The Instigator
Braaainz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

I am 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 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 21379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Braaainz

Pro

I am issuing forth the proclamation, "I am GOD". As proponent, I will attempt to support that proclamation. My opponent (should one appear wishing to debate against GOD) would argue against that statement being true.
Zaradi

Con

Sounds interesting.
I'll argue that you cannot possibly be God.
Debate Round No. 1
Braaainz

Pro

Braaainz forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

Forfeited round. Out of respect, and since pro has BOP, I'll allow him to still make first argument if he will.
Debate Round No. 2
Braaainz

Pro

Zaradi, I thank you for your patience. For some reason, my notification didn't go thru that someone accepted.

Anyway, I am GOD. There are many possible arguments to show that this could be true. If any of the following ideas are unfalsifiable, then my opponent cannot prove me wrong and must yield. Please note, I am not saying that all of the ideas are true.

1. This is a solipsystic reality and you are merely part of my consciousness.

2. A human body is made up of trillions of cells. You exert control/influence far past the range of those cells. Your awareness is past that of your body. The more you learn, the further your consciousness actually extends. Basically, we (you, I, and everyone else) is the universe trying to figure itself out. The universe is "everything" and we are the universe's self-awareness that is slowly growing, much like how a child's nervous system grows out slightly slower than its physical body.

3. I created everything, then gave up my power and walked away from it... deciding to settle down inside my comfortable little creation. So, I am GOD... but taking a breather.

4. I am GOD, but one not as usually understood as such by a developed nation. Basically, I am a GOD to a small tribe in the Amazon.

5. I legally changed my name to GOD.

6. I am GOD but you would unable to perceive it as such because in the true reality, you are just a butterfly dreaming of being a man debating GOD on a website.
Zaradi

Con

I thank my opponent for actually posting an argument instead of forfeiting again, albeit these arguments were posted in the last round.

Since the BOP is on the Pro to prove that he is God, I will simply refute his points. Since he would then not be able to sufficiently prove that he is God, it's enough to merit me the win as Con. If characters allow, I will present arguments in a case of my own.

But before I begin, for clarity's sake, I'd like to define God as the general characteristics of the Judeo/Christian God (i.e. omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, etc.) The pro must adhere to my defintion since he failed to provide one in his last speech, thus leaving it up to me to clarify on the debate.

Now to the refutations:

1. This is a solipsystic reality and you are merely part of my consciousness.

While this certainly may be true:
1. This doesn't make you God. This makes you mentally unstable.
2. There's no reason as to why you aren't part of MY consciousness, thus making me God.
3. If nothing existed except for you, you wouldn't have created anything, thus would only be existing alone. Thus, you cannot be defined as God.

2. A human body is made up of trillions of cells...

1. He literally cites this argument that, obviously, needs cited evidence to back it up without citing evidence to back it up. Thus, we can presume it's just an assertion of his and therefore false.
2. Our control cannot extend past the range of our cells because there are many cell functions that we do not control. Meiosis, Meitosis, Cellular Apoptosis, etc. There are also many organ functions, made up by individual cells, that we do not control. We do not control whether our heart beats or not, we do not control whether or not our nervous system sends signals throughout our body, etc.
3. If one person is the universe, the universe cannot be everything because anything that was not that one person would not be the universe. Thus, this argument fails.

3. I created everything, then gave up my power and walked away from it.

1. No proof. I could claim just the same and it would be evaluated as equally true, since neither of our claims are warranted with evidence.

4. I am God, but one not as usually understood as such by a developed nation.

1. Even if this is true, you'd still have to adhere to the definiton provided by myself above.
2. No proof. I could claim the same and both of our assertions would have to be weighed as equal and contradicting, thus negating each other.

5. I legally changed my name to God

1. Pictures of the official document authorizing your legal change in name or it didn't happen. And since I don't think you will be able to provide said pictures, this is false.
2. Even if you did change your name, a name does not define who we are as a person. I.e. I might be called a jock, but this does not mean I like sports or play football all the time.

6. I am God but you would be unable to perceive it as such.

1. No warrant. I can definetely prove I am not a butterfly by the physical anatomy of my body.
2. No warrant to why this makes you God.
3. This falsly assumes that you already are God, which is what we are debating here.
4. There's no evidence as to why your 'true reality' is the actual true reality. It could possibly be that you are the 'butterfly' and I am the God that you cannot perceive.

Since I have successfully rebuked his arguments, this is sufficient to vote con since he is currently failing to meet his BOP. But since I have plenty of characters to spare, I will give reasons as to why, under my given definition of God, he is not God.

1. God would be omniscient. You cannot currently see me and see my thoughts. Thus, you are not omniscient, and thus are not God.
2. God is omnipotent, capable of doing everything. You failed to receive your notification round two that it was your turn to argue. Thus, you are not omnipotent. Thus, you are not God.
3. God is perfect. You are not perfect because a) You lied by saying that you are God, b) you failed to compete in every round successfully, c) you did not perfectly win this debate, and d) you did not win this debate at all. Thus, you cannot be perfect. Thus, you cannot be God.

For all of the above reasons, I submit that my opponent is not God, but rather that I am. Since he is not God, you must vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Braaainz 4 years ago
Braaainz
I thank my opponent for the debate. I disagree with a few of his rebuttals, but some were quite excellent.

Flaws with some of his rebuttals:
When he says he could claim the same thing, that does not negate the argument unless he can prove his statement true. For example, if we both say we (individually) own the biggest avacado in the world, one of us is obviously in error.

I do not have to confine myself to his definition of God. You can see how he defined god as being omniscient, omnipotent, & benevolent and such a being is logically impossible in this reality.

There are others, but hey... he did a great job in a limited timeframe. Kudos!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
BraaainzZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conducts and arguments to zaradi for forfeit.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
BraaainzZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited a round, so conduct to Con. Also, it's unfortunate that Pro's forfeiture caused only a one-round debate so Pro wasn't able to rebut any of Con's arguments. Since Pro initiated the debate and subsequently forfeited a round (despite a reasonable reason as to why the round got by him), I was forced to give arguments to Con.