The Instigator
KhalifV
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Losing
34 Points

The Christian God Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 18 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,243 times Debate No: 60425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (18)

 

KhalifV

Pro

I've been seeing Superbowl9 debate this Ad Nauseum, and so now I want to lol.

To make things fair and fun, I shall take the BoP, to prove the Christian god does not exist.

Structure:
1:Acceptance

2:Constructive Case
3:Rebuttals/ New Points
4: Rebuttals/ Closing

Definition:
Christian God: A being, which transcends space and time, is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.(You may add more, but I would not advise it.)


Good luck to Con ^.^
Debate Round No. 1
KhalifV

Pro

Thanks to Truth_Seeker for accepting:).



Arguments From Divine Incoherence:
These arguments shall demonstrate that the Christian god doesn't exist, because the existence of such a god would result in utter incoherence.


Problem Of Omnipotence:
God is defined as omnipotent. Omnipotent: " (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything."

P1)If God exists, then God is omnipotent
P2) It should be the case that there is nothing that god can't do
P3) There is something that god can't do
C1) God does not exists

P1 is true by definition.
P2 is a derivation of P1
P3) Is a contentious point, that if true shall negate P2
C1 necessarily follows from the premises.

Defense of P3 via syllogism:


P1) An omnippotent being can create an object it can't lift.
P2) If an omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift, it can't lift the object, thus it isn't omnipotent
P3) If it can't create an object it can't lift, then it is not omnipotent.
C4) Omnipotence is impossible.

The common objection is that this is a logical impossibility and god is bound by the logical absolutes. However to say god is bound, is to concede omnipotence. However it get's even worse than that. God can't even do all that is logically possible.

P1) An omnipotent god can be evil
P2) An Omnibenevolent god can't be evil
C1) A god that is defined as omnipotent and omnibenevolent can't exist.

It is not a logical impossibility to be evil. Humans are evil all the time, so it's logical possible, however god can't be. So the Theist usually says god can do that which is of god's nature. So this basically means god can do what god can do, which can be said for anyone.


The Problem Of Evil(Epicurean Paradox):
P1)God exists.
P2)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
P3)An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.
P4)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
P5)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
P6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
P7)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
P8)Evil exists (logical contradiction).
C1)Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.


The problem of evil is a very old argument and theologians have had thousands of years to address it. So what do they say? The response is usually free will. But if there's a god, there is no free will for anybody.

Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.

So if there is a god, there is no rational way to combat the problem of evil.

Problem Of Omniscience And Free-Will:
P1) If god exists, he has free will and is omniscient.
P2) God knows the future
P3) God knows what actions he will perform
P4) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)
P5) God's actions are predetermined
P6) God has no free will.
C1) God does not exists.
(True by virtue of omniscience)

So as defined god's existence Is Incoherent.

Implausability Of An External Observer:

P1) God is omniscient
P2) God would observe all quantum superpositions
P3) Observation collapses quantum superpositions
P4) God would collapse all quantum positions superpositions
P5) All quantum superpositions are not collapsed
C1) God does not exist

" Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics)."

Conclusion: God's traits are self-contradictory and render the existence of such a being incoherent and impossible. Before Con assert's god as the reason for anything, he must demonstrate that such a being can even logically exists. My premises are self-explanatory, but if I must explain more, I will state the laws that validate my arguments (Law of non-contradiction.Law of excluded middle). In my next round I will refute Con's arguments.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://www.theopedia.com......'s_known_attributes




Truth_seeker

Con

Thanks KhalifV for this debate. Because you specified the Christian God, I will use the Bible to support and defend my position with evidence.

Logical incoherence :

you have created an argument which is essentially logically impossible.

1. if he can do anything, but has the ability to do something he can't do, he cannot do anything
2 . if he can do anything, but he can't do something he can't do,there something he can't do

this argument makes no sense.

1. God is omnipotent
2. God cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2 :
3. God is still omnipotent

You mentioned the Christian God, I argue that logic is bound to his rules, so God can do what he wants.

"P1) An omnipotent god can be evil
P2) An Omnibenevolent god can't be evil
C1) A god that is defined as omnipotent and omnibenevolent can't exist.

It is not a logical impossibility to be evil. Humans are evil all the time, so it's logical possible, however god can't be. So the Theist usually says god can do that which is of god's nature. So this basically means god can do what god can do, which can be said for anyone.

