The Instigator
johnlubba
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The Christian God can not be proven

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 9 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,967 times Debate No: 34811
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (122)
Votes (9)

 

johnlubba

Pro

I am unable to prove the Christian God and very much doubt my opponent can either.

Go
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"I am unable to prove the Christian God and very much doubt my opponent can either.

Go"

Even if neither Pro or I can prove that the Christian God exists, this does not mean that his existence cannot be proven. If The Christian God exists, he is omnipotent:

“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

"For nothing will be impossible with God.” - Luke 1:37


"Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure." - Psalm 147:5

Since, if The Christian Go exists, he is omnipotent, then it follows necessarily from omnipotence that he could prove himself if he wanted to. Thus, if God exists, it would be necessarily true that The Christian God's existence can be proven. What does this mean? This means that the resolution, without additional support, begs the question against Christian Theism. Only if God does not exist, would it be true that The Christian God cannot be proven. This is because, once more, if The Christian God exists the he can be proven (he can prove himself); thus negating the resolution.


Since the resolution presupposes that the Christian God does not exist, Pro must show that the Christian God does not exist, because the burden of proof is on Pro (it is not shared, as he started the debate).

As it stands, the resolution has been negated.

Vote Con.



Debate Round No. 1
johnlubba

Pro

I am not saying the Christian God does not exist, he may or may not exist, I do not know...

I am saying, I am unable to prove the Christian God.

Seeing as rational thinker took the debate, he also must meet some burden of proof, and mainly that is to prove the Christian God.

I am unable to prove the Christian God and Con using the Bible as a proof for the existence of the Christian God is a futile argument, as I could easily say that Allah also exists by using an alternative religious scripture, as follows.

"Verily! I am All"h! L" il"ha illa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me, and perform As"Sal"t (Iq"mat-as-Sal"t) for My Remembrance. "Verily, the Hour is coming and My Will is to keep it hidden that every person may be rewarded for that which he strives. (Surah Ta-ha : 14,15)

Does that mean that Allah is proven....No, not on your Nellie sonny Jim.
And the same applies to the Christian God.

I am unable to prove the Christian God.

Go.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"I am not saying the Christian God does not exist, he may or may not exist, I do not know...

I am saying, I am unable to prove the Christian God."

Pro may not be trying to say that the Christian God does not exist, but this is what Pro has to say to win this debate. Pro has to disprove God to win this debate, because the resolution pre-supposes that God does not exist, as I showed in the first round.

"Seeing as rational thinker took the debate, he also must meet some burden of proof, and mainly that is to prove the Christian God."

False. My only burden to undermine Pro's arguments in favor of the resolution and/ or show that Pro has not the burden of proof. Pro is committing the switching the burden of proof logical fallacy.

"I am unable to prove the Christian God and Con using the Bible as a proof for the existence of the Christian God is a futile argument, as I could easily say that Allah also exists by using an alternative religious scripture, as follows."

This is a straw-man. I was not using The Bible to prove that The Christian God exists. I was using The Bible to show that if The Christian God exists, he is omnipotent.

Re-cap of debate so far

Pro has the burden of proof to establish the resolution is true. However, the resolution pre-supposes that the Christian God does not exist, because if the Christian God did exists, he is omnipotent, and thus could prove himself (and therefore can be proven). Thus, until Pro shows that the Christian God does not exist. His burden of proof has not been met.

Debate Round No. 2
johnlubba

Pro

Con is using sematics by assuming I mean to portray that I can not prove the Christian God exists.

Pro is confusing the resolution. The Christian God can not be proven.

I have no way of proving the God of Christianity and believe nobody does, Con took the debate so he must show that the Christian God can be proven....I have met my burden of proof and maintain that I can not prove the Christian God...

I will now take this a step further and proclaim that nobody has proof for the Christian God, that why they call belief in God, faith. If we had proof that of the Christian God we wouldn't need to have faith that he exists we would know for certain, but nobody has that much proof for the Christian God, otherwise we would not have sincere atheists who demand proof but after scrutiny they do not consider it enough to say without any doubt that the Christian God has been proven and make it a shut case......

Even for the theists, they also can not prove the Christian God, they have to rely on their faith to come to the conclusion that the Christian God is proven....

Any sincere truth seeker knows that God can be neither be proven or disproven, I am taking the side of having not being able to prove the Christian God, Con on the other hand has taking the opposite side and must prove that the Christian God can be proven, something he has avoided all through the debate....And something he is unable to do.

Conclusion

The Christian God has not been proven in this debate, and neither can it be, otherwise Christians wouldn't need to have faith in the Christian God, they would actually have proof.....And the case would be shut in that the Christian God can be proven and everybody would have to accept Christianity on the evidence of proof, making all other religious claims about their particular God being the supreme being nullified....But we all know this isn't the case......

