The Instigator
hayhen13
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Esiar
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points

The Existence of The Christian God

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 8 votes the winner is...
hayhen13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,439 times Debate No: 69236
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (127)
Votes (8)

 

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.








Esiar

Pro

I accept. I will quote the Bible, but not use it as ultimate proof of God's existence.
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.

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.

Esiar

Pro

Note: I am writing this after I typing my rebuttals. I just remembered that one of the rules was that Round 2 is for arguments only. I don't want to delete all of that and write a new thing for arguments only, so I am leaving it there. Forgive me!

Point #1
"Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection."
God created everything perfect, without any flaw. Part of the perfection of his creation is that man had free-will, and thus could corrupt the world.

"Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists."
This is completely illogical. You cannot apply human standards like that to God Almighty.

"God is a perfect being that created the universe."
Yes.

"If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe."
The world didn't exist before the creation of the Universe.

"God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection."
See the first sentence I typed out.

"If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe."
You have to assume God's intention in creating the Universe to say this and/or see first sentence.

"If God exists, then the world is perfect."
You have to assume God's intention in creating the Universe to say this and/or see first sentence.

"The world is imperfect."
Yes.

"Therefore, God does not exist."
You have to assume God's intention in creating the Universe to say this and/or see the first sentence.

Point #2
"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."
Since God is omnipotent, he has the power to understand what the feelings of immoral actions are without doing them.

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

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

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

"If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy."
Since God is omnipotent[1], he has the power to understand what the feelings of immoral actions are without doing them.

"God does not exist."
Not everything you said above is true, thus the foundation for this conclusion is broken.

Point #3
"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."

God created time, thus he exists outside the bound of it. Since he is not under the laws of time, and is omnipresent, he is thus in all places, at all time periods, all the time. He's not making a choice, even though he knows what will happen: From the perspective from a being that exists outside of time, it already happened. God makes his own choices, and he already made them all.

[1] - Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. "Anything" includes things we cannot wrap our heads around. Since God created the laws of logic, he exists outside of them, and can thus do things that we call "logical" and "illogical". If he cannot do things we cannot compehend (Like lifting an unliftable rock), then God is not omnipotent. To say God cannot lift an unliftable rock is to bind Omnipotence to things that are only logically possible, which contradicts the very definition of omnipotent.

(I addressed that because I feel it may be brought up).

Argument 1: God's Existence
-Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
It has never been observed otherwise, and it is illogical to say things can begin to exist without a cause.

-The Universe has a beginning.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the expansion of the Universe show that the Universe had a beginning.

-Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The first two premises are correct, thus this conclusion is correct.

The cause of this Universe, whatever it may be, must exist outside the boundaries set in the Universe, which includes: Time, Matter, and Logic.

Therefore, the cause of the Universe is timeless (Eternal & Unchanged), matterless (Immaterial), and not bound by logic, meaning it can do things that are both logical and illogical (Omnipotent). Since the cause is omnipotent, the cause could possibly also be Omnipresent and Omniscient.

The cause of the Universe is: Eternal, Unchanged, Immaterial, Omnipotent, and could be Omniscient and Omnipresent (Since the cause is omnipotent, the cause can be those things things as well)

It also must be personal, based on the rules of Cause & Effect. If something impersonal, eternal, and unchangeble is the cause of something, then the effect should also be eternal and unchanged (A personal being with free-will does not apply to this: They can, out of their own will, spontaneously create a new effect without prior determining conditions. One example used is this - Someone who has been sitting on a chair from eternity, can stand up if they want to, and thus there is a new effect come from an eternally existent cause. An impersonal thing is only stuck with an eternal Universe. If you were to say a Personal being would also apply to what I said about an impersonal cause, then the Universe wouldn't exist right now: Since neither a personal or impersonal being could cause the Universe in that case). This means that an Impersonal thing cannot be the cause of the Universe, because we know the Universe has a beginning, and is subject to change.

Something is either personal or it isn't: There is no middle ground. Since the cause of the Universe logically cannot be impersonal, the cause must logically be personal.

