The Instigator
QueenDaisy
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
FollowerofChrist1955
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

THB: God does not exist.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
QueenDaisy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 105107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

QueenDaisy

Pro

Challengers should note the 4000 character limit.

Definitions:
"God": An omnimaximal entity which created the universe and rules over it.
"Omnimaximal": perfect in every way- perfectly good (omnibenevolence), perfectly powerful (omnipotence), perfectly knowledgeable (omniscience) etc.

Equal BOP on both parties. Con may argue in R1, or may choose to just accept the debate. If Con does present an argument in R1, they must wave R3 and give me the last word.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

I accept your challenge ... proceed please.
Debate Round No. 1
QueenDaisy

Pro

I will use a proof by contradiction (see source 1) to prove the claim "God does not exist". I.e., I will assume the opposite to be true (that God DOES exist) and then show that this leads to an impossible situation, and therefore that "God does exist" cannot be true, and therefore that "God does not exist" must be true.

If God exists, then there exists some being which is both omnipotent and omniscient. If a being is omniscient, then that being cannot also be omnipotent, as there is something it cannot to- gain knowledge. Something which has infinite knowledge cannot conceivably experience learning, as it has nothing to learn. Therefore, there is something it cannot do, and it is not omnipotent.

Likewise, if God exists, then there exists some being which is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. If a being is omnibenevolent, then it cannot also be omnipotent, as there is something it cannot do- it cannot perform evil. If God can choose to be evil, he is not omnibenevolent. If God cannot choose to be evil, he is not omnipotent.

Similarly, omnipotence contradicts itself- can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy that the being itself cannot lift the object? If so, then the being is not omnipotent as it cannot lift such an object, and if not then the being is not omnipotent as it cannot create such an object.

The three above examples demonstrate my first point:

1) God cannot exist, as omnipotence contradicts itself, and a being cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient, and nor can it be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

My second point is on the existence of evil. It rests on the idea that there are bad things in the world- cancer, famine, rape, bloodshed, hurricanes, to name a few.

If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to stop bad things from happening.
If God is omnipotent, he is capable of stopping bad things from happening.

However, bad things happen, which indicates that God does not exist- if he did, he would have stopped the bad things. So, my second point:

2) If God exists, bad things would not. Bad things do exist, therefore, God does not.

Sources:
[1]: https://www.youtube.com...
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Sadly, opinions exists in the Billions. NONE are FACTS nor proof of anything but self importance and self thought!

The Topic states God does not exist ... that is of course complete opinion. You submit opinion as fact, that is illogical as fact implies TRUTH in some facet. You of course have none, in opinion! Therefore let us review and if you can ... you can"t but, you can try, to despute actual evidence, and not opinion.

No evidence exists, scientific or otherwise which disproves Gods existence. FACT!

No scientific evidence exists which explains existence of human life or animal life in a tangible environment. FACT!

No scientific experiment has produced tangible (able to be held in human hands) Living life, from nothing in any experiment to date! FACT!

This simple FACT proves that Science is incorrect in their unscientific presumption of life beginning by crawling out of primordial ooze, since no such proof exists, of tangible life COMING FROM nothing, bacteria or microbe. FACT!

Living animal life of every sort REMAINS PRODUCED ONLY BY EGG. FACT!

Evidence of human souls exists in the millions on photographic and video media. This preponderance of evidence suggest that 100% of them cannot be proven false. Therefore if even ONE IS true it IS evidence of an afterlife. FACT!

Heaven, Hell. There is scientific and lie detector test which prove that people HAVE experienced going to either place when they where in fact legally dead. Both religious and nonreligious humans. All remain lifelong impacted by the experience. Proof of potentiality of existence! FACT!

The same Bible which ACCURATELY described future events also bears witness to the existence of Heaven and Hell. Describes who IS and who isn"t going to each place and for how long. FACT!

True events, described in the Bible. Destruction of Jerusalem ... all 3 times, reign of Alexander the Great, the Generals Alexander would leave the empire too! Israel becoming a Nation in a single Day. The alignment of stars 2000 years BEFORE the alignment was to happen with such clarity that it was monitored by World News media years and months in advance of September 23rd 2017! FACT! The 6 day War in Jerusalem .. future destructions of earth leaving only 2.5 billion alive of the current population. Still to occur obviously ... but, it WILL BE A FACT!

These are evidence! You have shown no evidence to the contrary! Merely closed minded opinions which are not evidence.

Fact: IF bacteria and microbes CANNOT BECOME a visible touchable Living Creature ... how could it CRAWL out of ANYTHING? To of course BECOME something that HAS TO PRODUCE AN EGG ... to reproduce?
Debate Round No. 2
QueenDaisy

Pro

Con offers no more refutation than "that"s just your opinion", which is remarkable- A mathematical proof by contradiction is one of the least opinion-based series of statements one could conceive of- it uses deductive reasoning to demonstrate that the claim being proven is OBJECTIVELY true as its negation is objectively false. This is as far from an opinion as you can get.

