The Instigator
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Hiskid
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 887 times Debate No: 74772
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Hayd

Con

In this debate, I intend to discuss and debate the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist, and Pro, my opponent, will be arguing that God does exist.

To eliminate any confusion during the debate, I have provided a list of definitions, the round structure, and rules. These are to be followed at all times.

Definitions:

God: A supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect being that is thought to have created the universe and rules it.

Theist: The belief that god(s) exist.

Atheist: The belief that god(s) do not exist.

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; ability to do anything.

Faith: Having the belief in god(s)

Debate Structure:

First round: Acceptance only.

Second round: Arguments only.

Third round: Rebuttals only.

Fourth round: Counter-rebuttals.

Rules:

Forfeiture is an automatic loss.

My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. Do not limit your duties. E.g. only proving that there is a possibility that God exists.

No ad-hominem attacks.

Cite all sources used.

Breaking any rules will result in an automatic loss.

Citations:

Merriam Webster

Hiskid

Pro

hey, I love this topic. To clarify, are we assuming the Bible to be a valid source? I understand that by using it we need to then debate the legitimacy of the Bible, but at the same time everything we know about the Christian God derives itself from Scripture. It should be noted that it won't be my only source, as in I won't just chuck verses at you until you hate life. Please answer in either your 1st argument or in the comments.

Cheers.
Debate Round No. 1
Hayd

Con


Introduction:


Thank you (Hiskid) for accepting, this should make for an interesting debate. As debates in their very nature can lead to heated exchanges, I hope that Hiskid and I can treat each other with respect and maturity in order to maintain the best debating environment possible.


As the rules specify in the first round, the second round is for arguments only. I will present three arguments in this round that will be the foundation of my side of the debate.


First Round Problems:


Hiskid had some questions in the first round that I would like to answer before getting on with the debate. The first question was,


“To clarify, are we assuming the Bible to be a valid source?”


Yes, as we are debating the God of Christianity, Christianity’s concept of their God is described through the Bible, therefore it is a valid source to refer to Christian culture their God.


“I understand that by using it we need to then debate the legitimacy of the Bible…”


We do not need to debate the legitimacy of the Bible, as explained above; the Bible is a legitimate source to refer to the Christian culture.


“It should be noted that it won't be my only source, as in I won't just chuck verses at you until you hate life.”


Thank God for that :D.


A1: In order for a being to possess the title of God, this being must possess the trait of omnipotence. In other words, if a being does not possess omnipotence, this being is not a God. In this argument, I will prove how omnipotence is an impossible trait to possess, therefore making it impossible for any God to exist.


Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. If a being cannot do all things, then that being is not omnipotent. But some abilities are impossible such as; being a married bachelor. Since you cannot be married and be a bachelor at the same time that ability is impossible to possess.


Logic Steps:


1: God has to be omnipotent, if he is not he is not a god.


2: Omnipotence is the ability to do all things.


3: Since the ability of being a married bachelor is impossible, it is impossible to have the ability to do all things.


4: Omnipotence is impossible.


5: Since omnipotence is impossible, God is impossible.


6: God does not exist.


A2:


In my second argument, I will be using the common argument of morality. By definition (as specified in the first round) if God is to exist, he would have to retain moral perfection. Since God is omnipotent, he has the ability to do all things, therefore he is able to stop any immoral actions to take place ever.


Yet many immoral actions have happened and happen every day (e.g. The Holocaust, The Black Death, The Great Chinese Famine, WWII, etc.) yet God did not stop these immoral acts from occurring.


Logic Steps:


1: God is morally perfect and omnipotent (has the ability to stop all immoral acts).


2: If God exists there should be no evil, immorality, cruelty, etc.


3: Yet there is evil, immorality, cruelty, etc.


4: Therefore God does not exist.


A3:


The God of the Christian origin is described through the Bible.


