The Instigator
hayhen13
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Nikki.WillProve
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Existence of God (Christian God)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
hayhen13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 504 times Debate No: 69474
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

hayhen13

Con


In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept.



Definitions:


God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe.


Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods.


Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods.


Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future.


Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.


Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.



Rules:




  • First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals.




  • A forfeit is an automatic loss.






  • My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round.






  • Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.








Nikki.WillProve

Pro

Okay, for starters, have you ever heard a war about to begin? or rumors. If so, in the book of Matthew it is stated:
Matthew 24:6 "And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end."
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome. You were only supposed to accept in the first round.

Arguments:

“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 18:30

“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matthew 5:48

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “

Psalm 19:7

From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection.

Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.

  • God is a perfect being that created the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.

  • God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect.

  • The world is imperfect.

  • Therefore, God does not exist.

Now onto my second point.

People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.

A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.

  • If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy therefore not intruding on his moral existence.

  • If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more.

  • If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.

  • If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.

  • God does not exist.

Now onto my last point.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent the best of luck.

Citations:

The Holy Bible

Nikki.WillProve

Pro

Nikki.WillProve forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Con


"Nikki.WillProve forfeited this round."

"A forfeit is an automatic loss."

My opponent loses therefore I win.

Nikki.WillProve

Pro

Nikki.WillProve forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Con

Nothing to say...
Nikki.WillProve

Pro

Nikki.WillProve forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
hayden, Framing something as part of the initial rules for the opposition to fail is cheating. You stated that he has to use your definition even tho you have been informed it is a faulty definition. I could win any debate if I made such rules, altho I would never do such a thing.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Esiar,
The question you bring up is an interesting one.

"For example, if you said that, theoretically, Gold-Eating Leprechauns couldn't eat Gold, you would be contradicting yourself."
I completely agree with this yes.
"Same thing with saying that, theoreticallly, a being with unlimited power couldn't do certain things."
Yet saying something can do something and then saying it cant is different from unlimited power. The married bachelor idea proves that an unlimited being cannot exist. Being a married bachelor is impossible, therefore being omnipotent is impossible since you cannot do everything, therefore God does not exist.
You will most likely respond by saying that an omnipotent being can be a married bachelor. If you do this, then this argument is pointless since you will refuse to accept that being a married bachelor.
It all comes down to, Is a married bachelor impossible? Yes, but my opponent will probably still argue and be stubborn about it, making this pointless.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Rextr05,
So you are saying that I should change my definition because it is cheating?
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
@hayhen13
Whether God exists or not isn't the matter in that point. It's just the contradiction. For example, if you said that, theoretically, Gold-Eating Leprechauns couldn't eat Gold, you would be contradicting yourself.

Same thing with saying that, theoreticallly, a being with unlimited power couldn't do certain things. It's similar to saying, "I am the smartest person alive. Except I'm not.". If they are the smartest person, they cannot be anything below that, if somone has unlimited power, no task whatever would be impossible for them.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
Sorry hayden, just seemed funny that the 1st site I googled was the Yahoo thing & not one of the answers given coincided with the supplied question's supposition that you base your definition on. Your definition is self satisfying & limiting & therefore should disqualify it for use of debate. Sorta cheating isn't it to limit a main premise that would nullify using a more accepted definition of faith, such as a belief in something that does not require definitive proof.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
rextr05,
I actually did not use that yahoo stuff at all. I simply googled it like any other 13 year old and this is what came up. https://www.google.com.... Sorry I forgot to cite it, my bad.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Esiar,
I defined God as it is thought of in the Christian religion. If I gave a definition of leprechauns that does not mean leprechauns exist.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
@hayhen13, Since it takes faith to believe in God & faith is a personal belief one person holds true & by definition faith is a belief of something that cannot be empirically definitively proven, the possibilities as you say, are endless & prove nothing other than one believes in God & the other does not. Your definition of the word 'faith' is self-limiting & therefore an unacceptable means of debate.

Also, are you going to copy & paste your answers like you posed the faith definition from Yahoo Answer? From Yahoo Answers: "Is this the definition of faith? faith/fāTH/- Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." When one copies something from another source verbatim as you have & does not acknowledge that source, it is called plagiarism. & if you would have noticed, all the answers from Yahoo Answers dispute the definition in that & your question, so I must wonder why you ask a question that you already know to be false as your 'true' definition of faith. So not cool.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
I should point out a contradiction Con made in his debate with me:

"Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything."

He later says that an omnipotent being cannot be a married bachelor.

He defined Omnipotence as unlimited power, and later states that a being with unlimited power cannot do something.
Posted by Roboman1723 2 years ago
Roboman1723
b-b-but it says so in the bible
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
hayhen13Nikki.WillProveTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: "A forfeit is an automatic loss"
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
hayhen13Nikki.WillProveTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture