The Instigator
diety
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
74 Points

The Christian god's existence is just as likely as the invisible pink unicorn's existence

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 14 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,242 times Debate No: 8622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (14)

 

diety

Pro

Heh, I really want to hear Con's argument. Though I will probably lose because of people's prejudices, I hope it'll cheer me up.
mongeese

Con

My opponent has an impossible burden of proof.

He has to prove that two things have the same chance of existing.

However, without evidence, this is impossible.

So, there really is no way for PRO to affirm the resolution. At all.

Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
diety

Pro

Thank you mongeese for accepting this debate.

There are several reasons why the resolution is affirmed.

First of all, because both equally lack evidence for their existence, yes they are just as likely to exist.

Also, they are both contradictory. A unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink. Also, a god cannot be omnipotent because he cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift. I guess you can say they're both non-existent.

:)

likelihood of existence = 0

Oh well, I will probably lose to religious bigots but what the heck.

Vote PRO.

Thank you.
mongeese

Con

My opponent concedes that the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist.

"Also, a god cannot be omnipotent because he cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift."
1. Where exactly is it said in the Bible that the Christian god is omnipotent?
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
"1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do."
3. God could create the rock that he cannot lift, and then use his omnipotence to flood the surrounding area with water, allowing him to lift the rock due to water's ability to make lifting things easier.
http://wiki.answers.com...

So, the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist, but the Christian god can.

This negates the resolution.

"Oh well, I will probably lose to religious bigots but what the heck."
No, you will lose because of the three reasons above.

"Vote PRO."
Vote CON.

"Thank you."
Thank you, as well.
Debate Round No. 2
diety

Pro

:)

To rebut your arguments

1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) Your source gave a number of different VIEWS on omnipotence.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible."

3) If the rock is too heavy for him to lift, he cannot lift it period and he is not omnipotent. It doesn't matter if he used water; as long as he could lift the rock then he failed to make a rock too heavy for him to lift. My goodness I love all of these excuses people keep making for defending their extremist views.

Also, let me throw another one at you: can an omnipotent, all-loving god hate somebody?

Keep convicing yourself you're correct. You are incorrect.

The resolution is affirmed.

:)

Vote PRO.
mongeese

Con

My opponent's rebuttals for (1) and (3) are valid, but his rebuttal to (2) doesn't work.

The Christian view on omnipotence is the first view, in which the deity only has to do the logically possible.

http://www.ccel.org...

They get to define their own view, not you.

Therefore, he can be omnipotent without being able to do the logically impossible.

"Also, let me throw another one at you: can an omnipotent, all-loving god hate somebody?"
Well, he could, by using his omnipotence to override his omnibenevolence, but he chooses to be omnibenevolent. So, the answer is yes, he could, if he chose to no longer be all-loving, but rather, most-loving.

"Keep convicing[sic] yourself you're correct. You are incorrect."
You say that I'm incorrect, but you don't say why.

"The resolution is affirmed."
Wrong. The Christian, omnipotent god could exist, as long as omnipotence is defined in the way the Christians choose, which is only appropriate.

":)"
(:

"Vote PRO."
The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist. The Christian god can exist. Therefore, the resolution is negated.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Good catch, KritiKal. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Dude, I haven't voted on this debate yet, but the minute you start insulting the audience (especially when considering that you're referring to a large portion of the audience--the so-called religious "bigots"), you're just asking to be voted against. Now if you're just here to debate your views, you shouldn't have to worry about anything, but if you're here to persuade people to accept your stance, you're not going to get very far like that. I have no doubt in my mind that alot of people will immediately disregard your entire argument and vote against you the moment they read that comment.
Posted by KritiKal 7 years ago
KritiKal
lol way to mess up the easiest resolution possible to win. at the point where Mongeese said, "there is no evidence about either of them" so you would just say, "k so at this point we default to the assumption that they are equally likely and I win." (For example, if you're staring at a road, without any knowledge at all other than cars drive on that road then it is equally likely for your next car to be a jeep or a honda)
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I agree with the previous posts concerning conduct. We have bigots on this site, religious or otherwise, and some of us try to look at debates and judge fairly so as to lessen their influence. Pro considers his loss to be the product of these bigots and never addresses the legitimate debaters. Conduct - Con.

convincing arguments - Con. Pro makes the mistake of using the very unoriginal rock argument. In addition, he states the argument and does not explain how it works, and how it fails.

S/G - ":)" these get on my nerves and Pro used them too much. Con

sources - Con, again.
full 7 points, and I don't do that often - Con
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I agree with KRF and voted his way for similar reasons.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Con - Pro threw this point away when he said more than once that he'll lose because of bigotry, asserting of course that he can't possibly be wrong. It is common courtesy to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt insofar as intelligence and debate skill is concerned.

Spelling and Grammar - Tie - Minor mistakes, but on balance, pretty even.

Argument - Con - Pro's burden was to convince me that God was as likely as the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU). Pro convinced me that the IPU is logically impossible, but was unable to convince me with the same level of absolution that God was just as logically impossible. Since God is at least somewhat logically possible and more so than the IPU, I was convinced that God is at least more likely to exist than the IPU, which negates the resolution.

Sources - Con - Con used sources to define common Christian doctrine, which is more than what Pro did for his case.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Arguments goes to Pro, conduct goes to Con.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
He used the Paradox of the Stone. How very creative of him.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I'm just going to take a logical stance. I don't think that anybody would be able to convince the entire of Debate.org with any religious things. It's a shame.

Besides, my current plan is foolproof.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
I'm surprised to see Con take the 'nothing can be proven' stance.

He should stand up for his beliefs and go for it.

I'm a non-believer but I can think of a couple of logical reasons why the Christian god is (slightly) more likely to exist.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tomorokoshi 7 years ago
Tomorokoshi
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Dense 7 years ago
Dense
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by VenomousNinja 7 years ago
VenomousNinja
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
dietymongeeseTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07