The Instigator
mikecal7
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Is God real

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...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 19068
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

mikecal7

Pro

Con is against the existence of God
Pro is for the existence of God
Lordknukle

Con

I shall post in this round so my opponent has a chance to rebut in the next round.

Note: I personally believe in a God but I am being devil's advocate for this debate.

I will have two main contentions:
C1: Problem of Evil
C2: Stone Paradox

If my opponent can negate both of them, he wins.
If my opponent cannot negate both of them, I win.


C1: Problem of Evil

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

The logic goes as follows:
1.If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2.There is evil in the world.
3.Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

The argument is refined into:
1.God exists.
2.God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3.A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5.An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7.If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8.Evil exists (logical contradiction).

C2:Stone Paradox

Can God create a stone which is too heavy for him to lift?

If he can create a stone which is too heavy to lift, then his is not omnipotent.

If he cannot create a stone which is too heavy to lift, then his is not omnipotent.


My opponent has to negate both of these arguments.

Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
mikecal7

Pro

God doesn't have to prevent all the evil in the world. Some evil leads to even more good. God is not susceptible to stupid subjection of logic. He doesn't need your approval or denial. God does not need to be logical.
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

However, they did not rebut or address any of my points.

My opponent has made the claim that God is not logical and he needs the BOP to back up that far-fetched claim.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mikecal7 5 years ago
mikecal7
Sadly, I agree
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Geolaurete... you are a complete and utter moronic idiot
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
Calvincambrige has proven that being convinced of something has no effect on what you agree upon.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
mikecal7LordknukleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used the failed Stone Paradox argument. Anyone familiar with religio-philosophical debate should know that it fails. Pro refuted the problem of evil by mentioning that some evil leads to greater good. After Pro refuted Con, Con ignored all his rebuttals and yet still pled "Vote Con." No, not vote Con, Pro won.
Vote Placed by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
mikecal7LordknukleTied
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: Con actually had a case.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
mikecal7LordknukleTied
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: Pro never made his case. He attacked Con's case, but he never offered a reason for people to think gods exist.
Vote Placed by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
mikecal7LordknukleTied
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 dident argue. Or at that rate even attempt to argue an ad hom.