The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points
The Contender
joseph.bazemore
Pro (for)
Losing
55 Points

Is There a God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-13
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 21 votes the winner is...
qopel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,089 times Debate No: 30696
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (107)
Votes (21)

 

qopel

Con

Rules:
No Theists. They are biased and insane.

No profiles that claim they are 100 years old. I don't debate with liars.
Nobody under 18. People under 18 already know everything.

No claiming "something can't come from nothing". Nobody has ever had a "nothing" to examine, so it can't even be defined what a "nothing" is.

No claiming "everything must have a cause". Causality didn't exist until after the Bing Bang, which means the Big Bang could have happened without a cause.

No claiming the Universe came from nothing. The Universe came from a singularity, which is something. According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, the singularity was a millionth of a billionth of a centimeter wide.

No word games. No playing with semantics.

No using wikipedia. It's a not a reliable source.

No using Creationist websites. They are proved to be complete nonsense.

No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean.

No adding new arguments as you go along. State your arguments in the first round and be prepared to defend them later. Do not try to flood the last round with new arguments that I don't get a chance to address. That's dishonest and cheating.

No using Bible quotes. The Bible has not been proved to be a reliable source of information. Also, most times Bible quotes are used, they are taken out of context.

No using information without defining the way you interpret it. There should be no accusations about how somebody interpreted something wrong.

NOTE: "Con" is not an assertion that there is no God. "Con" is only a non belief that a God exist. "Pro" will have the burden of proof that there is, in fact, a God that exists. It is impossible for anyone to prove something doesn't exist. It is, however, possible to prove something does exist. If you take on this debate, you will have the burden of proof.

NOTE: Please don't resort to the use of logical fallacies.

Now the definitions of words that will undoubtedly, be used:

God: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Agnostic Atheism: The lack of the belief of a God. An Atheist does not claim that there is no God.

Scientific Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is NOT the same as the definition of a layman's theory. The theory of evolution is just as valid at the theory of gravity or any other scientific theory.

Evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. It has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.

Exist: To have actual being in the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
Space: A distance that separates matter or energy. Space itself is "something" and can contain within it, both matter and energy.

I will start off by saying I do not believe a God exists. If you want to claim that there is indeed a God, You may take on this debate and provide EVIDENCE for such a God. If you can not provide sufficient evidence, the default position of there not being a God will result. That is the null hypothesis.
joseph.bazemore

Pro

lets save the general Im right your wrong reasoning approach to this! off the top of my head man tries to set ways and means to understand a Godly creation and existance, but due to our own wisdom and perceptions man has mixed beliefs. However I could even by a scientific stand-point that our measures and perceptions are not as advanced as we give ourselves credit for ,for instants things in the universe we dont see affect our perceptions ,like we dont know if dark matter affects it or when our laws of physics breakdown at the event horizon of a black hole, so it would seem that even the cosmos tell a story in itself beware of whats not seen and especially of what is .Man is never gonna be allowed to prove God scientifically,that would defeat the entire reason for our existance. Knowing our wisdom and lives end ,but choose to trust>
Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Con

I'd first like to point out that my opponent didn't bother to check grammar or spelling.

My opponent admits "Man is never gonna (sic) be allowed to prove God scientifically"

Since science is really the only way to prove something physically in the natural world,
I will claim victory for this debate.
joseph.bazemore

Pro

I wish you all the best in your research < Truely, I do your right to be heard is just as relevant as mine,and thank you!
My pride has made a good servant but a poor master before too! build your victory fence ,see how long you can sit on it. sometimes theres more than 1 solution to a problem, maybe your proof will be found in a way other than science!
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Con

My opponent broke the rule "No Theists".

I refuse to continue based on that.
joseph.bazemore

Pro

You are truely a golden rule man just like you said!
Debate Round No. 3
qopel

Con

And you're an unfair cheater that doesn't follow rules.
joseph.bazemore

Pro

sticks and stones ! your debate challenge is there a God? You're argument Is no God just proof through known science.the only logical counterpoint to your argument ihas to be some sort of theism:the belief in a god or Gods, I never used any scripture or religious text, just my present thoughts on the issue and why! then you attack my charachter which you are but have none, and penalize me for disagreeing with your athiest, activist ,attitude! it's like challenging me to a home run derby and saying it's illegal for me to swing the bat, or open my eyes !
Debate Round No. 4
qopel

Con

If you agreed to play a game of baseball where the rules said to not swing the bat, or open your eyes, and you did it anyway, you would be a cheater.