How is God defined in the Christian world-view? An Eternal, Immaterial (1 Timothy 1:17), unchangeable (Malachi 3:6), omnipotent (Matthew 19:26), omniscient (1 John 3:20), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10 & Proverbs 15:3), and personal (God has a will - 2 Peter 3:9, gets angry - Revelation 19:15, etc) cause of the Universe (Genesis 1:1)

Argument 2: Proof of Christianity
Science-
Said the Earth was circular hundreds of years before it was dicovered - Isaiah 40:22 (There was no Hebrew word for Sphere).
Said the Earth hung upon nothing thousands of years before it was dicovered - Job 26:7
Said that wind in cyclones - Ecclesiastes 1:6
Said that that blood is the source of life (People used to bleed people to heal them after this was written) - Leviticus 17:11
Said that Oceabs have springs - Job 38:16

Historical-
Jesus' existence - http://www.gotquestions.org...

Jesus' miracles - http://www.inquisitr.com... (The Historians didn't deny the miracles)

Prophecy of the going forth of the Messiah (It was written before Jesus' life) - Daniel 9:25 (http://www.khouse.org...)

Jesus not a pagan myth - https://www.youtube.com... (You don't need to look at this whole video obviously - I understand that it is too long)

Extra/Not complete proof-
Changed lives from accepting Jesus
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Con


Thank you very much for that response Pro. (Watch out for your grammar and typos for I noticed a lot.)


Rebuttal:


“I don't want to delete all of that and write a new thing for arguments only, so I am leaving it there. Forgive me!”


By writing your rebuttals, you give yourself an unfair advantage in this debate. Even if you did somehow, accidently forget the rules, you could have just saved your work and used it in your next response, you did not have to delete them all. I would like to forgive you, but you broke the rules and gave yourself an unfair advantage that has to be penalized.


“God created everything perfect, without any flaw.”


You are suggesting that everything is perfect. This is completely false since nothing is perfect.


“Part of the perfection of his creation is that man had free-will, and thus could corrupt the world.”


This sentence is hilarious. Please read it again. “Part of the perfection of his creation is that man had free-will, and thus could corrupt the world.Are you serious? You think that it’s perfect that man corrupts the world. This is not perfect; for God even regrets making man.


“The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth.” Genesis 6:6


"I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them" Genesis 6:6-7


What you said is completely, completely foolish.


“This is completely illogical. You cannot apply human standards like that to God Almighty.”


Ok… first of all, I can, and I will since God is extremely similar to humans.


"And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Genesis 1:27


Secondly, I don’t think you read what I wrote; perfect things are always exaggerations of an ideal. Therefore God is an exaggeration of an ideal, thus nonexistent.


“See the first sentence I typed out.”


Your first sentence is:


“Note: I am writing this after I typing my rebuttals.”


Besides the grammatical error, I don’t understand how this defeats my argument.


“You have to assume God's intention in creating the Universe to say this and/or see first sentence.”


I see your first sentence again and do not see it defeating anything. Also scripture tells us that God created the universe for the purpose of his own glorification.


“God chose us in him before the foundation of the world . . . to the praise of the glory of his grace” (Ephesians 1:4–6).


“You have to assume God's intention in creating the Universe to say this and/or see first sentence.”


You say the exact same thing twice and the second doesn’t even defeat the argument.


“You have to assume God's intention in creating the Universe to say this and/or see the first sentence.”


You say the same thing three times now, really pathetic.


“Since God is omnipotent, he has the power to understand what the feelings of immoral actions are without doing them.”


This is completely false. It’s like you are saying that there can be a married bachelor. It is contradictory, false, fallacy. What you say is completely false.


“Not everything you said above is true, thus the foundation for this conclusion is broken.”


Everything I said is true and your only argument against it was what I just defeated previously.


“God created time, thus he exists outside the bound of it.”


Where’s your evidence that God created time. Or that he lives outside it. Do not make wild claims that cannot be supported by evidence.


“Since he is not under the laws of time, and is omnipresent, he is thus in all places, at all time periods, all the time. He's not making a choice, even though he knows what will happen: From the perspective from a being that exists outside of time, it already happened. God makes his own choices, and he already made them all.”