The Problem Of Evil(Epicurean Paradox):
P1)God exists.
P2)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
P3)An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.
P4)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
P5)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
P6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
P7)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
P8)Evil exists (logical contradiction).
C1)Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist."

There are several problems.

1. Definitions - What is good? what is evil? Who defines good and evil? Lets go with the biblical definitions:

Good - characterized by the Torah and ultimately through the love of Jesus

Evil - that which opposes them

That being said, whatever God considers "good" and "evil" is subject to his interpretation, not yours. If God sees it best for you to suffer in order to discover the fullest power of good in a world of evil then that is "good."

2. Your not taking into consideration all the logical possibilities for him not working the way you do. While his omnibenevolence wants to "stop" evil, his omniscience knows that it is unwise to do so at the moment. God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omniebenvevolence must all be harmonized.

3. Your attempting to introduce your own will onto another being's will. Your arguing that because God is omnibelevolent, he would automatically prevent evil. Benevolence does that, but omnibelevolence does what is best for you, even if it means causing pain.

"Problem Of Omniscience And Free-Will:
P1) If god exists, he has free will and is omniscient.
P2) God knows the future
P3) God knows what actions he will perform
P4) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)
P5) God's actions are predetermined
P6) God has no free will.
C1) God does not exists.
(True by virtue of omniscience)"

Once again, free will is ambiguous.

Free-will - voluntary action

God voluntarily chooses to act upon his own actions. God can't change his own future not because of external factors, but because he chooses not to (Num. 23:19). This proves he has free-will.

The last argument is easy for me.

1. Quantum mechanics is purely a human system for understanding the world. If God is all knowing, he doesn't need it.

2. If God created the universe, everything is subject to his rules.
Debate Round No. 2
KhalifV

Pro

Logical Incoherence:

Con actually affirms my point here. by saying " God cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2 : "


p1)An omnipotent god can perform all acts
p2)An omnipotent god can't deny himself(which is an act)
c1)True Omnipotence does not exist
c2)Beings defined as omnipotent don't exist.

Good/ Bad:

" That being said, whatever God considers "good" and "evil" is subject to his interpretation, not yours. If God sees it best for you to suffer in order to discover the fullest power of good in a world of evil then that is "good."

Wow, I've never seen anybody argue god is a utilitarian before.

In this case, god is actually a kind of celestial dictator.

P1) good is whatever god wants
P2) Bad is which opposes god.
P3)god can't do what he does not want
C) God is always good.

This proposal of Divine Command Theory renders all morality completely trivial. If there is a tri-omni god, morality is so trivially that it does not exist.
Also P3 renders god not omnipotent.

Objection : Free will(II)

P1) Free will is a prerequisite to being a moral agent

P2) If an omniscient god exists, humans have no free will.
C1) Humans are not moral agents
C2) Divine command theory is non-sense
P1: Imagine an evil scientists who creates a robot to torture and kill people.
The robot is programmed to do the acts and can't not do them. I would say the scientist is immoral, not the robot.

P2: Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.

If an omniscient god exists, then there are no moral agents, and thus morality means nothing. And if morality means nothing, then omnibenevolence is negated.


Free Will:

Many disagree on what free will is, which is fine, but there is agreement on what free is not.

If your actions can be predicted with 100% accuracy, then you don't have free will.

Con says: "God voluntarily chooses to act upon his own actions. God can't change his own future not because of external factors, but because he chooses not to (Num. 23:19). This proves he has free-will."

Nope, this does not help anything.


P1) If your actions can be predicted with 100% accuracy, then you don't have free will.
P2) An omnipotent god has free will
P3) An omniscient god can know his actions with 100% accuracy
C1) An omnipotent god can't be omniscient, because omniscience entails no free will, because then god could 100% predict his own actions(which means he also is not omnipotent, because then he can't predict his actions)
C2) The only way a tri-omni god can have free will is if he does not have omnipotence or omniscience, thus no longer being tri-omni

Omnibenevolence and freewill:

P1) God must always act for the greater good, since he is omnibenevolent.

