The Instigator
babygirl23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Is there a god?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,705 times Debate No: 21569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

babygirl23

Pro

Is there a god or not? but my opinion i think there is i live for god....... btw in this debate there will be 4 rounds and basically u need to give evidence on things u say that of course needs it and do ur best in the debate?
Zaradi

Con

Alright. I finally get a chance to debate this type of debate from the con side of things. Freaking finally.
Anyway, arguments will start with you, pro.
Debate Round No. 1
babygirl23

Pro

well, first off if there isnt a God how does all thos miracles in church work its just a thing that people just say i have seen a miracle happen.... i will put a video for it because it was a a freaking miracle. my other statment is that if there isnt a God then how did the jews kill jesus and how did jesus get named jesus if there isnt a God.....what i heard is that an angel told that mary when she was 14 years old that an angel told her she was going to have a baby boy and that god said that u need to name him jesus.......sooo thts my true statments watch this video and u will agree with me........http://www.youtube.com...
Zaradi

Con

Okay, so since the burden of proof is on my opponent, I'll spend all my time refuting, and I may present a case at the end, depending on if I have the characters remaining to do so.

So my opponent's Round Two breaks down into three arguments:

P1. If there isn't a god, then why do miracles happen?
P2. If there isn't a god, then how did the Jews kill Jesus?
P3. If there isn't a god, then how did Jesus get named Jesus?

I'll adress them in the order given.

P1:

There's a few problems with my opponent's first point.
1. It commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.[1] What she's basically saying here, in syllogistic form, is:

If miracles happen, then a God must exist.
Miracles happen.
Thus, a god must exist.

But this is fallacious because if that form were true, then the following syllogism would always be true:

If there is snow on the ground, then it must be snowing.
There is snow on the ground.
Thus, it must be snowing.

However, that's not always true. If there's snow on the ground, it could've just not melted from six hours ago when it was snowing. So now we see the fallacy she tries to employ to make her claim true. However I'm showing you why this is false, so this is sufficient to take out her argument.

2. My opponent's response to the previous argument will probably be along the lines of "well there's nothing to disprove God provides miracles!" But this just an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't have evidence against the existenc eof god, that does not mean that god must automatically exist. Even if my opponent doesn't make this argument, this still applies to her first point, so it takes out her first point regardless.

3. Her only proof of this ever happening is a youtube video. But this presupposes that everything on the internet is true. If this were true, then we would be able to justify a whole list of things that just aren't true, including the existence of unicorns, dragons, aliens, Spongebob, and Demonic Nambian Antelopes. Yeah, we'd justify the existense of DNA if everything on the internet is true. Thusly, I ask that you reject her source, making her point here an entirely unwarranted assertion.

P2:

I'm a little confused as to what my opponent means by this point. If God didn't exist, then how did the Jews kill Jesus. I'm not quite sure what this is saying. I'd like to ask my opponent to clarify on what this is saying. But I will refute it as I understand it.

1. If God were to exist, wouldn't he then try to prevent the Jews from killing the Messiah?
2. This presupposes that it's impossible to kill something if there isn't a god. This implicates that a) the argument is non-sensical because things can obviously die, and that b) if God DID exist, then he would only be causing more death than there would be before, which contradicts his nature.

P3:

Again, I'm a little bit confused as to what my opponent means by this argument. If my opponent would clarify on this, then that would be appreciated. But it would seem non-sensical to say that if God didn't exist that it would be impossible to name someone Jesus. I can name myself Jesus regardless of whether or not God actually exists, so this point is really just not true.