“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


God, described by the Bible is thought to be perfect. Something is rendered perfect when it has no imperfections. Anything that is an extension of its being has to be perfect. Yet God makes mistakes/imperfections. Evidence of this is,


“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” (1)


(Repent: to feel regret or contrition) (2)


The Bible is a credible source to use to envision God, because according to the Christian culture the Bible is written by their God.


Since God regrets his decision on making man, he feels he has made a mistake and regrets making man in the first place. Yet God doesn’t make mistakes, God is perfect and has no imperfections.


Logic Steps:


1: According to Christian culture, God is perfect. (evidence of this is cited above, Bible)


2: God should not have regrets because he is perfect.


3: God is therefore not perfect because he has done an imperfection.


4: The God of Christianity is contradictory.


5: God does not exist.


Conclusion:


I conclude that the God of the Christian origin does not exist because of the reasons provided above.


I look forward to the arguments that Hiskid will bring up in his next response. I’d like to wish Hiskid and anybody reading this the best of luck, thank you!


Citations:


(1) https://www.biblegateway.com...


also see Genesis 6: 5-7 Holy Bible King James Version



(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Hiskid

Pro

As stated, the Bible is considered, for all intents and purposes, to be a viable source. This is important, as in order to prove anything's existence you need at least one thing: Some proof or evidence that they existed. You cannot observe something that hasn't manifested its existence in any way.

A1: If you are to accept the Bible as truth, then you need to observe the following verse:

2 Timothy 3:16:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
This verse states that the entire Bible, or Scripture, is God breathed, or theopneustos, which means divinely inspired (oh yes, I'm pulling out the Greek :P). This is that manifestation I referred to earlier. This is the only source in writing that we have in relation to God, and is therefore necessary in order to believe in him. I'm going to quote you, quoting the Bible here.
"As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.
Psalm 18:30
The Lords word is flawless, or without error. This has yet to be disproven. This is why I said we needed to argue the legitimacy of the Bible. Since it is a source that I can use to prove God's existence, I have all I need right here. I assume that you meant that I could use it as a source to describe God? I'm not sure, because allowing the Bible would guarantee con a win.

Here is one with a little less scripture.

A2: How would an "anything" come to exist? Bear with me here, as it's hard to put to words. take it back to square 0. Here, Nothing exists. We know that this is impossible, because we now have something, and it is general knowledge that something can't arise from nothing. (I really hope you accept that fact as true.) Since that is not possible, we need to, therefore, accept that something, at some capacity, existed. Pretty easy.
When? When did it start to exist? Well, It couldn't have started because that means the first something started out of nothing, which breaks the rules! So, In order to accept that something's exist, we need to think up something that breaks the "Rules" if you will. We need something that did not need to be created, and exists out of time, for if it exists in time, that means you can measure when it started. However, as we have already covered, the first something cannot be created, or a "Starting Time".
So, the characteristics thus far, in order to logically accept the existence of existence itself, are a something that was not created, and a something that exists out of time. Starting to sound familiar? Wait, it gets better.
So now we have a something, that's just dandy. But how do we have all that we have from just one something? There are two possibilites:
A: The something as a lot of something, and is what we have now, in the present, just in another form. As in, it all existed at the same time. Mass is never lost . . . et cetra et cetra.
B: Our something is capable of creating things out of nothing.
You are probably thinking to yourselves "WAIT! Timeout, Option B breaks the rules!" Why yes, how clever of you to notice! Yes, indeed, it does break the rules. You will recall, however, that we already accepted that the something broke the rules. It needs to disobey the rules in order for us to accept reality. (See Paragraph 3). I don't know about you, But I find it much easier to accept that a something that exists outside of the "Rules" created everything, rather than believing that everything already existed for no reason, and then began to change form until we got what we have. Lets update our characteristics again
1. not created
2. exists out of time
3. capable of creating things out of nothing
Or, to use different terms:
1.Independantly existent
2. Eternal
3. Omnipotent

Who do we now that is Independently Existent, Eternal, and Omnipotent? I suppose you could argue "A god", But since we are arguing for the existence of 1 God, The Christian God, I am going to say that this provides sufficient evidence to support his existence. Oh, and here is where scripture agrees.
Colossians 1:16"
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

I have decided to cut it here. I'm sure there are many other arguments out there. The loss here, by a 17 year old arguing Gods existence, should not be taken to mean he doesn't exist. It is to mean that I cannot successfully prove it to you. But hey, I'm not the omnipotent one ;D

Cheers Con.

