The Instigator
vorxxox
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
rangersfootballclub
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Nobody can discredit Pantheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,198 times Debate No: 6980
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

vorxxox

Pro

Hello, and I thank whoever for excepting this debate. This debate is open for any person of any belief or culture. Now, in taking this debate, I will defend, and you will attempt to discredit, the god I define, and advance what YOU believe as an alternative.

Definition of God - God is all, all is God. God is the universe. Though God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, God is not sentient, conscious, or personal. Though PARTS may SEEM imperfect, (ie: ignorance, destruction), such is necessary to create a whole, and God remains holy and beautiful as a whole.
rangersfootballclub

Con

I would like to thank you for posting such a challenging debate and I admit I am still in a way thinking/confused .

personally I don't believe in god or anything like that , I believe life is what you make it unless you are very lucky , what you yourself does defines how you will live , I believe that god doesn't exist and has no input in peoples life's however I accept fully people believe in this and I may be wrong and so might they .

but if I had to define what I thought god meant , I would say god isn't a creator of the universe nor is he the almighty etc , I believe god is what people want him to be . I think god is more of a word that people use as inspiration and in desperation. Its is something to reassure people its like a pick me up if you will , when most people are having a bad time they think about "god " in whatever form that person thinks god is , I don't mean in a religious way , I mean each person in their own way creates a " god" in their head if they are religious or non religious , there are billions of people on this planet and I believe there are billions of "gods" .

god is something that brings people together in a non-religious way most of the time I think in conclusion everybody has an individual god based around how they think and acts as a kind of mentor . But like I have repeated several times just to emphasise the point I think god isn't a religious thing .
Debate Round No. 1
vorxxox

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

Perhaps my opponent misunderstood the purpose of this debate. He has to attempt to discredit my God. Don't worry, we have like 3 more rounds.

Now for my counter-argument:

Well, I have no counter-argument because you haven't really countered mine. All I can say is that I'm winning because the universe is existent and I defined God as the universe. That's kind of hard to beat.
rangersfootballclub

Con

i think you could have made it a bit more clearer to be honest but ok ...

anyway i you cannot claim god to be resposbonsible for the creation of this planet and everything else because simiply this is a bit off a biased claim . i accept you believe this and i have no problem with that everybody is entitled to their own believs but what you are saying is that , God created this world and everything , Fact .
maybe he didnt me he did not but for that claim you cannot win just because you said he did .

now lets just say god is the almighty and god did create this world . Ok back to the old question , why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why .... there are possibly hundreds of questions about the existnace of god and not a single one you can give a an answer to that is definatly true.

so on the grounds that you claim God is definitly real and did make this world i would say i win as there is no proof of this and no argument can prove that god does not exisit but no argument has proven he does and as for the bibal or any other religous book etc ( i am sorry i do not know what religion you are i am presumming you are christian ) these books are completley unreliable as they were written by sevral people and are utterly biased.
Debate Round No. 2
vorxxox

Pro

My opponent continues to misunderstand my argument. He forgets that I'm not arguing for any specific faith, I'm just arguing for God as I defined. To refute his arguments:

"anyway i you cannot claim god to be resposbonsible for the creation of this planet and everything else because simiply this is a bit off a biased claim . i accept you believe this and i have no problem with that everybody is entitled to their own believs but what you are saying is that , God created this world and everything , Fact. maybe he didnt me he did not but for that claim you cannot win just because you said he did."

First of all, I'm not arguing off a biased, ignorant claim.
"All I can say is that I'm winning because the universe is existent and I defined God as the universe."

He doesn't exist because I said so, he exists because I've PROVED it with evidence, and you have yet to disprove it with EVIDENCE.

"now lets just say god is the almighty and god did create this world . Ok back to the old question , why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why .... there are possibly hundreds of questions about the existnace of god and not a single one you can give a an answer to that is definatly true."

Ok. Lets see what this has to do with the GOD I DEFINED.

"why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why"

Hmmm. Well, I did clearly state that He was not sentient, conscious, or personal. Can something that lacks such attempt to do any of those?

"there are possibly hundreds of questions about the existnace of god and not a single one you can give a an answer to that is definatly true."

Ok, ask me more. May I remind you that you are questioning God as I defined Him.

"so on the grounds that you claim God is definitly real and did make this world i would say i win as there is no proof of this and no argument can prove that god does not exisit but no argument has proven he does and as for the bibal or any other religous book etc ( i am sorry i do not know what religion you are i am presumming you are christian ) these books are completley unreliable as they were written by sevral people and are utterly biased."

Yes, I am a Christian. But, I'm not basing my arguments off the bible or any holy book. I'm arguing off MY DEFINITION.

