The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ChurnedCreamery
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Proof of God Via Opposing Religious Ideals:

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 1 vote the winner is...
ChurnedCreamery
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 103444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

1. If God does not exist, objective religious ideals do not exist.

2. Objective religious ideals do exist:

2a. If opposing religious ideals exist, some religious ideals are wrong.

2b. If some religious ideals are wrong, objective religious ideals exist.

2c. Opposing religious ideals do exist.

2d. Therefore, some religious ideals are wrong.

2e. Therefore, objective religious ideals do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists. QED
ChurnedCreamery

Con

I accept, but what you stated does not add up
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"I accept, but what you stated does not add up"

Yes it does.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
ChurnedCreamery

Con

Just because someone disagrees with what you said doesn't mean that you lose the debate, you're awfully pretentious
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

You lost the debate -- goodbye!
ChurnedCreamery

Con

Nah, you haven't explained anything, nor have you posted a single argument
Here is mine:
There is no objectively good or bad, only perception. We can thus come to any conclusion regarding the existence of a God from objectively good or bad beliefs.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

Congratulations for posting the single worst argument I have ever seen in my entire life.

You lost the debate -- goodbye!
ChurnedCreamery

Con

Vote con, Pro has shown to have no innate ability to refute.
He has clearly only shown dogmatic ideas and or beliefs, once again, I must reiterate, vote con
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 5 months ago
ChurnedCreamery
didn't make an argument
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
You don't qualify as a Christian, and Jesus would be ashamed of you.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Mine was better.
Posted by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
Both arguments are horrible.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Yes, I do decide who wins.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 5 months ago
ChurnedCreamery
I am your opponent in this debate, you don't declare who wins, people do
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I have decided to stop giving direct responses to the two-legged animal that has been posting comments under my debates.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 5 months ago
ChurnedCreamery
You're trolling
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Yes, I do decide who wins.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 5 months ago
ChurnedCreamery
lost 7
tied 9
You baffle me, nothing to do with your religious principles but you, as an individual, don't decide who wins. You partake in the event
You can not vote for who wins the event
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaChurnedCreameryTied
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: Pro shat on Aristotle's grave for his opening argument. There was nothing Con could do about it.