Source(s):
https://www.biblegateway.com...
My mindddddddddd
Debate Round No. 2
Hayd

Con

Introduction:

Thank you Hiskid for the arguments that you presented, let’s get Round 3 started!

I will organize my response in sections. I will have a section devoted to a rebuttal of each of Hiskid’s arguments, and a section devoted to rebutting any points that came up outside the arguments (General Rebuttal). I will then have a section devoted to the conclusion, concluding my Round 3 response.

General Rebuttal:

As stated, the Bible is considered, for all intents and purposes, to be a viable source. This is important, as in order to prove anything's existence you need at least one thing: Some proof or evidence that they existed. You cannot observe something that hasn't manifested its existence in any way.”

The Bible is not evidence that God exists, much like the Harry Potter series is not evidence that Hogwarts exists. The Bible is a viable source in reference to the Christian culture, but not evidence that its god exists.

Rebuttal of A1:

“This verse states that the entire Bible, or Scripture, is God breathed, or theopneustos, which means divinely inspired This is the only source in writing that we have in relation to God, and is therefore necessary in order to believe in him.”

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is in fact God breathed at all? Just because it says so in a verse does not mean it is true much like the example I used earlier, the Harry Potter books are not evidence that Hogwarts exists. This topples the root of your argument, until you can prove that the Bible was divinely inspired and not just made up by some Bronze Age people this argument holds no weight.

Hiskid ends his argument with some questions about the Bible,

“The Lords word is flawless, or without error. This has yet to be disproven. This is why I said we needed to argue the legitimacy of the Bible. Since it is a source that I can use to prove God's existence, I have all I need right here. I assume that you meant that I could use it as a source to describe God? I'm not sure, because allowing the Bible would guarantee con a win.”

The Christian concept of God as described in the Bible is flawless, but you have to prove that God actually exists first.

We do not need to argue the legitimacy of the Bible, as I already said many times now, the Bible is a legitimate source to refer to the concept of the Christian God and their culture, but is not evidence of God’s existence. This would not guarantee you a win because the Bible is not a way to prove God exists, only a way to define the concept. (I think you meant Pro by the way).

Rebuttal of A2:

In this argument, Hiskid uses the standard causation argument which runs along the lines of, Since something cannot come out of nothing, something must have created the something and this something would have to be God. Which is why it is called the Causation Argument, something has to cause something.

First of all, this is a God of the Gaps argument. I found that GotQuestions.org gave a good explanation for it,

“The ‘God-of-the-gaps’ argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of ‘God’ is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the ‘gaps’ in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name ‘God of the gaps.’ ” (1)

This is a fallacy because every time a gap in knowledge is filled, the believer can move to the next gap. The game continues to infinite because human knowledge can never explain everything, therefore the argument is a logical fallacy of arguments from ignorance. (For more information visit (2))

Basically Hiskid is saying that, In order to accept that something's exist, we need to think up something that breaks the "Rules…” By making the assumption that science has not found how something can come from nothing, Hiskid illogically fills in the gap with God. This by no way proves that God exists, and Hiskid has committed a logical fallacy.

The second fallacy in Hiskid’s argument was how he tied it to the Christian God,

Who do we now that is Independently Existent, Eternal, and Omnipotent? I suppose you could argue ‘A god’, But since we are arguing for the existence of 1 God, The Christian God, I am going to say that this provides sufficient evidence to support his existence. Oh, and here is where scripture agrees.
Colossians 1:16’
‘For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.’”

