The Instigator
hayhen13
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
MattDoesGML
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God's Existence

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 2 votes the winner is...
hayhen13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 65929
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

hayhen13

Con

1st round is accepting the challenge. Anyone who wants to seriously debate the topic and wants to prove that God can exist please accept.
MattDoesGML

Pro

I accept. I look forward to a good debate!

(Note: My role here is to just prove that God just might exist)
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Con

It says in the Bible that God is a spirit. If he has no physical form, he is not matter and does not take up space. If he has no physical matter, then how can he have a brain to think and create the world? Therefore God has to exist in light or sound, but if he existed in those forms he still can't think or perform actions. Unless by magic. If God was magic, and we know magic is impossible, then God surely can not exist. God was invented by primitive humans to explain how the world works. We, today, now know how the world actually works and that God cannot exist. If you choose to argue that he is magical, then nobody can ever prove that he is not real. But if you choose to be mature and believe in reality and actual facts then you can be certain, that there is no God.
MattDoesGML

Pro

I thank my opponent for his very pleasurable intro. I am proud to take this role.

I need to prove that God at least just might exist.

Now, my opponent has premises. I can prove this unsound simply by putting a dispute on one premise, which will automatically make the rest invalid, thus proving my opponent's argument.

My opponent claims that God is a spirit. This claim in it of itself is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!!!11!111111!

This has been observed by everyone, and I do not understand how my opponent thinks that God is a spirit. You know what? I was going to let him figure it out on his own, but I have decided to say it out loud: God is a potato. With a brain as big as my birdie. It's amazing because my birdie is bigger than the empire state building.

WTF Wanted to bring this in, but, this in it of itself proves the existence of unicorns, bigfoot, and most hated of all, neon cats.

I await my opponent's clearly-going-to-be-bad argument.
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Con

Since my opponent is very immature I wil lnot spend much time on this debate.


First of all, in the bible it states that God is a spirit. Since a spirit has no physical form, it cannot be matter, so if God were to somehow exist in light or sound. Also back to physical form, since we probably both agree that has no physical form since in the bible it literally states, “Spirit of God.” So if God has no physical form it is impossible for him to have a brain and to think, or to carry out any actions like walking or flying about. Therefore, almost everything in the Bible is impossible because God can’t do anything that he says he can. So now that I have proven, using scientific facts and reality to prove that this magical man can’t exist. I do not understand why the people of today still believe in religion. Religion was invented by primitive people 3,000 years ago to explain how the world worked, and to satisfy the human instinct to know. But now, today, we actually know. So why do we still dwell on faith to guide our lives even though the plain facts of reality show us that God does not exist. I believe that we still hide behind this curtain of faith because people won’t listen to the facts. It is like in the book 1984, the people of Oceania won’t ever listen to the facts, but will only listen to Big Brother because he tells you to. Religious people will never listen to reason because God says to put it in faith, so it is very difficult to pull religious people out of the magical world they live in, where God is their all-knowing hero that will protect them in every step in life and is their “savor.” This thought is very comforting and also adds to the difficulty of exposing religious people to truth since they will simply not listen, they are almost, brainwashed. Now that I have explained why this imaginary figure of God was created, how it is impossible for him to exist I would like to see any type of evidence that God exists since religion has none of that. Science has bones proving evolution, and evidence, because evidence is what actually proves something, not believing. “I do not want to believe, I want to know.” Carl Sagan.


MattDoesGML

Pro

My opponent has responded.

Again, I will put a dispute on one premise, the base of all my opponent's arguments, and will make the rest invalid.

My opponent is using the Bible as his reference. This is far more than ridiculous. The Bible is outdated. Here, I will say it loud and clear: Humans have discovered the best source of arguments, beginning with things as simple as 123, and things that even scientists were not able to explain: Dr. Seuss books.

It states in the 100756th page: God is a potato, with a brain so large the nerds have an orgasm trying to comprehend it, kind of like you, Con, you pathetic science-loving nerd.

I await the idiot's arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Con

I guess I have won this debate.
MattDoesGML

Pro

How is it that I put a dispute on your arguments, but instead of putting a dispute on my dispute on your arguments, you say, "I won." No you did not; You leave my recent arguments unscathed, as I did not leave yours.
Debate Round No. 4
hayhen13

Con

All you do os talk about your body parts and potatoes
MattDoesGML

Pro

My opponent states that I only talk about body parts and potatoes. Here is the thing: It does not matter what I talk about, as long as they are arguments. You failed to put disputes on them. You even had this last round to do so.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Hey, walrus, voting because of a person's name is even more ridiculous than the name itself (con's name is actually quite clever. The Hey Hey phrase is one of my favorites. It was a catchphrase used by legendary Chicago Cubs announcer Jack Brickhouse)
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Actually, Kaynex, you're wrong.

I hate to say it but Con said in his opening statement: 'Anyone who wants to seriously debate the topic and wants to prove that God can exist please accept.'

Thus, con has set the debate 'win condition' of Pro to simply proving that it is possible that God MAY or CAN exist. He does not have to prove it beyond doubt to win.
Posted by Kaynex 2 years ago
Kaynex
Accepts, but them shreds burden of proof.

Other dimensions where Hitler became king of Scotland MIGHT exist, but I just made that up, so it probably doesn't.
Posted by MattDoesGML 2 years ago
MattDoesGML
I accepted pretty fast, huh?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
hayhen13MattDoesGMLTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This was just bad, really, really, really bad. Arguments were unsourced, spelling and grammar were even. Con had slightly better conduct, so he gets awarded that.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
hayhen13MattDoesGMLTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used ad hominem attacks, so conduct to Con.