Vote Pro. Thank you.
rangersfootballclub

Con

i am finding you rather annoying oppent if i may say , i have defined what i belive god is , i have discredited god , i have asked questions about gods existance. Yet none of these seem to work , i promised myself i wouldnt aruge like this but you leave me really no choice. Personally i dont care if i cause offence or not anymore as you jsut keep slapping a wet fish on my face by saying things like " he exists because I've PROVED it with evidence, and you have yet to disprove it with EVIDENCE" were the hell is your evidence answer me that ??? how has god been proven to exist answer me ?? i mean no offence to christians when i say this but there are a small amount of christians who are just completley ignonrant and think off some stupid answer almost like saying " because i said so " you refuse to listen to what i am saying , i am not saying god is not real , as i am in no postion to make that claim. I dont know what this debate is really about anymore , but i am going to leave you with a question and i want an answer ( unless this is of course the final round im not sure i forgot to check ).

proof to me god is real give me some evidence that he exists , this god you talk about that you say you have soild evidnce to back your claim up . you know there is more evidnce of the loch ness monster or bigfoot than there is of him.
Debate Round No. 3
vorxxox

Pro

I have obviously won this debate because my opponent has failed to discredit my God. This is my opponent's argument:

1))) Apparently, my God is supposed to be the Christian God defined in the Bible. However, I CLEARLY stated that my God wasn't supported nor affiliated with any holy book, only how I DEFINED. Therefore, any arguments that don't counter the God I defined is irrelevant. Look at these arguments as I will summarize how I have torn them down:

1a) "anyway i you cannot claim god to be resposbonsible for the creation of this planet and everything else because simiply this is a bit off a biased claim."

1b) "i accept you believe this and i have no problem with that everybody is entitled to their own believs but what you are saying is that , God created this world and everything , Fact."

1c) "maybe he didnt me he did not but for that claim you cannot win just because you said he did."

1d) "so on the grounds that you claim God is definitly real and did make this world" - I did?

My response to 1))) Now, first of all, I never said God was responsible for the creation of anything. READ MY DEFINITION. All of those arguments are nullified.

2))) What's worse is my opponent is putting words in my mouth saying I hold the ignorant mentallity: "I'm right just because." No, I'm right because your not rebutting MY arguments, but arguments you ASSUME I am advancing. He asks questions and I continue to answer.

2a) "why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why"

I replied: "Hmmm. Well, I did clearly state that He was not sentient, conscious, or personal. Can something that lacks such attempt to do any of those?"

2b) " (i am sorry i do not know what religion you are i am presumming you are christian ) these books are completley unreliable as they were written by sevral people and are utterly biased."

Response to 2))) Now, did I say I was basing my arguments off any holy book? Hmm? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. How many times do I have to tell you NO IM NOT. IT'S SOLELY BASED OFF MY DEFINITION AND YOU CAN'T REFUTE ANY HOLY BOOK AND SAY YOU WON BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IM USING AS EVIDENCE. I CONTINUE TO STATE AND RESTATE THAT I AM NOT ARGUING WITH ANY AFFILIATION TO ANY HOLY BOOK!!! Think about it, if I defined God as not sentient, conscious, or personal, so how can I be supporting any other religion when they think the exact opposite.

Let me answer some FAQ for the audience of Debate.org.

Q) Why doesn't He answer prayers?
A) Why isn't He personal?
Q) Why does He let bad things happen?
A) Why is He unconscious?

Goodness, grief, you haven't discredited anything. You didn't say how my claims were untrue, you just put words in my mouth and then said I was being ignorant and biased. As for my LOGICAL REASONING AND EVIDENCE:

"All I can say is that I'm winning because the universe is existent and I defined God as the universe."

If a = b and b = c, then a = c

Right.

Well:

If God = universe and universe = existent, then God = existent

My opponent doesn't refute any of MY arguments, just arguments he pressumed were mine.

Did he discredit my God with any logical reasoning? No, his argument was based off 'ignorant claims'

:)

Obvious win for PRO

Please vote for PRO.
rangersfootballclub

Con

ohh there is no reasoning with you is there ?

discredit your god ?? well i dont know what the hell you want me to do more.
you say i have no idea what i am talking about ?? you are talkign in circles damn it , you are makign zero sense what so ever and whenever i say something perfectly logical you go off your rocking horse and say i havent dicredited it ?

im going to leave you with a simple message , pretty straight forward and blunt because you say you arent ignorant but you are you think you are right when you talk complete and utter nonsense heres my message.

make some f**cking sense next time you start a debate and dont give people the same crappy arguements you gave me.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
Although I think the resolution was horribly abusive in Pro's favor, the outcome was far from close. All points to Pro (except reliable sources).
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ad hom
Vote Placed by BlondeDeliberation 7 years ago
BlondeDeliberation
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
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:20 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
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 Demosthenes 8 years ago
Demosthenes
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
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 saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
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 vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
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 rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
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 sorc 8 years ago
sorc
vorxxoxrangersfootballclubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50