Since I'm feeling lazy and have other things to do, I will conclude here, instead relying on the fact that the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that God exists. If she can't prove that, then you have to vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
babygirl23

Pro

Okay i going to explain my points to my opponent, my thing is about my case above yours is that for 1.If God exists than how did jesus get killed ny the jews well, God told jesus to die for us not for his sake for our sake..... jesus died so that we dont have to go to HELL the place of torment, not a good place for people to go thats why jesus died so we could be with God also, he beat satin down so he doesnt own us anymore because of jesus...!

now, for 2. how did jesus get the name jesus..... Well Mary the 14 years old girl she got pregant by the holy spirit (which comes to do miracles btw). mary was afraid when the angel told her that she ws going to have a baby and she was to it jesus. when jesus was born he never sinned because he was God's son and if you are God's child then u cant sin cause God is perfect.
Zaradi

Con

I'm a little confused as to what to do right now. For one, my opponent did not adress a single one of my refutations. So for the entire purpose of not leaving this box virtually empty, let's go over the points she brings up and re-explain the arguments I put against the same three points she just reiterated.

Her first point in her last speech; how did Jesus die if God didn't exist. Well that's the interesting thing. I believe that even that he died because he got whipped to the bone on his back, they shoved thorns through his skull, shoved a spear in his side, nailed him up onto two pieces of wood arranged in a perpendicular manner as to force him to suffocate. Regardless of whether or not God exists, I think that's enough to kill someone. Just maybe. But even if you don't buy that logically true, look back to the arguments I made against this on P2. These were never responded to. So her point is still invalid.

Her next point is how Jesus got the name Jesus if God doesn't exist. I find that simple enough. You go to your local court house or wherever you go to get your name changed, request to legally have your name changed, and then you can name yourself anything you want to be named. That's what Chad "Ochocinco" Johnson did, except he changed his last name to his football jersey number. The same way applied back whever Jesus supposedly was born, except maybe a little more complicated. But the same principle applies. If Mary didn't want to name Jesus what she did, but instead wanted to name him Billy Bob, there probably wouldn't be anybody to judge. The existence of God doesn't make it impossible for people to be named Jesus, nor the other way around. It's not sufficient proof. This point was made back in Round Two, and it was never responded to. So this point doesn't matter either.

She tries to bring up the miracles again as a little side-note to the naming thing again, but she still refuses to respond to the arguments I placed against this as well. Not only does it commit two logical fallacies, but it just doesn't logically make sense. None of these were responded to, so this argument is still not valid.

As a small aside, you don't have to weigh this in the round but keep it in mind, but all of her arguments already presuppose that the resolution is already true. If God doesn't exist, none of these things that she's saying happened ever happened. She's not proving that God actually existed, only saying that IF God existed, then x. But the entire point of this debate is to discuss whether or not God exists, and none of her arguments really respond to this. Again, I'll admit that this is a new argument, but it's a thing you ought to keep in mind when weighing the round.

So the round breaks down pretty simply. Since the BOP was on my opponent, it was her responsibility to prove that God existed. All I had to do to win was refute her arguments, and she would fail to fulfil the BOP. Since I'm refutting all three of her points, she never tried to defend them, only reiterated them, then she doesn't have any proof that God exists. Thus, she can't fulfil her BOP, and the round is an easy vote for the con. Nice and simple, just the way voters like it.

Anyway, I feel that I've sufficiently proved my side and disproved hers, so I'll go ahead and stop here. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by vigarothe13 4 years ago
vigarothe13
I would vote for you con, but I have only completed one debate so far.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I figured that. Also, if god didn't exist, how did they kill Jesus xD I laughed when I saw that.
Posted by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
Easy win Zaradi... According to Pro "if god didn't exist, jesus wouldn't be named jesus..." That alone secures the vote for con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
babygirl23ZaradiTied
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 had the burden of proof, but never made a claim, let alone supported one.
Vote Placed by chainmachine 4 years ago
chainmachine
babygirl23ZaradiTied
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: Most one sided debate i have ever seen... Horrible spelling and grammar on pros part. Conduct for con to tolerate the plethora of random arguments. Sources to Con.. Because, really? A youtub video?
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
babygirl23ZaradiTied
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: She never refuted his arguments only re asserted/explained them. Con continually deconstructed the case showing its holes and showing fallacies.He disproved her miracle case like there was no tomorrow. Con won.