Even if Hiskid’s argument would have worked out, he would have had to prove that the god that caused the something from nothing was the Christian god, not the Greek or Roman or Hindu or Islamic, the Christian. Hiskid does this by citing more scripture, and makes the fallacy of believing that this proves the Christian god, this is not the case. In the Quran it says,

“He created the heavens and Earth with truth. The day He says ‘Be!’ it is. His speech is Truth. The Kingdom will be His on the Day the Trumpet is blown, the Knower of the Unseen and the Visible. He is the All-Wise, the All-Aware.” (Surat al-An'am, 73)

By Hiskid’s logic this should also prove that Allah was the god that created something out of nothing.

I have identified at least two fallacies in this argument which defeats it.

“I don't know about you, But I find it much easier to accept that a something that exists outside of the "Rules" created everything, rather than believing that everything already existed for no reason, and then began to change form until we got what we have.”

I’m much more concerned about whether or not something is true, rather than if it is “easy to accept” or not.

Conclusion:

I have successfully defeated both of my opponent’s arguments and finished my Round 3 response. I look forward to Hiskid’s rebuttals and wish my opponent and anybody reading this the best of luck!

Citations:

  1. http://www.gotquestions.org...

  2. http://rationalwiki.org...

Hiskid

Pro

Well done indeed. I will admit that these were experimental arguments, but I did have high hopes for them. I'd like to thank Hayd for pointing out any fallacies, as the debater's generally blind to his own weakness.

My organizing system is the following: I will quote his argument, then refute it if possible.

"A1:

In order for a being to possess the title of God, this being must possess the trait of omnipotence. In other words, if a being does not possess omnipotence, this being is not a God. In this argument, I will prove how omnipotence is an impossible trait to possess, therefore making it impossible for any God to exist."

Lets see the steps:

Logic Steps:

1: God has to be omnipotent, if he is not he is not a god.

2: Omnipotence is the ability to do all things.

3: Since the ability of being a married bachelor is impossible, it is impossible to have the ability to do all things.

4: Omnipotence is impossible.

5: Since omnipotence is impossible, God is impossible.

6: God does not exist.

Did you see it? Step three holds our contradiction. In fact, its a contradiction in terms

"contradiction in terms - (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

By starting your argument with a logical infallicy, I cannot take anything past that seriosusly. It is similar to the "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" Again, "Can he do something he can't do" Is a contradiction in terms

A2:

In my second argument, I will be using the common argument of morality. By definition (as specified in the first round) if God is to exist, he would have to retain moral perfection. Since God is omnipotent, he has the ability to do all things, therefore he is able to stop any immoral actions to take place ever.

Logic Steps:

1: God is morally perfect and omnipotent (has the ability to stop all immoral acts).

2: If God exists there should be no evil, immorality, cruelty, etc.

3: Yet there is evil, immorality, cruelty, etc.

4: Therefore God does not exist.

This is where a fair understanding of Christian theology is required. God's original creation WAS without sin, and was later corrupted by a fallen angel and humanity. Ever since, God has created ways to re-achieve "Holiness", which is a state of sinless-ness. God is perfect in judgment, and In the end all the sin will be done away with and only good will remain.

Lets put it in this way. A man is in a store where a mugger is attacking the cashier. He could attack if he wanted, but doesn't. By law, is this man guilty? Of course not! I mean, it sucks that he didn't help, but we don't know his reasons. Maybe he has a family, or something else that led him to decide to stay away. Just because God exists in a reality where there is sin doesn't mean he himself is sinful

A3:

The God of the Christian origin is described through the Bible.

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

Logic Steps:

1: According to Christian culture, God is perfect. (evidence of this is cited above, Bible)

2: God should not have regrets because he is perfect.

3: God is therefore not perfect because he has done an imperfection.

4: The God of Christianity is contradictory.

5: God does not exist.

Who created man? God. In fact, he says that they are very good in Genesis 1

"31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

If you read the context, the sixth day was when he made man. Now, why would God go and contradict himself just a few chapters later? He didn't. What happen to man? They were tempted by Satan and fell into sin. As a result they became wicked and evil (The majority anyways).