P2) An omnipotent god can act in a way contrary to the greater good
C) Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are incompatabile

p1: con affirms this by saying " That being said, whatever God considers "good" and "evil" is subject to his interpretation, not yours. If God sees it best for you to suffer in order to discover the fullest power of good in a world of evil then that is "good."

p2: P2 is true because an omnipotent god can peform any act.


C) An omnipotent god can perform all acts, an omnibenevolent god can't perform acts that are contrary to the greater good, the two are contrary.

Conclusion: The tri-omni god is painfully incoherent

Truth_seeker

Con

Your arguments are now drifting to the position of free-will and fail to address God's existence. It has no relevance to the resolution and i will explain:

1) Humans don't have free-will
2) God controls all human actions and can still exist

Whether or not we have free-will is unimportant, it still doesn't disprove God's existence, but i will address these points anyways.

"Free Will:

Many disagree on what free will is, which is fine, but there is agreement on what free is not.
If your actions can be predicted with 100% accuracy, then you don't have free will."

Like i said, i will use my previous definition. You fail to establish of free-will, but explain what free-will is not.

"P2: Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will."

There is a difference between knowing your future actions and influencing the course of your actions. Hypothetically, lets say that I know your going to get hit by a car tomorrow but do i have to take action and warn you? No, do you have free-will to cross the street not being aware of an incoming car? Yes. Same way with God. God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2-3) knowing that they would sin, but allowing them to choose between good or evil.

"P1) good is whatever god wants
P2) Bad is which opposes god.
P3)god can't do what he does not want
C) God is always good.

This proposal of Divine Command Theory renders all morality completely trivial. If there is a tri-omni god, morality is so trivially that it does not exist."

the purpose of the Christian God is to show us as moral beings who can distinguish between right and wrong (Gen. 3:22) how to be more like God himself.

"P1) If your actions can be predicted with 100% accuracy, then you don't have free will.
P2) An omnipotent god has free will
P3) An omniscient god can know his actions with 100% accuracy
C1) An omnipotent god can't be omniscient, because omniscience entails no free will, because then god could 100% predict his own actions(which means he also is not omnipotent, because then he can't predict his actions)
C2) The only way a tri-omni god can have free will is if he does not have omnipotence or omniscience, thus no longer being tri-omni"

Your arguments seem very confusing. You speak of how we don't have free-will, but then switch back to God's own free-will. Your 1st conclusion is false because it does not follow that an omniscient God has no free-will and i will explain:

Omniscience co-exists with omnipotence. In my previous example, if i knew that you were going to get hit by a car tomorrow, that foreknowledge gives me the ability to either prevent that from happening or allowing it. Your argument then breaks down.

"P1) God must always act for the greater good, since he is omnibenevolent.
P2) An omnipotent god can act in a way contrary to the greater good
C) Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are incompatabile "

1) You strayed from the definitions i set and introduced a concept called "the greater good" 2) I never said that God can act in contrary to the greater good, i said that all good is subject to God's laws. Let me repeat what i said:

"whatever God considers "good" and "evil" is subject to his interpretation, not yours. If God sees it best for you to suffer in order to discover the fullest power of good in a world of evil then that is "good."

All of God's commandments and Jesus are expressions of God's definition of divine goodness, thus we can only know what he considers good or necessary based on these things.

Conclusion: God exists and is coherent in his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience
Debate Round No. 3
KhalifV

Pro

Con has accused me of red herrings, however this is not the case.
Free will is relevant because, the trim-omni god would have free will, by virtue of omnipotence, but the tri-omni god can't have free will by virtue of omniscience.

Human free will is important in the context of omnibenevolence, because omnibenevolence only makes sense in the context of morality, but if DCT is true, and we have no free-will, then morality makes no sense.

Now on to direct refutations:

Con has conceded two of my arguments.

Con says: "Omniscience co-exists with omnipotence. In my previous example, if i knew that you were going to get hit by a car tomorrow, that foreknowledge gives me the ability to either prevent that from happening or allowing it. Your argument then breaks down."

This is a vague and false analogy, if in this analogy, you don't have complete forknowledge, then you are not omiscient.
If god is omniscient then he has forknowledge that I will get hit by a car. If he knows I will get hit by the car, then I must get hit by the car. If he can save me from getting hit by the car, then it is not the case he 100% knew I would get hit by the car.

