The Instigator
Proving_a_Negative
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Esiar
Pro (for)
Losing
1 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...
Proving_a_Negative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 69294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Proving_a_Negative

Con

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Closing Statement

After calling atheists "ignorant" I have decided that it is necessary for you to prove your position. If you refuse to debate, then you are a coward.
Esiar

Pro

Give your reason you don't think God exists.
Debate Round No. 1
Proving_a_Negative

Con

Burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. Good try though. Your turn.
Esiar

Pro

Scientifically, no one here can prove their point. I didn't ask you to prove a negative (Ironically, though, your username is called that), I asked you to give a reason that points to the non-existence of God.

For example, let's say someone is suspected of robbing a store, and there was no footage or tracks of the event happening whatsoever (But it is known that the store was robbed, since the store was empty). One person thinks he did rob the store, and someone else thinks he didn't. The second person would be completely unreasonable to shift the burden of proof on the first, and vise versa, since there is no way to prove any side. Thus, the burden of "proof" should be one both sides: One gives a reason why they think he didn't rob the store, and the other gives a reason why they think he did.
Debate Round No. 2
Proving_a_Negative

Con

I was actually hoping for a debate here. I see that I'm wrong. My rebuttal is sort of pointless. He has given no evidence that god exists. Instead, he is using an invalid analogy to suggest that there is evidence for god without actually showing any. He used a logical fallacy. Perhaps show us some evidence you have so I can atleast say something about the topic.
Esiar

Pro

I would have given a reason as to why I think God exists if you gave one as to why you don't think God exists (Not proof, but a reason).

You cannot shift the burden of proof to me for two reasons:
1) You made the original claim.

2) There is no way for any of us to Scientifically prove what we think. Thus the burden of proof should be on no one.

The logical fallicy was on you.

------------------------------------------------
Either don't vote, or make it tie: He didn't give any reason why he didn't think God exists, and I gave none as to why I think God does. Thus no one wins.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
@Proving, I think your comment here was directed at me. If so, I created a debate yesterday descrikbing what I think your 'new' question seems to be. It's titled "Why debate God's existence since faith is required," which the real point that has to be answered it the conception of faith.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
You got me. I admit defeat. I did say "god does not exist" in my beliefs section. Good call. However I will justify it by saying that it is a "belief." I have never tried to argue that he wasn't real by giving evidence. I only refute evidence people give to prove its existence. And for the record, yes I did mean "pro." It was a silly mistake I made. All I wanted was a real debate.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
I couldn't tell you mixed us up. I still can't tell. :-P
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Esiar, I am so very sorry for addressing that & these other comments your way. I mixed you 2 guys up. My bad.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
"Did I ever once say that god doesn't exist? Honestly look through all the comments, forums, debates, and whatnot that I have ever said anything in. Tell me if I have ever said that god doesn't exist. Quote it, give the source, and then I will admit defeat."

http://www.debate.org...

On the "beliefs" section, you said, "God isn't real."
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
No, you never stated that. I addressed your comment of "Burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. Good try though. Your turn."
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
I'm pro, not con. :-P

Like I said, I cannot Scientifically prove God (It's impossible), therefore asking me to prove God is an impossible burden of proof of carry on my shoulders.

I can use Science to point to the existence of God, but I cannot say, "God is on Mars. The Rovers found him.'", or, "God is 8,000 light years away.". I can only say, "Well, the Universe has this and this, which makes belief in God reasonable.".
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
Did I ever once say that god doesn't exist? Honestly look through all the comments, forums, debates, and whatnot that I have ever said anything in. Tell me if I have ever said that god doesn't exist. Quote it, give the source, and then I will admit defeat. The problem is that I haven't. Con here is arguing that god does exist as stated by the topic. He so far has given no evidence. I find this hilarious.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Typical response from the atheists "No, you have to prove God exists, even tho I'm initially the one who definitively states God does not exist in the conversation." There is much more argument from atheists saying God doesn't exist than from defensive arguments from believers cuz it takes faith to believe & atheists know this. Therefore instead of accepting that the person making the 1st claim, 'there is no God,' needs to back up that initial claim, they try to turn it around to say 'the burden of proof is not on me even tho I made the only claim.' They then run away claiming victory. A cheap & invalid argument to say the least.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
God
ɡ"d/
noun
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Just so we don't run into semantics later on.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
Proving_a_NegativeEsiarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side made an argument, preferring to argue the rules of the debate to actually debating the topic. There are lots of good arguments from both sides so this should not have been difficult. For future reference, Round 1 should state who the BoP rests on.
Vote Placed by PolitcsMaster 1 year ago
PolitcsMaster
Proving_a_NegativeEsiarTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof and failed.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
Proving_a_NegativeEsiarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll give you each points because I'm generous :3 Now it's a 1-1 tie
Vote Placed by jsgolfer 1 year ago
jsgolfer
Proving_a_NegativeEsiarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie. No real debate. Both sides were guilty of avoiding debate. Why would either of you agree to debate this if you didn't actually come prepared to debate? Con, according to your rules of debate you should have opened with an argument in round 2. You elected not to. Pro, you also did not follow the rules of the argument by not posting an opening argument in round 2. In my opinion, you both need to stop posting and read some other debates to see how this works. I agree that no one wins.