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

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.

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.

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.

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.

:)

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.

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.