I spelled the rules out very clearly. The very first rule said no theists.

You ignored the rule and accepted the debate anyway Then went on to use theist opinions to debate.

Now you complain that I'm pointing out what you did?

Did anyone point a gun to your head and say you had to accept this debate? No?

Well, your opinions aren't proof that there is a God. Thanks for the easy win.
joseph.bazemore

Pro

Ok I tried Mr. G man. code and catalog your brilliant easy win over me! Your antagonistic fishing for my angry reaction was cute too! However you are a desperate pitiful man ! you care not to debate God ,atheism,or theism. You just want to make others look stupid! Your like a coward dog growling hrough the fence at another if you scared him you'd be glad of it, thats your mindset. you treat others how you want to be treated, I feel for ya, no wonder your pissed! I'm sure you'll call on me again when you want to ! take care and next time please lets aderess each other as descent people capable of dialog and skip the pissin match!
Debate Round No. 5
107 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
My opponent didn't have to accept this debate nor the rules, so take back your biased votes, you vote bomber.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Plus, your no theist rule is ridiculous. I'm not a theist, but I make arguments in favour of God's existence sometimes.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
ishallannoyyo
It isn't vote-bombs, but more of your definition of evidence. What you want as evidence is something concrete, e.g. my science experiment proved with 100% certainty god exists! Well obvious we can NEVER obtain that, no matter how hard we try. The most we can get is arguments such as the KCA. Arguments like the KCA do not have evidence per se (just like eye-witness testimonies), but that does not mean the argument is flawed.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
Yeah, because all I do is get vote bombed.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Look how much stuff you have banned!! Is this what you have to resort to in order to ALMOST win??
Posted by Phil_Collins 3 years ago
Phil_Collins
If there is no God then how are we here? Vote Bomb.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
Obey the rules of a debate you accept.
Posted by joseph.bazemore 3 years ago
joseph.bazemore
think outside the box of our universe free thinker! the beginning of our universe is not the beginning of God! Do you believe the universe is eternal in a time sense?, If you believe in eternity there is no end to what we call time neither is there a beginning! but all created or destroyed , even this universe will pass away!
Posted by joseph.bazemore 3 years ago
joseph.bazemore
think outside the box of our universe free thinker! the beginning of our universe is not the beginning of God! Do you believe the universe is eternal in a time sense?, If you believe in eternity there is no end to what we call time neither is there a beginning! but all created or destroyed , even this universe will pass away!
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
BigSky promised he would never vote on my debates again....so, what does he do?
He comes here, and not only votes on my debate, he accuses me of being rude
(which I admit I was) and then vote bombs me as if he is justified to award
"Made more convincing arguments" points and "Used the most reliable sources"
points based on rudeness. Yeah that's fair. That's exactly why I'm not
accepting those under 18. The childish petty vigilante vote bombs, BigSky promised
not to do, will not be rewarded with my debate time. His fellow teens can thank him for missing out on future debates with me.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: All votes to Pro.
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB for all of the votebombs for Pro. For those who are thinking the rules of the debate are bad, guess what the contender does in this situation? They don't accept the debate! Pro accepted (thus accepting the rules), pro broke the rules, and pro lost. It's that simple.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering History and some of the earlier votebombs/bullsh*t votes
Vote Placed by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro broke rules. Bad conduct on both sides.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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: Con was incredibly rude and outrageous. His burdens are terribly and disastrous. I going to give Pro both arguments and conduct due to how mean he was in this debate. It was terrible.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 3 years ago
Sola.Gratia
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rules were very ridiculous and pro was unable to meet cons standards because of it. I believe there is a God so that is why I give pro the points.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering tyler.schillim, who once again has no reasons for his vote.
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 3 years ago
tyler.schillim
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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: If there is no God, then how are we here!
Vote Placed by TSH 3 years ago
TSH
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro broke the rules and had BOP.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
qopeljoseph.bazemoreTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Why is Pro winning? Con sort of offered arguments in the first round(the universe couldv came into being w/o a cause) Pro offers none despite the rules saying he must, and having the BOP. Cons no theist rule is stupid, but his debate his rules and Pro breaks it. It's a pretty clear con ballot...