The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Seamalicous
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

I am God and you can't prove that I am not 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...
Seamalicous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,847 times Debate No: 13832
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

Note* No I don't think I am really God, this is an exercise in argumentation, logic and hopefully provide some entertainment

Rules: You can't use my previous note as an argument/evidence against me, if you break this rule I win

In order for my opponent to win this debate they must prove that I am not God

If my opponent fails to prove that I am not God I win

My opening argument

1) God can not lie
2) I say I am God
3) Therefore I must be God
Seamalicous

Con

My opponents opening argument only holds if he is indeed God, and is therefore more of a resolution than argument and should be discounted.

Because my opponent as not used the term 'a God' we must assume he is referring to the Christian or other Semitic interpretation meaning of God as they are the only religions that uses 'God' as a pronoun. Therefore he is arguing that he is the Supreme Being.

This means that my opponent must be
1) The creator of the world
2) Omnipotent and Omnipresent

1) The creator of the world

If my opponent did indeed create the world then he should be able to answer a few simple questions about it.

1- Why aren't all Humans imbued with the powers of flight?
2- Why did my puppy die?
3- What is the average speed of an unladen swallow?
4- Why is Justin Bieber famous?
5- Why does EPO exist?
6- What did grass evolve from?

2) Omnipotent and Omnipresent

In order to prove that my opponent is not Omnipotent and Omnipresent I have devised another small test.

If I am not struck by lightening at 12:31 PM on the 31st of November, my opponent is not omnipresent and therefore cannot be God, thereby granting my victory in this debate. I am granting my opponent an exception from his normal commitment to benevolence and kindness. If it helps I'm wearing multiple fabrics most of the time so you're within your rights to do it anyway.

I look forward to my electrification, or victory.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says - "My opponents opening argument only holds if he is indeed God"

How dare you question my word

Con says - "If my opponent did indeed create the world then he should be able to answer a few simple questions about it."

It is written "Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah."

Deuteronomy 6:16

Con asks "4- Why is Justin Bieber famous?"

Just know that one day all evil will be destroyed from the earth

As far as Con striking him with lighting, I was going to do it, but decided out of the goodness of my own mercy not too. I am a forgiving God

I am God
Seamalicous

Con

Clearly the Pro has lost the debate, by not striking me with lightning, he could have made it not cause me pain and thereby quelled his qualms. This inability to exact even the smallest form of righteous justice would clearly indicate that he is not God.

Another feature of God that I have forgotten to mention is that he has no form. Clearly in order to type letters on a keyboard one must posses form, therefore my opponent is not, and cannot be God.

As we can see from his refusal to answer my simple queries, my opponent is chicken. Ask yourself, dear responder, would a being with command over heaven and earth really be chicken? I think not.

Brrrk. Brrrrk. Brrrk... I mean... I look forward to my opponents further attempts to prove his clearly fake divinity.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "Clearly the Pro has lost the debate, by not striking me with lightning, he could have made it not cause me pain and thereby quelled his qualms. This inability to exact even the smallest form of righteous justice would clearly indicate that he is not God."

I spare his life, you would think he would show some gratitude.

Con says "Another feature of God that I have forgotten to mention is that he has no form. Clearly in order to type letters on a keyboard one must posses form, therefore my opponent is not, and cannot be God"

I created the heavens and the earth, you don't think I can make a post on a debate site ?

Con says "As we can see from his refusal to answer my simple queries, my opponent is chicken. Ask yourself, dear responder, would a being with command over heaven and earth really be chicken? I think not."

I am God, you answer to me, I don't answer to you.

Con has not proved that I am not God.

I am God
Seamalicous

Con

Seamalicous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con still has not proved that I am NOT God
Seamalicous

Con

The proof is in the pudding my friends, I have cleverly lead my opponent into a logical trap that disproves his claimed divinity.

First however I would like to apologise for forfeiting the previous round, I was unable to post arguments, as evidenced by my similar gaff on another debate.

In any case, the trap.

In the previous (proper) round I stated that God has no form, while my opponent refuted another part of that point, he did not refute the basic premise that God has no form, therefore the argument is accepted.

Secondly, throughout the debate I have referred to my opponent as 'him' including in my arguments, he as not contested this and therefore has accepted this to be true.

My opponent has given himself form and gender and therefore has been proven through his own folly, that he is god.

He is not God
Because I am God.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "I have referred to my opponent as 'him' including in my arguments, he as not contested this and therefore has accepted this to be true"

Con doesn't seem to understand that silence does not equate with acceptance and or agreement.

My opponent has not being able to prove that I am not God, only giving even more reason to believe that I am God, and now in a desperate attempt, Con now claims Con is God, what BLASPHEMY !!!

Seriously who are you going to believe, Me God, or some one on the Internet.

Has Con proved that I am not God ?

You know what you have to do..........

Vote Pro
Seamalicous

Con

Seamalicous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Maybe so........ but Con didn't prove that I wasn't God, how could I lose, clearly you are a bunch of infidels.
Posted by Eccedustin 6 years ago
Eccedustin
Premise 1: God can not lie
Premise 2: I say I am God
Conclusion: Therefore I must be God

This is a logical fallacy. Assuming bot premises (ASSUMING them, even) does not prove that Pro is God.

God can not lie. Ok Cool.
Pro claims that he is God. Ok, so he claims that he is God.

How does this prove that Pro is God? It doesn't All it proves (it doesn't "prove" anything really, just assumes) is that God can not lie and that Pro claims he is God.

Neither of the premises lead to the conclusion. The conclusion is begging the entire question and is a logical fallacy.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
I think Seamalicious got struck by lightning in R3.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Clearly a false resolution, since Phil is god :D
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
IllegalcombatantSeamalicousTied
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:13 
Vote Placed by Eccedustin 6 years ago
Eccedustin
IllegalcombatantSeamalicousTied
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