The Instigator
Debate_King1475
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imnotacop
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

God

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 4 votes the winner is...
imnotacop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 70068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

Debate_King1475

Pro

I will be arguing pro God not because there is a 100% he is real but because it is much more probable that a God exists than there is no God.
imnotacop

Con

I accept. As you're giving the assertion, I'll wait on you to provide your reasoning for the existence of god.
Debate Round No. 1
Debate_King1475

Pro

Well, something cannot come from nothing. And the law of causation says that something cannot exist unless it was created or if existence is in its very nature. Since god's existence is in his very nature, then he can exists. There is no explanation for a godless universe, which is why it is more probable for a universe created by god to exist.
imnotacop

Con

So you're making the watch maker argument. The idea, to reiterate, that, if you find a watch in the middle of a beach, than you wouldn't assume the watch simply came into being. Something with such a complex design must have a designer. This is the concept behind the creation of humans. So, who created god?
You're making the argument that, because something is complex, it must have a designer. The designer would have to be even more complex than the thing they're creating. So, who designed the designer?
All I'm doing here is following your own logic. I've examined your logic and stuck to it. So, if something complex must have a designer, who designed god, god being even more complex than we are. Your explanation is that "god's existence is in his very nature," but now you've undermined your argument. Why are we any different? You haven't given proof of anything, simply shown the fallacy of passing the buck, posing an even more complex question.
Debate Round No. 2
Debate_King1475

Pro

I would like for you to rebuttal my point. I made the argument that it is more likely that there is a god than no god and i used the watch maker argument to explain why my argument to show why my scenario is more likely. I explained the law of causation to explain how it is possible for a god to exist. I would like a rebuttal instead of just saying the method of arguing that I am doing. I am not saying that a god is 100% exists with no doubts but it is highly probable.
imnotacop

Con

My argument was , as I did in fact rebut you,, that your reasoning is incorrect. You used the watch-maker argument then entirely threw the argument out the window when recognizing that it's the fallacy of passing the buck. My argument is that there's no presentable evidence that can lead to the knowledge of god's existence. Only hypothesis, and such hypothesis can't hold up in an intellectual argument.
My entire rebuttal was pointing out these flaws, such as the concept of the fallacy of passing the buck, and your ignoring your own argument when faced with this reality.
The argument is that we simply don't know, where you're arguing for the probability. Why must I argue an extreme when you try so hard to appear reasonable? Neither extreme is reasonable as we cannot know. You bring up that there is no evidence against the existence of god. There is non for it either. There is no argument against, simply knowledge and lackthereof. Don't hold me to an extreme while you aren't?
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
You guys should debate it again with 3 or 4 rounds. I think you'll both do much better.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Someone pm and and remind me to vote on this later tonight.
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
I've argued both sides, not sure if on this site, but I have. The trick is to take advantage of the Copenhagen interpretation, which recognizes our limited understanding of things.
For instance, when someone says god doesn't exists, you can argue con against that by making the same argument I made against you, saying that we can't possibly know. It's impossible to effectively argue for the existence of god as there's no argument that can't be easily shut down. The only way you'd win that is if you were going against someone meekly following along in the idea with no real opinion one way or the other, and a person like that wouldn't argue.
Posted by Debate_King1475 1 year ago
Debate_King1475
Also, in reading back over the debate, I didn't read through your whole arguments so that would probably help me in the future.
Posted by Debate_King1475 1 year ago
Debate_King1475
Well, I tried. I find debating god to be tricky esp. when you debate for god against an educated atheist such as yourself. Debating against god is boring for me though because you just need to say where is your proof and they can never give any. You did a good job though.
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
Can we be nice in those votes? He was nice about it.
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
May I make one point here? It's not to the actual debate topic, just to critique you. It was kind of annoying and left me in a place that was really well annoying lol.
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
Thanks. You did pretty good yourself.
Posted by Debate_King1475 1 year ago
Debate_King1475
Good job. I chose the side of the argument that I disagreed with in order to challenge myself to try and approach both sides of the argument. You did a great job imnotacop.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Debate_King1475imnotacopTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar goes to Con for Pro's multiple grammatical errors. Pro had the BOP and didn't have any real proof and as Con showed that if you do not have evidence you cannot truly prove that there is a God and thus Con wins the debate.
Vote Placed by RavenDebater 1 year ago
RavenDebater
Debate_King1475imnotacopTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con win overall. Pro made a faulty, self defeating argument that Con refuted easily. I would have liked if Con had gotten some offence but that did not affect my vote
Vote Placed by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Toxifrost
Debate_King1475imnotacopTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Short debate but Pro only provided one faulty argument and con refuted it easily. Nothing really went on beyond round 2 and con had the best argument so con wins. lol nice job "Debate_King1475"
Vote Placed by DarthVitiosus 1 year ago
DarthVitiosus
Debate_King1475imnotacopTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet the burden of proof. Con showed how Pro had not presented any evidence for Pro's arguments. Con wins.