issue with a religious person who doesn't just immediately move to the offensive when hearing a different point of view.. Which i feel doesn't go well with the whole religious lifestyle in the first place but I'm not one to judge.
Posted by mitithoerth 3 years ago
mitithoerth
Its nothing like God Probably exist, God was there, God is here, and God will be there in future.
http://camilla.com.au...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 2 years ago
Buckethead31594
othercheekSeekTruthTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stole Pro's debate. There is no need to award points to Con.