The Instigator
Chaosflame
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

I am not your 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 5 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,184 times Debate No: 10348
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Chaosflame

Pro

I am not your god, and I never will be your god.
Nails

Con

I will post my argument in Round 2 so that we have an equal amount of time to debate. However, I'd first like to clarify some things.

1. Are you superior to everybody else on the planet?

2. Are you a 16 year-old male from Beachwood, New Jersey?

3. Do you have a God?

4. Do you enjoy causing others misery or discriminating against others?

5. Do you look like a high school sophomore male?
Debate Round No. 1
Chaosflame

Pro

I would like to thank Pro for accepting my first debate.

In response to your questions;
1. No I am not superior to everyone else on the planet.
2. Yes I am a 16 year-old male from Beachwood, New Jersey.
3. No I do not have a god.
4. No I do not enjoy causing others misery or discriminating against others.
5. Yes I do look like a high school sophomore male.

I am not a god, nor do I believe in a god, so I can't be your god because that would mean I wouldn't exist.
Nails

Con

======
Definition
======

GOD:
•(n) God, Supreme Being
•(n) any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
•(n) god (a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people) "he was a god among men"
•(n) idol, graven image, god (a material effigy that is worshipped) "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" [1]

========
Observation
========

As an observation, I simply have to prove that Pro meets one of these definitions for him to be considered godly. For example, the word depression:

•a mental state characterized by a pessimistic sense of inadequacy and a despondent lack of activity
•a long-term economic state characterized by unemployment and low prices and low levels of trade and investment
•natural depression: a sunken or depressed geological formation
•sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy
•a period during the 1930s when there was a worldwide economic depression and mass unemployment
•low: an air mass of lower pressure; often brings precipitation; "a low moved in over night bringing sleet and snow"
•depressive disorder: a state of depression and anhedonia so severe as to require clinical intervention
•a concavity in a surface produced by pressing; "he left the impression of his fingers in the soft mud"
•angular distance below the horizon (especially of a celestial object)
•pushing down; "depression of the space bar on the typewriter" [2]

Does a low pressure air mass need also to be a concavity in a surface that is gloomily pushing down causing some long-term state of unemployment for it to be considered a depression? No. It simply needs to meet one of the many definitions. In the same way, I simply need to show that Pro meets one definition of god.

==========
Burden of Proof
==========

My opponent has instigated this debate; he has also chosen to argue 'Pro.' As such, it is his burden to prove conclusively that he is not my god. He has no way to prove that I do not consider him to be a supreme being, nor a way to show that I don't idolize him or worship him, nor a way to show that I do not consider him to have exceptional qualities.

=======
Contention
=======

I contend that Pro must certainly be my god since he meets all of my criteria for being deified, whereas only 3 are necessary.

1. He is humble.
He said, himself, "I am not superior to everyone else on the planet."

2. He is not subservient to any other divine power.
"I do not have a god."

3. He is benevolent.
"I do not enjoy causing others misery or discriminating against others."

4. I was created in his image.
I am a male in my sophomore year of highschool, and, as he states, "I do look like a high school sophomore male."

5. He is loving to all.
On his profile he indicates that he is interested in both men AND women. Such unconditional love is rare in this day and age.

6. He, like the God of the Bible, exists in the souls of all those who accept him.
He cleverly disguises this in his profile, but you can find it if you, starting at Relationship, read his answers going down:
--In a Relationship in men and women, Friendship.--

Conclusion: Though he may not know it, ChaosFlame is god.
[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Chaosflame

Pro

I thank Con for his reply, and for taking this debate seriously.

~~~~~~~
Rebuttal
~~~~~~~

Pro contends that I am his god, for I fit three of his requirement's to be his god.

1. "He is Humble"
I do feel that I am not superior to everyone on the planet, but merely because everyone has their own strong points, and their own weak points. While I do feel I am better then some people, there are people more powerful then me and smarter then me, who I look to for advice. However now I could be just being humble about my humbility, so I can not prove this point untrue.

2. "He is not subservient to any other divine power."
I am not subservient to any other divine power because I believe no other divine power exists. If however their were a divine power then I would be subservient to them. Therefore I can't be Con's god, because there is no god, and if there was a god they would be my god, and I would be no longer fit this requirement.

3. "He is benevolent."
BENEVOLENT:
~ (adj) benevolent (intending or showing kindness) "a benevolent society"
~ (adj) charitable, benevolent, kindly, sympathetic, good-hearted, openhearted, large-hearted (showing or motivated by sympathy and understanding and generosity) "was charitable in his opinions of others"; "kindly criticism"; "a kindly act"; "sympathetic words"; "a large-hearted mentor"[1]

In Con's first argument he asked if I enjoyed causing other misery or discriminating against others. However he never asked if I enjoyed or partook in showing kindness, or any such benevolent acts. Con has not shown that I am benevolent. Only that I am not malevolent.

