The Instigator
Cindela
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Partyboat
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points

Is there a "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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 12/18/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,184 times Debate No: 661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (21)

 

Cindela

Con

First off, I would like to thank everyone who is reading this and I would like to thank my opponent for debating me.

Now to the actual debate.

Before I give my points, I would like to define God:
God is All Seeing
God is All Knowing
God is Benevolent
God is a Higher Being (a.k.a. not human, something more like an angel)

If there was an actual God that follows the above criteria, then why do we have so much suffering in the world? There is extreme poverty in China, there are genocides happening in Darfur, and many people do not know where their next meal will come from. If God is truly all seeinging and benevolent, then he/she would see the suffering, and being benevolent as he/she is, would fix the problem.

If God does exist, then why haven't we seen any proof?
By proof I mean scientific proof, concrete proof. Not that you had a vision and God told you to do something.

Going by the criteria posed above, I say that there is no God, and if the opposition is unable to provide proof otherwise, then I win this debate.
Partyboat

Pro

Hello, I will try to debate this, even though the argument for both sides is like talking to a wall.

God may be all knowing and all seeing, but that doesn't mean (s)he holds our hand the whole through. (S)He created this universe and placing animals, plants, and humans down in order to have some joy in the world. While some choose to be righteous and good, others are devilish in their actions. Just because there is misfortune in some areas, means God is ignoring.

To prove to one man or women there is a God is an impossible feat. They must find faith on there own account. But to those who believe God is in our hearts and souls and whats keeps our drum beat to the correct tune. Of course we are only humans and make mistakes. For me to give you scientific evidence is impossible; for I don't believe there is any. But to tell millions of people there isn't a God and expect them to believe you is never happening.
Debate Round No. 1
Cindela

Con

"God may be all knowing and all seeing, but that doesn't mean (s)he holds our hand the whole through." You said this. Are you saying that allowing millions of people to suffer is letting us learn a lesson? If God were truly benevolent, then he/she would help. He/she has not done anything to help. There are plenty of people helping in his/her name, but it is not God himself/herself that is actually helping. Just as an example, every 5 seconds, a CHILD dies from starvation. Are you saying that a benevolent God would allow this to happen? Would any person in with a consience allow this to happen if they had a choice to stop it? By our definition of God, he/she must be benevolent. Letting a child die every 5 seconds is not benevolence.

"S)He created this universe and placing animals, plants, and humans down in order to have some joy in the world. " Once again, how is haveing millions of people die everyday to things that could eaisly be prevented joy? Would you be joyful if you were starving everyday and had no education and was suffering form malaria? I don't think so. And yes, this does happen.

"To prove to one man or women there is a God is an impossible feat." Let us say for a moment that there is a God. If he/she showed us all some actual proof, that he/she existed, would he/she not be giving us proof? Would that not be concrete evidence to show that God exists? Therefore, it is not impossible to prove it.

"But to those who believe God is in our hearts and souls and whats keeps our drum beat to the correct tune. Of course we are only humans and make mistakes." How does this prove that God exists? You are just reafimming what I said.

Becuase the topic of this debate is "is there a god?" and the oppostition has not provided any argument showing that there is, I win this debate. The arguments that Partyboat have said have all been reufted by me and shown to be immaterial. Thank You
Partyboat

Pro

Partyboat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cindela

Con

I am not going to post anything new. If you want to look at my previous arguments, scroll up. We can just make this a 2 round debate.
Partyboat

Pro

no following argument from me. Since there is nothing else to say. I believe Cindela won the debate though.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 18 records.
Posted by Ahking 5 years ago
Ahking
A better debate would be: What is God?
Posted by Ahking 5 years ago
Ahking
This debate has no answer and we will all know it when it does.

Since there is no proof for or against God, the best we can do is avoid conflict on the matter.
Posted by rojogato19 5 years ago
rojogato19
I believe that God is a loving god who gives us free will to do and think as we please. Though He loves us, we dont have to beleive in him, or love him if we so choose not to. If we are given free will, how can he also give us proof of his existence, because in doing so he would be forcing us to believe in him
Posted by sagarous 5 years ago
sagarous
If Cindela is talking about the Christian God, then there cannot be any scientific proof. This is unfair limiting. It's like making a topic that says something like fingers are better than chainsaws for picking your nose. Once again, Cindela's demands for scientific proof is impossible. And also, concrete proof is entirely different than scientific proof, please indicate which one.
Posted by sagarous 5 years ago
sagarous
As in Cindela's former debate, he has been unable to limit what "God" is in the topic. Are we talking about the Abrahamic God? Are we talking about the mythological gods of the Mediterranean? Anything could be a god, so this debate has been made very general. And once again, you must define God in the topic, not in your opening statement.
Posted by sagarous 5 years ago
sagarous
Just because that many horrible things happen in the world does not necessarily mean that God doesn't exist. You say that if God is truly all seeing and benevolent, it doesn't necessarily mean that if he doesn't fix it immediately, that he isn't benevolent. If you had a child, and he wanted to skateboard. As a parent, would you deprive your child of his right to skateboard because of all the dangers? No! You give him all the appropriate gear and tell him to be careful! If he gets hurt, do you immediately run up to him and treat him and send him to the emergency room? No. The responsible and wise parent would tell him that he was warned to be careful and that he should learn from his mistakes.
Posted by sagarous 5 years ago
sagarous
I would definitely argue with Cindela about >If God does exist, then why haven't we seen proof?<, HOW IS THIS EVEN RELEVANT IF THERE IS PROOF OR NOT? And second of all, in this debate, you have already defined God as "God", so limited the definition of God kind of defeats the purpose of having the debate topic already.
Posted by Curtispov11 5 years ago
Curtispov11
i would argue with you, but i totally agree with you haha
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by padfo0t 4 years ago
padfo0t
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 burningpuppies101 4 years ago
burningpuppies101
CindelaPartyboatTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Padfoot36 5 years ago
Padfoot36
CindelaPartyboatTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by King_Jas 5 years ago
King_Jas
CindelaPartyboatTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by adamh 5 years ago
adamh
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 5 years ago
kenito001
CindelaPartyboatTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by undecided_voter 5 years ago
undecided_voter
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 
Vote Placed by indicolts 5 years ago
indicolts
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 
Vote Placed by UN_diplomat 5 years ago
UN_diplomat
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 
Vote Placed by sagarous 5 years ago
sagarous
CindelaPartyboatTied
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