I invite my opponent to re-read my R2 argument, and to actually address the matter of God"s existence being impossible due to omnimaxinality"s internal inconsistency. They should also address the problem of evil- how can bad things happen if God both wants to stop them (oknibenevolence) and is able to (omnipotence)?

Most of Con"s statements are completely irrelevant to the motion, and I will not insult the reader"s intelligence by rigorously pointing out that these are irrelevant. Instead, I will simply address the relevant statements only.

Con said that there is no evidence that God does not exist. This is false- the problem of evil and the inconsistency of omnimaxinality are both evidence that God does not exist.

Con said that the Bible makes testable predictions which have come true (the implication being that as the Bible also predicts the existence of God, it must be so). It is worth noting:

1: The Bible is guilty of a phenomenon similar to the Barnum effect (see source 2) in that it makes large numbers of vague statements- in doing so, it makes it likely that something will be interpreted as a correct prediction, while false claims are dismissed as metaphorical, or otherwise "brushed under the carpet".
2: Many of the Bible"s factual claims are demonstrably false. For example, consider Genesis 30:39:

"they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."

(See source 3)

If this is ambiguous, read adjacent verses for context- the author of this verse clearly has no understanding of genetics, as they suggest that goats reproducing will cause the patterns of their environment to be reflected on the skins of their young. This is nonsense.

So, the Bible is not a reliable source of scientific fact- it makes large numbers of false statements, and those statements which do apparently come true are explained by their vagueness and the sheer number of statements made.

So, to summarise my case:
1) Omnimaximality is inconsistent, and therefore God cannot exist.
2) If God exists, bad things would not. Bad things exist, and so God does not.
3) The Bible is not a credible source of factual information, as it makes many false predictions and it"s true predictions only appear true as they are vague and numerous.

Sources:
[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[3]: http://biblehub.com...
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Pro is clearly grand standing on a platform of fragile glass. Tossing big words, she borrowed from someone Else. Here"s a soul who completely and delibrately ignores the facts entirely, basing her opinions on other opinions?

No evidence exists, scientific or otherwise which disproves Gods existence. FACT!
And Pros response is mathematics? please. Mathematics are predicated on a very FAILED And Fragile human intellect. Imagine ... scientists exist which CLAIM you are stardust! Absurd!

Pros intelligence cannot show how Humanity got ON Earth because Scientists, the greatest minds on Earth HAVE NOT, created a tangible (able to hold in YOUR HANDS) creature from nothing, neither Bacteria, nor Microbe that produces egg to procreate.

IF that is true, and it is look everywhere, you will not find it! Only a closed mind would CLAIM something crawled out of the primordial ooze ... based on imagination alone!

Science has not and cannot SHOW HOW, life began on earth, specifically because all scientific study to this very DAY, has ONLY produced the microscopic! Nothing else. They have not and cannot cross into the World of the tangible Living creatures, therefore, we could NOT have come from the microscopic, thereby completely refuting the crawled out of the primordial ooze theory!

That is indisputable! Go to the internet.... Science has NOTHING to show you but imaginative statements, nothing tangible. Yet the degree holding of the World have not the intelligence to ask to SEE THE PROOF. They just take their word for it. How Gullible. How ignorant!

the proof of 100% accuracy of future events stands easily proveable, that Pro is too lazy to look them up, just the Last foretold event recieved World News Media .. clearly Pro doesn"t own or watch TV, read newspapers, or has a life beyond academic drivel written by equally gullible degree holders, who sit and pat themselves on the back, speaking of intelligence but acting a fool!

To have known of God, throughout Thousands of Years, passed down from generations, and having heard of a God who has condemned the whole of humanity to Hells Flames, and lastly the Lake of Fire, and to ignore completely. In fact refuse to inquire yourself, for your own good, the potentiality of such a disturbing ending immediately awaiting you at your last breath.

Ladies and gentleman, thats just stupid
stu"pid
adjective
1. 1. having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense."I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
2synonyms:3unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish; More4

And completely unworthy of a person of any educational background!

Rather that looking for yourself? Your just gonna base your opinion on mathematics? A thing long from absolute!

Your gonna take somebody else"s WORD that God doesn"t exist? Knowing it"s YOUR SOUL burning in Hell, if he"s wrong? Cause there IS NO SECOND CHANCE, once you draw your last breath.

But .... OKAY. Be a yo yo.

Be the one who never gets the chance to go to Heaven, role the dice as it were .. Oblivion or HELL.

Never having HAD the OPTION of going to Heaven, and WHY. To Lazy, To Proudful and must too Stupid.

Your choice, your consequence!

Listen to those who have NEVER studied the Bible, about the Bible ... or choose to listen to Those who STUDY THE bible, like Pro studies mathematics.... except God created mathematics, its called DNA and none of the Men of any intelligence can create DNA from NOTHING! God did?