God is perfect, and had no regrets making man until they changed and turned on their maker. Time for my favorite passtime: whats the Greek/Hebrew!? In this case, The word for repent of was Nacham. If you follow this link, you will see it's definition, as well as a few other words that mean similar things.

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

As you can see, God could regret making them, but only because they had deviated from his design. This actually highlights God's lack of tolerance for imperfection nicely. This is all assuming, of course, that Nacham translates the way we think it does, which I think is accurate.

Cheers.
Debate Round No. 3
Hayd

Con


Round 4 is specified for counter-rebuttals. I will rebut Hiskid’s rebuttals, and he will rebut mine. As this is my last response of the debate, I will have a longer conclusion than normal.


Rebuttal of R1:


Hiskid rebuts my argument of omnipotence by claiming that it is contradictory; specifically Logic Step 3. Logic Step 3 reads, “Since the ability of being a married bachelor is impossible, it is impossible to have the ability to do all things.” Hiskid is claiming that this is a “contradiction in terms” similar to, "Can he do something he can't do" and "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"


This is exactly what I meant in Logic Step 3; omnipotence is contradictory, it is a “contradiction in terms” and is a fallacy, which is why it is impossible for God (or any god) to exist. I believe Hiskid interpreted my argument wrong for I found the rebuttal quite confusing. I hope my response clears it up though.


Rebuttal of R2:


Hiskid rebuts my argument of morality by claiming that we just don’t know the all the facts so it’s alright. Evidence of this is underlined.


“Lets put it in this way. A man is in a store where a mugger is attacking the cashier. He could attack if he wanted, but doesn't. By law, is this man guilty? Of course not! I mean, it sucks that he didn't help, but we don't know his reasons. Maybe he has a family, or something else that led him to decide to stay away. Just because God exists in a reality where there is sin doesn't mean he himself is sinful”


This is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.


Rebuttal of R3:


In this rebuttal Hiskid attacks my argument from perfection. He attacks it two ways, so I will focus on the first now.


“They were tempted by Satan and fell into sin. As a result they became wicked and evil (The majority anyways).”


Hiskid is saying that God made them perfect, but then Satan made them imperfect. This is not necessarily true; a being that can be corrupted is not perfect, since it is potentially imperfect. An entirely perfect being would be incorruptible


The other way Hiskid attacked it was citing the definition of Hebrew Nacham. In his link it gave definitions of Nacham and one of them read,


“to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent”


(Repent: to feel regret or contrition) (2)


My argument is proven right again and Hiskid’s attacks are defeated.


Conclusion:


I have defeated all of Hiskid’s arguments, and have defended my own. This has been an enjoyable debate, Hiskid was a great opponent and I loved debating him. Sadly this is my last reponse, after Hiskid’s response this debate will be in the hands of the voters. To anyone reading this; thank you, and Vote Con!


Citations:


(1) http://www.biblestudytools.com...


(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...





Hiskid

Pro

So, I guess is counter rebuttal.

Okay, first to clarify something I did not first realize. My primary argument was indeed a fallacy, as you need to believe in God first for it to be evidence, or circular reasoning. I'll give you that one. I'm used to debating people who already believe in God at some capacity, so this is a relatively new debate environment.

The second one, however has much to be argued.

You claim I used a God-in-the-gap fallacy. However, does not everyone fill the gap in with something? There is God-in-the-gap, or Science-in-the-gap, or IDon'tHonestlyKnow-in-the-gap. The "in-the-gap" idea is just substituting an unknown for something else that cannot be proven yet. It's apparently acceptable to believe that science can explain everything. the is filling that gap in with the promise that we will one day discover it.... we just don't know when. This is similar to God-in-the-gap.

Another problem here is I claim everything, discovered or not, was created by God. The earth revolves around the sun because God made it that way. I also understand that since he was intelligent, he created natural laws for reality to follow by. Even though I argue God-in-the-gap, I would still be right even if there was a mechanic.

I know what you're thinking "That's convenient, he is right either way by that logic". Exactly, and that leads to 2 extremes. Either I am wrong, and God does not exist and everything is just discovered as-is with no creator, or I am right. There is no observable presence of God, so I cannot give give you the kind of proof you want, just like I cannot prove to you an observable presence of gravity.