P:If god is one hundred percent omniscient, then he is sure I will get hit by the car tomorrow.
Q: I must get hit by the car tomorrow

If P Then Necessarily Q.

In order for him to save me from getting hit by the car, there most be a possibility for me to not get hit by the car.
However if he knows I'm going to be hit by a car, then there is no possibilty for me to not get hit by the car.

In response to my omnibenevolence, omnipotence paradox, con says
:" 1) You strayed from the definitions i set and introduced a concept called "the greater good" 2) I never said that God can act in contrary to the greater good, i said that all good is subject to God's laws. Let me repeat what i said: "

It is you who introduced the greater good.
con says:" That being said, whatever God considers "good" and "evil" is subject to his interpretation, not yours. If God sees it best for you to suffer in order to discover the fullest power of good in a world of evil then that is "good."

You explicitly state that god must act in order to achieve the "fullest good."

So let me restate my argument in your terms:

P1) An omnibenevolent god must act in a way that achieves the "fullest good"
P2) An omnipotent god can act in a way that does not achieve the "fullest good"
C) Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatabile

If he can act in a way that is contrary to the fullest good, then he is not omnibenevolent, if he can not, then he is not omnipotent.

Free will again:
You are right, I did not define what free will is, I more importantly defined what free will is not.

And as far as I can see you did not have a problem with that definition,so let me reformulate my free willl argument.

P1) If your future actions can be known with 100% accuracy, then you don't have free will.
P2) An omnipotent god can have free will.
P3) An omniscient god knows all his future actions with 100% accuracy.
C) An omnipotent and omniscient god is a contradiction

P1 is true by my definition of not free will.

P2 is true by definition of omnipotent (able to do any act).

P3 is true by definition of omniscience(complete knowledge of all things)

C: An omnipotent god has the abilty to have free will, which as far as we can see is not having your future actions known with 100% accuracy. So in order to have free will, then god can't have his future actions known with 100% accuracy.
However an omniscient god must, by definition, be able to know all future events with a 100% accuracy. By knowing all events with 100% accuracy, he by default knows his future events with 100% accuracy, there for he does not have free wil. There for in order to have free will, he must forfeit omniscience.

Con has not responded to my omnipotence paradox
p1)An omnipotent god can perform all acts
p2)An omnipotent god can't deny himself(which is an act)
c1)True Omnipotence does not exist
c2)Beings defined as omnipotent don't exist.

Conclusion:

This has been a fun and entertaining and challenging debate.
I have droped some of my contentions, but remember, if even one of my arguments is true, then the resolution is affirmed, and I have affrimed 3.

Truth_seeker

Con

"If god is omniscient then he has forknowledge that I will get hit by a car. If he knows I will get hit by the car, then I must get hit by the car. If he can save me from getting hit by the car, then it is not the case he 100% knew I would get hit by the car."

"In order for him to save me from getting hit by the car, there most be a possibility for me to not get hit by the car.
However if he knows I'm going to be hit by a car, then there is no possibility for me to not get hit by the car."

Reason for me bringing that up is to illustrate the mechanism behind it, but ok lets go with that analogy. It's not a matter of if he can save you, we know he can, but the point is whether or not he chooses to. By default, if you are meant to get hit by a car, God will automatically allow you to get hit without intervening directly. Once God "decides" you will get hit, there is no possible way for you to escape.

"P1) An omnibenevolent god must act in a way that achieves the "fullest good"
P2) An omnipotent god can act in a way that does not achieve the "fullest good"
C) Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatabile

If he can act in a way that is contrary to the fullest good, then he is not omnibenevolent, if he can not, then he is not omnipotent."

As i stated earlier, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence co-exist. You can only do and think what is "benevolent", but not omnibenevolent. In Job 1, God allows evil to occur to Job, but points out his morally upright character. At the end, Job maintains his integrity in the face of calamity (Job 42). Eventually in verse 12, God gives him more blessings than before. A benevolent being would probably prevent you from experiencing evil for good, but an omnibenevolent would help you overcome evil for the "fullest good."

"P1) If your future actions can be known with 100% accuracy, then you don't have free will.
P2) An omnipotent god can have free will.
P3) An omniscient god knows all his future actions with 100% accuracy.
C) An omnipotent and omniscient god is a contradiction"

Like i said earlier, if God refuses to intervene in saving you from a car crash, knowing that you will, you still have free-will because you choose to walk across the street. I can give examples of where God is omniscient, but also omnipotent.