The Christian God can not be proven.....

Vote pro.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Con is using sematics by assuming I mean to portray that I can not prove the Christian God exists.

Pro is confusing the resolution. The Christian God can not be proven."

Pro claims that I am confusing the resolution. However, I think it should be clear that the only one delving into confusion here is Pro. Yes, the resoluon is The Christian God cannot be proven. In order for Pro to demonstrate this resolution, Pro must show that The Christian God does not exist. Why? Because the resolution assumes it. As I have shown, The Christian God as defined by The Bible clearly has the power to prove himself if he exists. Thus, if God exists, he can prove himself (meaning God's existence can indeed be proven; negating the resolution). Since the only way for the resolution not to be affirmed is for Pro to prove God does not exist, and this has not been accomplished, it is clear Pro has failed in his task.

"I have no way of proving the God of Christianity and believe nobody does"

Even if no human can prove God can exist, this does not mean that God's existence cannot be proven. God can prove himself!


"Con took the debate so he must show that the Christian God can be proven...."

False. This is the switching the burden of proof logical fallacy. My only burden is to undermine the resolution, or my opponent's arguments in favor of the resolution. My opponent is asking me to prove the resolution false, when Pro never mentioned that burden of proof was shared in his opening statement. Therefore, I urge a conduct vote against Pro for this.


"I have met my burden of proof and maintain that I can not prove the Christian God..."

The above actually means Pro has not met his burden of proof (not vice versa). Pro has to prove that the Christian God does not exist to win this debate. This is because he has the burden of proof to demonstrate the resolution, and the resolution rests upon the unjustified assumption that the Christian God does not exist. If the Christian God exists then the resolution is false by necessity because omnipotence necessarily entails that God can prove himself, and can be proven. Thus, Pro had to show that the Christian God did not exist to win this debate. It seems as if he missed the mark.

"I will now take this a step further and proclaim that nobody has proof for the Christian God, that why they call belief in God, faith. If we had proof that of the Christian God we wouldn't need to have faith that he exists we would know for certain, but nobody has that much proof for the Christian God, otherwise we would not have sincere atheists who demand proof but after scrutiny they do not consider it enough to say without any doubt that the Christian God has been proven and make it a shut case......"

I am completely convinced after reading this, that Pro is just completely ignoring my argument. It is rather frustrating. Even if no person on Earth can prove God exists, it would not follow from that that the Christian God cannot be proven. God could prove himself, thus the Christian God can be proven if he exists. It actually follows necessarily from omnipotence. The great thing is, I do not have to prove God exists to negate the resolution because the burden of proof is not on me. Pro must prove God does not exist to affirm the resolution, because the burden of proof is on him.

The rest of Pro's case is just more of the same drivel.

Conclusion

Pro has the burden of proof to show that the Christian God cannot be proven. This resolution rests on the non-existence of the Christian God (if the Christian God exists it would follow necessarily that he could prove himself due to omnipotence, and thus the Christian God could be proven). Pro did not show that God does not exist. Therefore, the burden of proof has not been met.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
122 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Apology accepted, I also apologize for my failure to grasp the subject.

Well played.

I look forward to more interactions in the future and hopefully I will win next time.

Keep up your philosophical skills, it's not often I concede, I think you being agnostic made all the difference, I usually debate with atheists or theists and this debate rested on an agnostic theme in that I can't know if God does or does not exist unless i could prove he does or doesn't. Well done, I'm actually grateful for the lesson and grateful you stuck with me.

Peace out man, until the next time.

Eyes is outta ear.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
John, I apologize for insulting you. It is just frustrating when someone does not grasp simple logic and reasoning. I spent pages trying to explain why you were wrong, and you did not budge. I resorted to insults because the logic was not getting through to you and it was aggrivating. I am sorry.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Thanks Ragnor, Although if not for the comments section I doubt I would have learnt to accept that, as the instigator I had the burden to prove the resolution true, I am not an experienced debater on this site or any site and simply didn't fully understand the rules until those who I know that are ardent members actually confirmed this for me.....So in a sense for me this was a useful experience...Although I do understand your point about flaring up in the comments section looking bad, I will try better to avoid such drama next time...Thanks again.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Just making sure you both know... We vote on the argument itself, not what's in the comment section.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Yeah I waited to the end, there is no other way of telling you truthfully without telling you the brutal truth, you acted like a dick. if you had any intellectual honesty in you then you would admit this.

Saying, I am not a complete idiot is again insulting, Amongst the many others you threw out there, in the sense that you are suggesting I am still an idiot never the less, in one sense it's an underhanded sarcastic comment, akin to not being as stupid as you look.....Anyway RT that's all I have to say, I used to get very angry at others who insult me online, and I would retaliate in kind and much worse., I am just proud I never.....