I'll end with this. Logic and Reason are great tools, and Christians who know their doctrine respect its ability. However, they can only make sense of things that are observable to some extent. We can prove gravity logically because we observe it pulling on things. I look at the history and complexity of our reality, and see the signs of an intelligent designer. Is that God? or maybe Allah, Zeus, or some other God? From there, it's just a matter of how well you can defend your doctrine and your faith.

Thank you, and vote whichever way you feel.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hiskid 1 year ago
Hiskid
I'd agree. In terms of who argued better, Con destroyed me XD I do prefer to debate face to face in informal manner so I can speak through my thoughts. tow of Blade-of-Truth's problems with my debate was that it wasn't explained enough, and It's hard to explain sometimes. I'm sure that comes with time but still.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
RFD (2/2) -

So, now we are left with Con winning the omnipotent argument, and Pro winning the one of the fallen angels line of argumentation. In the final round, Pro attempts to rebut the God-of-the-gaps fallacy with this science-of-the-gaps idea but it just doesn't make much sense. His application of the concept just isn't well-reasoned, and thus didn't make much of an impact on me.

So what it boils down to is Con wins the Omnipotence line of argumentation, as well as the imperfect line of argumentation, and the God-of-the-Gaps point. Pro wins the immoral argument, but that's about it.

Ultimately, Pro had the burden to prove the existence of God, and was only really able to rebut *some* of Con's main arguments. Pro needed to overcome every challenge presented by Con, and failed to do so. Due to Pro losing the omnipotence argument, among others, Con wins arguments.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
RFD (1/2)-

This was a good debate. In terms of Conduct, S&G, and Sources, both were tied. The real difference came only in the arguments themselves. In regards to the Arguments, I believe Con won. I will now present my reasoning:

In R2, Con presented 3 arguments, 1) Omnipotence is contradictory, 2) God is immoral, and 3) God is imperfect. Pro rebutted these in R3. His rebuttal against omnipotence was nonsensical, and he ended up arguing the exact same point that Con made (that it was a contradiction). He then concedes this in the final round due to inexperience. So Con wins the omnipotence argument. In regards to both the immoral and imperfect argument, Pro argues that those things are due to satan (the fallen angel) rather than God. Both of these were good rebuttals, and were the only two counter-arguments by Pro that actually had an impact. Pro's original arguments that 1) The bible proves God, and 2) Existence exists, were both easily rebutted by Con in R3 when he said that the Bible isn't proof, but rather just a reference, and that Pro's 2nd argument was a God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

The two counter-arguments from Pro regarding the fallen angel were, at this point (end of R3), the only two things Pro had going for him. Con attempted to rebut both in R4. However, Con seemed to selectively respond only to the example Pro used for his A2 regarding immorality, and never actually rebutted Pro's point regarding the fallen angel. Thus, Con dropped Pro's A2 rebuttal regarding immorality. Con did rebut Pro's A3 rebuttal regarding the fallen angel and imperfection by arguing that since the fallen angel was imperfect, God is still imperfect since he's one of his creations.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Well humans createt a lot of them and never had prove. Only the prove of theire own creation. ( see gods first coment ).
Posted by Hiskid 1 year ago
Hiskid
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we were talking about other Gods.

Wait, we weren't. So that would be 1 count of BoP evasion........ you lose.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
"The burden of proof is on you to prove yourself"...Well. That would be news for any god. And has newer happend....
Posted by Hiskid 1 year ago
Hiskid
Haha, i feel you. I'm doing Spanish and English HW at 11:00 PM, and hating life. XD
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Ill write them tomorrow because im sick of typing today
Posted by Hiskid 1 year ago
Hiskid
I don't need to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove yourself.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Yes.. You can not prove me wrong. Now i have a god. Next step could be the creation of af religion
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
HaydHiskidTied
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: RFD in Comments section due to lack of space here.