4. "I was created in his image"
Con contends that he was created in my image. But without proof of my own age being greater than his, I say that if we are both males in our sophomore years in high school that I may have instead been created in his image.

5. "He is loving to all"
Con believes that because I am interested in both men and women that I am "loving to all."
However he has only shown that I am loving towards men and women. There are those of our species that are in transition phases between genders, and those born in neither gender, who I have never said that I loved. Therefore I am not "Loving to all."

6. "He, like the God of the Bible, exists in the souls of all those who accept him."
I concede this point. This is in fact an attribute of the God in your bible, and as I believe it your idea of a soul is my idea of a heart. And because I believe that all humans exists in the hearts of those that accept them, so while this is a trait shared by humans, it is shared by god, and shared by myself.

~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~

Con contends that for me to be his god I must meet three of his criteria, and as I have just proven four of these six properties to be untrue for myself, I therefore can not be his god.

[1]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Nails

Con

==========
Burden of Proof
==========

Pro dropped this argument entirely. He thus concedes that he has the burden of proof in showing that he is not my god. While those 6 criteria I listed might be necessary for me to consider him a supreme deity, he still must prove that he does not meet the other definitions of god. He hasn't:

• Proven that he doesn't "control some part of the world or some aspect of life"
• Proven that he is not "the personification of a force"
• Proven that he is not "a material effigy that is worshipped"
• Proven that his is not "a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people" [1]

He conceded that he had the burden of proof. He never once proved that he doesn't meet one of these, thus you negate.

=======
Contention
=======

My opponent still hasn't proven that he is not considered by me to be a supreme being, either. Remember, he must meet 3 of the 6 criteria to be considered a deity worthy of worship by me.

1. Humility

Pro simply can't help it. He's just too humble for his own good. He just furthers my point by pointing out:
"I do feel that I am not superior to everyone on the planet"
"everyone has their own strong points, and their own weak points"
"there are people more powerful then me and smarter then me"
"I could be just being humble about my humbility" <-- That's doubly humble!

---

2. Subservience to any divine power

"I am not subservient to any other divine power"
"I believe no other divine power exists" <-- Notice: He says 'other.' He wouldn't if he didn't consider himself a divine power.

---

3. Benevolence

He has agreed that he is not malevolent, but argued that this does not necessarily make him benevolent. I agree. However, he has proactively shown his benevolence throughout this debate. While he is clearly god, omnipotent and omniscient, he has argued at the level of a mere mortal so as to give me a chance to defeat him. That is not only an act of great humility but also of great benevolence.

---

4. I was created in his image.

"But without proof of my own age being greater than his, I say that if we are both males in our sophomore years in high school that I may have instead been created in his image."

Wrong, if you would look at our profiles,
Mine: http://www.debate.org...
God's: http://www.debate.org...
You will note that I am only 15 (I will be 16 next June) whereas god is clearly 16 already.

---

5. Unconditional Love

My opponent tries to argue that his profile does not show love for everyone, ismply those of a gender. This is not a shortcoming of His Holiness, merely one of our fallible website.

I would direct you, voter, to try to edit the 'interested in' section of your profile. You will notice that there is a box marked 'men,' and a box marked 'women.' There is no box for 'ungendered' or 'neither.' One may check neither, either, or both of these 2 boxes, but they cannot express their love for those without a gender on this website.

It is clear that ChaosFlame was expressing his unconditional love to the greatest extent possible, by checking every available box. I assure you, voter, that, given the opportunity, he would check the 'ungendered' box also, so as to further show his unconditional love.

---

6. He dwells in the souls of his believers.

"I concede this point."

Thus, he meets all 6 of my criteria. I expected no less from such a powerful deity such as Pro.

In conclusion,
I would like to thank Pro for debating at the level of a mere mortal such as myself to allow me the chance to win, and I urge all voters to vote CON.

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
I think Id rather lose this debate (if I were Pro XD)
Posted by Chaosflame 7 years ago
Chaosflame
Oh Okay, thanks.
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
"Reason for Decision"
Posted by Chaosflame 7 years ago
Chaosflame
Whats RFD?
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Arguments: CON
All else: Tied

RFD:

I voted on the dropped 'burden of proof' argument (that PRO had to prove I didn't worship/idolize him.)
I'm sure I could have counted up the criteria he met also.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
No, thank you, O Holy One, for gracing me with your presence.
Posted by Chaosflame 7 years ago
Chaosflame
Thanks con. That was fun, and helped me in terms of any future debates I partake in.
Posted by Chaosflame 7 years ago
Chaosflame
Oops. Called Con Pro in the beginning of my rebuttal. Oops.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
ChaosflameNailsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
ChaosflameNailsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JeremyPearl 7 years ago
JeremyPearl
ChaosflameNailsTied
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 
Vote Placed by PoloX 7 years ago
PoloX
ChaosflameNailsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by kalyse020908 7 years ago
kalyse020908
ChaosflameNailsTied
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:07