The Instigator
JimShady
Con (against)
The Contender
Bonj
Pro (for)

Pro must prove God does not exist, Con must prove God exists.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Bonj has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 99836
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

JimShady

Con

Obviously, burden of proof is on both Pro and Con as mentioned in the topic description. You must prove God is fake, I must prove God is real.

The format:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals to Round 2
Round 4: Rebuttals to Round 3 Rebuttals

Notice: You cannot add any new arguments in Round 3. Rebuttals are only permitted in the final round, so make sure you put as many points as you can in Round 2. The same shall go for round 4, only refute round 3, NOT round 2. Also, since the Pro will follow Con, he/she must make sure not start until Round 2. This will mess up the whole format, which I see is very fair to both sides, if anything more fair to you because you have the last word.

Good luck, may the best debater win.
Bonj

Pro

This is a peculiar debate topic. The OP states, "You must prove God is fake, I must prove God is real." It is peculiar for several reasons. Primarily because something that is fake is something that is "pretend" or "counterfeit". Obviously, if a thing is able to be these things, then that thing must clearly exist. The question, therefore, reads as if asking, "You must prove that our God is a fake god, I must prove that our God is the real God. I do not believe that this is what the OP meant to say. I believe he intended to say, "You must prove God does not exist, I must prove God exists." I am nitpicking this for sure, and I think you should automatically lose the debate if you have failed to write what you actually meant as the debate topic. That's just really sloppy.

Assuming that he wants me to disprove the existence of God, I'll then have to decide how the word God is defined. I personally ascribe to word God to mean the "ultimate reality" behind physical and psychological science. Something like the quantum vacuum. I don't think this is the God you want me to disprove. I assume that you want me to disprove an anthropomorphised God with a physical form, and an individualised mind, and which exerts a direct influence on this universe. Winning that argument is incredibly simple.

Occam's razor leads us to believe that monotheism is an unfavourable position. We have no way to know if Occam's razor is a correct means of judgement, but it is our best. There you go.
Debate Round No. 1
JimShady

Con

First off, the Pro knows what I meant to debate. I stated in the main title that it's about whether God exists or doesn't exist. The only reason I said "fake" and "real" was so I didn't keep saying exist. I wanted to switch it up a little. I admit that the words fake and real my not be the best choices for debate. But you know full well what I mean, and I stated it in the main title. I think you are nitpicking just to be an @ss hole.

Pro: "I think you should automatically lose the debate if you have failed to write what you actually meant as the debate topic. That's just really sloppy." I have not failed to do so, I wrote it in the title, that is what I actually meant. Although he brings up a valid point about "fake" and "real", it should not make me lose just like that. I think Pro is just afraid he will lose this and wants a forfeit win.

If anything, you should lose for not following my debate format that I put in Round 1. You were only supposed to accept, not put forth your argument (which is by the way weak). Thanks to you, my precious format has been dismantled and this will be unorganized. That's just really sloppy.

To clarify, yes, I mean God who is a "anthropomorphised God with a physical form, and an individualised mind, and which exerts a direct influence on this universe."

If it is incredibly simple to disprove his existence, then you should've been able to defeat me in Round 1. Instead, you pull out a lazy argument in Occam's razor. I specifically asked that you prove God is real. This problem-solving theory, which states that the one with the fewest assumptions wins, does not prove anything. If anything, it is just an assumption itself.

My evidence falls in Saint Thomas Aquinas's five proofs of God's existence, the most notable of these is prima causa. here is a link to them: [1]. Unlike your "proof", this is actually proof. I have more ways of proving God's existence through documented miracles in which science has not explained and defy physics/laws of the universe, but those are for another day. Please provide proof that God does not exist, not an assumption that monotheism is the "unfavourable position", and also counter Aquinas's five proofs, if you can.

1.http://web.mnstate.edu...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LughHeim 11 months ago
LughHeim
This is a pointless debate. Unless you are trying to prove a specific God exists from any religion or writing, just proving whether or not there could be a God leads to no conclusion on how one should or should not live their life or how they should view the universe.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.