The Instigator
RhettBaron
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
evanallred123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Abrahamic God can not be proven to exist

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: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 359 times Debate No: 72203
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

RhettBaron

Pro

The Abrahamic God such as the one referenced in the holy books of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam can not be proven existent or nonexistent.
evanallred123

Con

My opponent says that the Abrahamic God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. However, a very easy way to find out if He exists is this: die. If you die and go to heaven (or otherwise), then you'll know that He exists. If you die and nothing happens, then He doesn't exist. Simple.
Debate Round No. 1
RhettBaron

Pro

Maybe I was not clear in posting my argument. By proof i meant a worldly accepted fact. Meaning living people know that he does or doesn't exist.
evanallred123

Con

I thank my opponent for being prompt in his response.

My opponent attacked my way of proving whether or not God exists by saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact. Just to clarify for my voters, I am alive. And I have proposed a completely possible way to find out if God does or does not exist. Because of this, my opponent's defense of my preposition falls, and my preposition flows through.

Since I have defended my side of the argument, I would like to point out that Pro has not given any indication as to how God cannot be proven to exist. As any experienced debaters will know, the burder of proof falls on the Pro unless specified otherwise. What this means is that it is not the Con's job to come up with proof. It is the Pro's job. Because Pro has not fulfilled his duty as Pro to empirically show that God cannot be proven to exist, there can be no other ballot than that of the Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
RhettBaron

Pro

My opponents stated " If you die and go to heaven (or otherwise), then you'll know that He exists. If you die and nothing happens, then He doesn't exist. Simple."
My main problem with this is the part where my opponent says "if you die and nothing happens he doesn't exist."
So my next question to pro is: "How can a dead man know anything?" does the brain not stop functioning at the time of death? If there are no active sensory receptors at death then how could a dead man know anything.

I believe what my opponent is arguing is the existence of a soul. which is not what this debate is about.

My opponent also stated "My opponent attacked my way of proving whether or not God exists by saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact. Just to clarify for my voters, I am alive. And I have proposed a completely possible way to find out if God does or does not exist."

One problem I have with this argument is where con states "saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact." I must correct con on his argument by reminding him that I said that it must be a world accepted fact. Not just that of one person.

My opponent also claimed that since i did not fulfill my duty as a Pro that my argument was incorrect. This is obviously an ad hominem logical fallacy which should not be apparent in a debate. This fact should have no affect however on Cons argument.

One more thing.The inability to, "prove", in any sense of the word, that the Abrahamic God exists or doesn't exist is an impossible request because there is no quantifiable test that proves the existence or nonexistence of said God so no way to prove the negative or the non-existence. It is up to con to provide proof of this claim.
evanallred123

Con

Pro said that I am arguing the existence of a soul. I would like to point out that if God does exist, then everyone has a soul, according to the Bible, which is where the Abrahamic God comes from. So, in a roundabout way, I am arguing that souls can be proven to exist by showing that God can be proven to exist, which I have; die, and you'll know.

He also said that "proof" is to be considered a "worldly accepted fact". I think that everyone can agree that if you die, you'll find out if God is real.

Another thing: my opponent does not know what "ad hominem" is. For my voters, ad hominem is a logical fallacy when you attack the person instead of the argument. An example of ad hominem would be, "My opponent is dumb, and therefore his argument is invalid." I have not once insulted my opponent. My attack that he said was ad hominem is not, in fact, ad hominem. I was stating that, as Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof. He must show that God cannot be proven to exist. Since all he has done this whole round is attempt to refute my arguments, and has not posted a case of his own, he has no ground to stand on. I however, have provided a viable way to prove that God does or does not exist.

Because it is completely possible to prove that God exists (by dying), and because my opponent has not refuted this, I see no other ballot than that of the Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
RhettBaron

Pro

I'm only typing this to fill up the round.
evanallred123

Con

Since my opponent has not refuted any of my arguments successfully and has not defended the attacks I made in the previous round, they all flow through and therefore my opponent's case (or lack of one) falls, and there can be no other ballot than that of Con. I extend my previous arguments.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
RhettBaron

Pro

I believe that you are arguing for the existence of God. The subject was "The abrahamic god cannot be proven to exist or not exist. My opponent stated that if you died and something happens that it automatically proves the existence of the abrahamic deity. But i must ask what if you die and you see vishnu? Or zeus? or maybe even a 12 sided dildo god named xanthar? I very much believe that this is the worst argument I've ever had to argue, but i guess thats what i get when a highschool sophmore accepts a debate.
evanallred123

Con

My opponent said that I am arguing for the existence of God. To put it simply, no, I am not. The resolution says that God can't be proven to exist, and I have shown that he can be proven to exist or not exist. And yes, if you die and something happens, then that confirms the existence or nonexistence of God. If, like in the example my opponent brought up, you die and see Vishnu, then you will know that God doesn't exist, therefore upholding the resolution.

Also, I find it depressing that Pro must resort to vulgarity to defend his pathetic points? A dildo god? Really?

I also find it interesting that, even though I am a freshman in high school, I have provided far more convincing arguments, was far more mature, far better manners, and had far better spelling, punctuation, capitalization and grammar than my opponent, a 22-year-old.

Because my opponent made a negligible defense of my attacks that I have easily refuted, I see no other ballot than that of the Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RhettBaron 2 years ago
RhettBaron
It is fine evan, Xanthar(Gory be upon him) is very forgiving. as it states in Dungeons 2: Thrust 15
"For we shall not hold vengance against those who tresspass us. as Xanthar has filled us with his love, so we shall fill others with ours."

And because of this principle i shall forgive you. May the blessings of the Twelve-sided one be upon you.
Posted by evanallred123 2 years ago
evanallred123
If you are serious about Xanthar, then my apologies. I just have never heard of a dildo God named Xanthar. I am sorry for my ignorance.
Posted by RhettBaron 2 years ago
RhettBaron
I don't think we are here to insult my religion. Xanthar (glory be upon him)and all his holiness has provided me with endless wisdom. I particularly felt very offended when you so rudely dismissed my God. I believe an apology is in order.
Posted by evanallred123 2 years ago
evanallred123
I am not advocating for the death of Pro. I am saying that, contrary to Pro's argument, it is fairly simple to prove (or disprove) the existence of God. I am not saying that you SHOULD kill yourself if you want to know, in fact quite the opposite. However, we are arguing whether or not you can prove that God exists, and you can. By dying. I had no intention of insulting Pro or insinuating that he should kill himself.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Con is a human hater, he is advocating for the death of pro. PSYCHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Posted by Praemon 2 years ago
Praemon
Would you be arguing both positions? Meaning that you will be defending that the Abrahamic God can't be proven or disproven, while your opponent will be arguing that he can be either proven or disproven? Maybe for simplicity you should decide to either defend proof or nonproof, instead of both.
No votes have been placed for this debate.