Anyway rather than become bitter foes, congrats on your win and hopefully we can both take a lesson learnt from all this.

That is all.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
*a few pages back
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I am a prophet! I already called this concession a few pages in this comment section:

"The only reason I am continuing this conversation is because I have faith in you. I do not actually think that you are a complete idiot. Therefore, I believe that eventually it will strike you why you lost. You will say you are sorry, and we can all have a laugh about this."

John, I commend you for being a man and admitting this. However, you you are rather hypocritical. You say you never stooped to my level by name calling but you just called me a "dick" and a "brat". Thus, you are also a liar.

Anyway, you should feel embarrassed for pushing this for so long. You should have realized you were wrong days ago.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Ok Phantom, Thanks, I understand more clearly now, thanks for intervening and clarifying things better for me....

Well done Rational thinker, you got me, I concede the debate, but asking me to accept losing because the majority believe I lost is useless, I realize myself now I lost due to my inexperience of debating and expecting the BoP to be shared on the resolution, and me simply not laying down clearer foundations in my opening statement....

If you ask me to accept losing because the majority believe I did then you should also consider you deduction of conduct points for the style in which you won the debate, you obviously shirked my intended burden on you and exploited it by reversing it so the burden is all mine

I concede the debate and thank all voters who voted and put their thoughts in to the debate, I did actually learn something philosophical about the wording of the debates resolution, not only in it's construction but also it's definition, only in it being portrayed by a brat was less convincing, so thanks to everybody else.

And that's not being a sore loser Rational Thinker, all through this debate and the comments section, you have hurled insults toward me non stop, I can live with losing the debate I am more pround that I never stooped to your level and retaliated like I dick in kind like I would have any other day in my adolescent years.. Thankfully now, hopefully, I've matured.
Posted by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
John, your burden of proof is to show that God can't be proven. You're pro and the instigator and didn't make any preconditions about the BoP. Default BoP is on you...There's no contending that.

God is a thing theoretically capable of providing proof of his own existence, so if God existed, he could prove his existence. However, you're making the claim that God can't be proven. If God's existence can't be proven, then either God does not exist or God does exist but can't prove his own existence. God is omnipotent so the second is out of the question. Therefore, if God's existence can't be proven, God does not exist, and the only way to say God's existence can't be proven, would be to show that God does not exist. Your resolution rests necessarily on the presupposition that God does not exist. In order to prove the resolution, you have to prove he doesn't exist.

Con didn't need to prove God for his arguments to work since his arguments merely were to point out you had more to do to accomplish your own burden of proof. Con's burden was to refute your case. If you wanted con to have the BoP, you should have either changed the resolution when you made the debate, so that he was pro, or simply stated that con had the BoP.

Consider it this way, God could be proven, theoretically, by either humans or God. Humans ability to prove God is debatable even if God does exist. God's ability to prove his existence is self-evident if God did exist and you never contended it. Therefore, if God exists, the resolution is false. So before we come to any conclusion on whether God exists or not, the resolution may or may not be true. Saying that humans can't prove God still leaves the resolution at maybe, maybe not. Saying that both God and humans can't prove God would settle the debate. However the only way to say God can't be proved by God is to say God doesn't exist, which you didn't do.

Hopefully that clarifies it some.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You are just a sore looser!!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was far from "drivel." If I could take off more conduct points, I would. I think Pro meant this debate as an invitation for Con to attempt to prove god's existence, which Con didn't do. Unfortunately, the resolution wasn't worded carefully enough, and Con took advantage of that. His argument that god could prove his own existence was well put together, so I have no choice but to give him arguments.
Vote Placed by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con kept saying that Pro has to show the Christain God does not exist although even if he existed the resolution can still remain true! also you guys should have defined what prove means. Con committed few spelling mistakes.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Just because Pro is unable or unwilling to prove the Christian God's existence does not mean that it is universally the case. The BOP was on Pro who failed to meet it.
Vote Placed by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. (Comment 91)
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Reread this, pretty badly derailed. A lot of begging the question, bop shifts, strawman, and such from both sides. I suggest startibg over in the forums, or have a rematch with a better setup.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Pro should have clarified that he meant that it is impossible for a HUMAN to prove the Christian God's existence. Con exploited this lack of clarification and argued validly, though debate and philosophy ethics holds that you are supposed to grant the principle of charity to your opponent and argue based on what they most likely meant. This debate ultimately was semantic and I can't honestly give points to either side.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: RFD in comments. RFD for changed conduct vote also in comments.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
johnlubbaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering fruitytree's votebomb. con obviously showed that the christian God can prove himself if he exists and this negates the resolution. pro had to show God didn't exist which he did not.