So good luck with those mathematics people
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Masterful// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter explains both point allocations sufficiently, examining specific arguments from the debate and pointing to a specific insult to justify conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Hehehe
Like standing in a room of alcoholic"s!
When your congratulated for being perfectly normal, in a room full of drunks! It"s a danger sign Queendaisy.
Thought you just might be smart enough to see that!
Of the 6 Billion God fearing people, none voted for you .... just those who suffer from the same affliction, the blind, the stupid, the closed-minded!
Pity!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 7 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@QueenDaisy Also, I challenged you to a debate!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 7 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Its like the pro knew he won from the start, the con is an idiot.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Masterful;
Paradox created by flawed and immature characteristics of human intelligence.

It is clear Pro and Masterful are into the absurd to even suggest that a God of immense power WOULD CREATE out of sheer whim a Rock of such purportion. There exists nothing in the whole of humanity that at one point or another is not already been proven symbiotic!

It would s therefore more likely given this prospect that God creates things for cause and effect.
To suggest that a paradox whic lacks maturity in understanding, can be used to quantify a matter is beyond foolish. The question should rather be of what purpose would such a structure be of use to Life?

What can Pro or masterful, produce that would REQUIRE a rock of such purportion save to entertain the weak minded, who through immaturity will use anything including the absurd to suggest a thing that cannot possibly be proved by fables of Man!

contrary to masterfuls opinion, there is not a single evolutionary Scientist that has studied the God Factor! Nor that hasn"t already proven accidentally that Evolution in concept is False by test results readily on file. Evolution has never produced one single Live Animal from bacteria, microbe, inorganic material! None!

Stupid by definition, not insult. A Cow is called a cow, because its a cow. Stupid is stupid by demonstration of lack of common sense as is shown by both Pro and masterful to deduce based on cliches instead of reason! Still it s their own souls consigned to Hell. Though I don"t wish it upon anyone, it is nevertheless their own choice to go there!

Create a rock to big for God to pick up .... this they call intelligent reasoning? Hahahahahahaha
Posted by Masterful 7 months ago
Masterful
Pro gives us two examples of where omnipotence creates a paradox and therefore can't be possible.
Such as God not being able to create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.

Con completely ignores and refuses to refute the two paradox examples that pro makes.
Con then suggests that God has never been proven to not exist by science.

Con uses peoples accounts as proof that the soul exists, claiming that 'millions' of people can't be mistaken. This is of course absurd and does not prove the soul exists, nor would that prove the existence of God.
Con is using peoples claims to prove the existence of a soul and in turn a God. Weak argument.

Ultimately Con fails to address the paradox arguements

Con gets angry and calls his opponent stupid. Ironic. He loses a point on conduct.
Posted by QueenDaisy 7 months ago
QueenDaisy
Winboat: Craig is demonstrably ignorant about physics, and his misunderstanding of this is his arguments" downfall- it appears to an intuitive belief that is false under proper scientific scrutiny.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 8 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
YakovF;
Wrong again? You people never cease to surprise me. You think its about what you believe. It isn"t. God doesn"t care WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

Ok I "ll go slow. Scripture is ALL that counts cause it"s Gods Word so pay attention child!
Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child--both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

Leviticus 10:1 1Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD."
2 Kings 2:23
23Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" 24When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."

God HAS ALREADY consigned ALL who do not ACTUAL KNOW Him to HELL! Does the above scripture sound like God is going to tolerate your flippancy towatds His Sovereignty? Good luck with that. There IS A REASON ..... FEAR of the Lord is THE BEGINNING of knowledge child. Find out the hard way if you wish.

As we all know the demons are not SAVED yet BELIEVE IN GOD!
Posted by WinBoat 8 months ago
WinBoat
@QueenDaisy

no offense, how can you say that Craigs argument can easily be refuted when some of the best scholars, and philosophers in the world got destroyed by his arguments? Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins who is literally afraid of debating Craig. Lawrence crauss, the list goes on.

Only time I seen Craig lose a debate was on the subject of objective morality vs sam harris which i dont agree with craigs view on it.

I think it's obvious you haven't watched Craigs video vs christopher hitchens:p
Posted by YakovF 8 months ago
YakovF
I can't vote because I just joined, so I'll just comment for the mean time:

Ok, I believe in God, but Con lost by a landslide. Con is at the end just trying to convert people, and one of those people who say "Don't believe my religion? You're going to hell!"
He started off strong, but completely bombed in round 3. If I was con, I would just say:
"Hey, if god has infinite power, he could go against math and logic. Ever think about that? We don't know if he exists or not. Can't be prove or dis-proven, like last-thurdaism"
But, although I still believe in God,
The Winner Is: Pro
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Masterful 7 months ago
Masterful
QueenDaisyFollowerofChrist1955Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 7 months ago
zmikecuber
QueenDaisyFollowerofChrist1955Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument remained unrefuted, and as such the arguments go to Pro. Con presented alot of bare assertions, but didn't provide any sources. Also the repetitive "FACT!" was very annoying and isn't really appropriate in a debate setting. Pro actually provided sources for his claims to a certain degree, so sources go to Pro. Overall, I think Pro's argument is not sound, but he defended it well, and it went unrefuted by Con who just made alot of bare assertions that were largely irrelevant to the debate, since Pro had the BoP and Con was supposed to refute Pro's argument... which he didn't.