The Instigator
RhettBaron
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tcutshaw2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Abrahamic God can not be proven nonexistent

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 72197
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

RhettBaron

Pro

Thre is no way to prove that the Abrahamic God such as the one referenced in Christian, Judaic, and Islamic religions does not exist.
tcutshaw2

Con

The Abrahamic God can also not be proven to exist, based on your logic. You are using the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy to argue that something must be true since it cannot be proven untrue, right?
Debate Round No. 1
RhettBaron

Pro

To those that think my claim is one that supports the existence of the Abrahamic God, I assure you that it does not. My claim is as it is. i am looking for an argument that can prove he does or does not exist. I have made no logical fallacy.
tcutshaw2

Con

Fine then. I was mistaken. There is proof that the Abrahamic God does not exist, and that is because there has been no significant divine intervention. The Abrahamic God wanted people to keep believing in him. He made tremendous events happen, such as the plagues or the great flood. However, nothing on that scale has happened recently. Condsidering how involved he was then, it is curious that he would stop now.
Debate Round No. 2
RhettBaron

Pro

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
tcutshaw2

Con

Very well then. That's a fair argument.

But something that bothers me still is Psalm 18:30, which states: "As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." The Bible states that God's word and way is without a flaw. Let me then direct you to two other verses. The first is Exodus 20:13, which states "Thou shalt not kill". This is one of the ten commandments of Christianity, so it is very important. The next is Exodus 12:29, which states "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." In this scripture, God is shown killing every firstborn, even ones that had nothing to do with the whole ordeal. What blatant hypocrisy. God tells people not to kill, yet he kills, and many of the people he kills here are innocents. This isn't even a special case. There are countless other examples of God killing. This contradiction of hypocrisy brings up another contradiction, this time with the first verse I mentioned. Since the Abrahamic God is a hypocrite, his way cannot be perfect, and his word cannot be flawless. The Bible is meant to be the word of God. So if it is the word of God, he is lying about himself being perfect. If the Bible isn't the word of God, the writers are lying about God, either by making him up, giving him false qualities, or maybe a bit of both.

Either way, the Abrahamic God as the Bible portrays him could not exist. This is not to say that there is no God, and this is not to say that the Bible entirely made up a God. There is no way to prove that an invisible man in the sky exists or does not exist, since there is no evidence for or against him. I am only stating that the Abrahamic God, as the Bible depicts him, could not exist because of these contradictions.
Debate Round No. 3
RhettBaron

Pro

So you are agreeing with my argument?
tcutshaw2

Con

No. I am saying that the Abrahamic God, as portrayed, is false due to my argument. I would like to emphasize the words "as portrayed." According to your original argument you specifically said those words. There is a way to prove the existence of the portrayal false, as I have stated in my above argument. I was only agreeing with the fact that a god cannot be proven, just like the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn in your backyard cannot be proven. There is no evidence for or against it, so it cannot be proven or disproven. Portrayals however, are a different story. They can be disproven if there are flaws in the portrayal.
Debate Round No. 4
RhettBaron

Pro

So what you're saying is because the book that humans wrote about a "God" contradicts itself in some places, that the argument is flawed and thus incorrect. I believe this is the fallacy fallacy.

As this is my final round i would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and reveal my stance on existence or nonexistence. I am Agnostic.
tcutshaw2

Con

I do not believe that this is the fallacy fallacy, as portrayals can be misleading and wrong if they have contradictions in them.

As this is also my final round, I would like to thank my opponent for providing a fair argument. Although it may not look like it in my arguments, I am also agnostic.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by tcutshaw2 1 year ago
tcutshaw2
Not god, but the portrayal of one.
Posted by lc225 1 year ago
lc225
this whole argument is invalid because it is a double negative. your saying that there is NO way to prove that God does NOT exist.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)
http://skepdic.com...
Posted by Tminusfour20 1 year ago
Tminusfour20
You cannot disprove a negative. You can disprove god with the same methods used to disprove vampires.
No votes have been placed for this debate.