Gen. 2:15-17

"15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, """Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

God gave man the free-will to either obey or disobey his commandment. The choice was left to man. He created the woman and the serpent tempted her. Notice that God is not present (not intervening with man's moral choice), but shows up until v. 8-9

"8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you?"

v. 11 demonstrates his omniscience

"11 And He said,Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?"

Now to an extent, it may seem as if you have no free-will, however God can easily change the circumstances so that you have the ability to choose your path.

John 3:16-21

18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

As you can see, God does give you the power to make a sound decision, thus you have free-will.

"p1)An omnipotent god can perform all acts
p2)An omnipotent god can't deny himself(which is an act)
c1)True Omnipotence does not exist
c2)Beings defined as omnipotent don't exist. "

I've pointed out how this paradox doesn't work. In round 1, i stated:

"you have created an argument which is essentially logically impossible.

1. if he can do anything, but has the ability to do something he can't do, he cannot do anything
2 . if he can do anything, but he can't do something he can't do,there something he can't do"

When concerning the Christian God, i think you misunderstand the concept of his omnipotence. 2 Tim. 2:13 "If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny who he is." Matt. 19:23-26

"23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"

26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

As we can see, God can only do all things in the sense of acting upon the universe, but not acting in contrary to himself.

In conclusion: my opponent failed to fulfill his burden of proof that the Christian God does not exist. He did not explain how using some of these arguments disproves his existence.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Lol why do you guys complicate things by using big words?

If God can't do evil, he can't do everything. So he is not God.
If God can do evil, he is not God.

Conclusion: God doesn't exist/ Cant do everything or can do evil.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
This is a pretty silly debate because of two reasons.
1. You can't prove something does not exist.
2. Con didn't even attempt to prove God exist or aknowledge #1.

While Pro's arguments pretty much stem from a time point of paradox(ala Doctor Who), most of con's responses were special pleading. "god can do this because he's god, regardless of the paradox".

Con's arguments also used the bible(without linked sources), but didn't affirm the bible was true. So you have this ridiculous argument that X is true because Y book says it is coming from Con.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
These are some of the very worst RFD's I have ever seen!
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Nice Rfd Cheechula -.-
Posted by Swedishperspective 2 years ago
Swedishperspective
Pro thoroughly explained why the three characterized traits of God along with free will are mutually exclusive. Con tried to evade the topic by essentially arguing for predestination and from christian theology (which is innately incoherent) and did not actually respond to the contradictory terms hat Pro defined.
The fact that the Christian God is defined by all of these terms renders the existence of him impossible. The definitions simply cancel each other out, and one cannot choose to exclude certain prerequisites that follows from the terms defined. If you have free will, then it follows that you have the ability to choose your path and your actions. Con tried to exclude prerequisites like this that MUST follow from the given terms. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive terms, and they cannot be reconciled unless Con alters the definition of these terms to make them fit. If he were to do that, then he has ultimately conceded that he is wrong, which he stubbornly wont admit.

Christian theology cannot account for these glaringly obvious contradictions. The only way to keep sane people from leaving Christianity is to threaten them with eternal hell. If that threat wasn't part of the Christian doctrine, then more people would see Christianity for what it actually is: a big fat, illogical lie.

I can't myself vote, but I urge all to vote in favor of Pro since he successfully fulfilled his burden of proof.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Shadow said it all, i did not use Bible verses to make any sort of biased claim, but used it to logically deduce how the Christian God works as the title says it all.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
What law says "reliable source" is limited to only external documents? Is not common sense a reliable source? How about logical deduction?

Reliable: "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted."
Source: "a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained."

Logic is obtainable. I trust the "use" of logic. So umm, my use of logic is a reliable source. If someone argues the Earth revolves around Mars & someone argues it orbits the Sun. The latter person better be expecting me to rely on my use of common sense (source) to know the truth. TruthSeeker used more than biblical quotes to prove his point. He used logical deduction.

Again: "Since there are so many atheists on this site, anyone defending the existence of "God" is bound to lose becuz an anti-God premise is ALWAYS worded to appeal to the sentiment of the atheistic mindset."
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Can't vote on this debate. It is neither a argument for or against the existence of God. Neither pro nor con understand God. In my opinion.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
really bluesteel, stop bouncing on my D and go jump on someone else's aha, do you long for affection that much? dang
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Thank you bluesteel. That's exactly what I was saying!
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 2 years ago
Greyparrot
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: An Omnipotent being has its own logic rules. Con seemed to support this in his arguments.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a confusing debate. Pro's arguments made very little sense, while Con's did make sense.
Vote Placed by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Several issues with this debate. First, the Christian God is not "Tri-Omni". The Bible states he cannot lie, disproving his omnipotence. Meaning this whole debate is somewhat pointless since the definitions were wrong. However, Con agreed to them... Omnipotence as defined as having "unlimited power". If UNLIMITED, why is it limited to not do the logically impossible. This argument falls apart for Pro. Con successfully stated Good/Bad is interpreted by God and we cannot know what this means, so his omnibenevolence stands. The free will is the only somewhat substantial argument by Pro. God's free will is unknown. Again, if omnipotent he can do anything, including the logically impossible. The issue is in OUR free will. If God perfectly know's all we are going to do is it free will? However Pro went back and forth on Our free will vs. God's free will. This is difficult to follow and the argument was still weak.
Vote Placed by jyotipatel 2 years ago
jyotipatel
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Actually pro and con both made sensible arguments. Finally..Con is somewhat better i think.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 does a good job explaining the contradiction of omnipotence and omniscience. Con's refutation would work, but he doesn't do a good enough job explaining the distinction between maximal omnipotence (God can do anything) versus logical omnipotence (God can do anything but the logically impossible). Con's response to the lack of free will was also completely in adequate. It's not that God chooses not to intervene, it's that if he has foreknowledge, then for him to truly be omniscient, the actions that you will take and that he has foreseen *must* come about. So the idea that we *choose* our actions is a fiction because God has already seen what we will do, so we must do that thing. And if we have no free will, morality is unintelligible as Pro points out. Con's Adam & Even example falls flat. God already knew what Adam would do when he placed him in the Garden of Eden, so Adam didn't really have a choice. He had to do what God had foreseen. For the rest, see comments section.
Vote Placed by philosurfer 2 years ago
philosurfer
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I currently have a similar debate in which folks are raging about the issue of the burden of proof. As Pro has instigated the debate and made the motion on the affirmative, "...does not exist," many would say that all Con needs to do is made a logically grounded case for the possibility for the existence of a (Christian) God to then technically win the debate; as Pro has the BoP. Further, no empirical evidence can be rendered - so the debate gets bogged down with premise/conclusion propositional forms.. Pro did use sources but they were Wiki types.. Con could of won this had there been sources used.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: [see RFD in comments] Con basically summed it up: "A supreme righteous 'omnipotent' Being can ONLY execute an act or create something that aligns with his/her righteous prerogative; thus he/she WILL ONLY execute an act or create something that isn't violation of his/her nature." How can an eternal God kill himself? Since he can't commit suicide does this mean he doesn't exist? To say 'yes' obviously proves you invalidated the "eternal" part of his nature to conclude your own faulty guesswork. Neither Pro nor Con "proved" God doesn't exist or does. They merely demonstrated possibilities. However, Pro worked from an illogical analysis whether as Con demonstrated proper logical deduction.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was confusing all through out but it seems Pro wasn't on the ball with definitions and didn't have good rebuttals for Con while failing to fulfill BoP. Con argued well and hard as a theist, and over all I say he won the debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
KhalifVTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems to me that the way Pro wins this debate is by proving that one of the omnis is impossible alongside one or both of the other two. I think both sides have a number of flawed/minimally explained arguments in this regard, and much of Pro's argumentation stretches himself too thin, trying to cover too much ground in order to prove what is actually a pretty simple point. Still, I end up voting in his direction. I don't find the free will argument to be explained well enough to warrant a win there, since there is a faulty link between knowing the future and not having free will. The same is true of the problem of evil, which seems to lack some of the necessary explanation for why, if God could be evil, that necessarily means he's not omnibenevolent. I actually was hoping the external observer thing would be continued, but it wasn't. My vote, therefore, is based on the omnipotence contradiction. Much as it's weakly explained, Con's response just seems to misrepresent it.