I believe the bolded parts defeat your entire argument.


“Since God created the laws of logic, he exists outside of them,”


Yet again; where’s your evidence, do not make foolish claims.


“The cause of this Universe, whatever it may be, must exist outside the boundaries set in the Universe, which includes: Time, Matter, and Logic.”


Why must this cause exist outside of the universe? Please explain why this must be.


“Something is either personal or it isn't: There is no middle ground. Since the cause of the Universe logically cannot be impersonal, the cause must logically be personal.”


This does not prove God’s existence at all. I even said in the beginning that God was a personal being.


“Said the Earth was circular hundreds of years before it was dicovered - Isaiah 40:22 (There was no Hebrew word for Sphere).”


The church actually taught that the Earth was flat.


The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” –Ferdinand Magellan


The rest of Pro’s argument is a whole bunch of links. I will not read any of them because they are not arguments. You do not understand how a debate works. You do not come, post a whole bunch of links and say those are your arguments.


Arguments:


God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. Also remember that; personal beings have free will.


To have free will, you must have more than one option that you can choose from. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty while deciding on the choice, you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you cannot claim to know what will happen.


A being that knows everything cannot have uncertainty. This being knows what will happen in advance. This means that the being 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.


You may object that God, being omnipotent, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. Therefore God cannot exist.



Many Christians state that God is an all-powerful being as my opponent does himself. Yet the very idea of a being that is all powerful does not make philosophical sense. Therefore we know that an all-powerful being could not exist for these reasons.




  • An all-powerful being can do anything hence all-powerful.




  • Therefore an all-powerful being can do anything, including: being a married bachelor, an atheist theist, a beautifully ugly girl, etc.




  • These things are impossible to be.




  • Therefore omnipotence is impossible.




  • God does not exist.




Conclusion:


My opponent has purposely cheated and therefore given himself an unfair advantage throughout the entire debate. This should be penalized. I have defeated my opponent’s rebuttals as well as his arguments.




Esiar

Pro

"you could have just saved your work and used it in your next response"
It's impossible on the device I am on.

"You think that it's perfect that man corrupts the world. This is not perfect; for God even regrets making man."
No, I don't think the corruption of the world is perfect. I am saying that God giving man free-will is the best possible thing God could have done, since God is perfect.

Genesis 6:6-7 says man GRIEVED God, and that he is SORRY (sad) that he made them. This does not mean giving free-will wasn't the best possible thing God could have done, it only means man's sin grieved God.

"Okay... first of all, I can, and I will since God is extremely similar to humans."
Humans are imperfect. God is perfect. If nothing man-made or man itself is imperfect, it doesn't effect God's perfection in the slightest. When it says God made man in his image, it is speaking of 1) The trinity and 2) Man's soul. We are 3 (Soul Spirit Mind) and one as God is, we are creative and intelligent as God is, and we have dominion over all the creatures of the Earth as God has dominion over everything.

Point #1
First sentence = First sentence on point #1 = God created everything perfect, without any flaw. Part of the perfection of his creation is that man had free-will, and thus could corrupt the world.

God created everything in the best way possible, and giving man free-will was the best thing God could have possibly done. Thus God retains his perfection. Thus your argument is invalid.

Point #2
You said, "This is completely false. It"s like you are saying that there can be a married bachelor. It is contradictory, false, fallacy. What you say is completely false.".

It is not like a marrired bachelor, it is simple logic. God can do anything, therefore God can know what sin feels like without sinning. Thus your argument is invalid.

Point #3
"Where"s your evidence that God created time. Or that he lives outside it."
The Universe is bound by time. God created the Universe. Therefore, God is not bound by time (Thus meaning he lives outside of it). Since God is not bound by time, and is omnipresent, he is everywhere, at every time period, all the time.

This means, that to say, "this means that the being has no potential to avoid its choices", is inaccurate, because it doesn't fit within the nature of God, thus meaning that it cannot be used as a valid argument against the existence of God.

Argument #1
You asked for the proof that God exists outside of the bounds of logic: The Universe is bound by the rules of logic. God created the Universe. Therefore, God is not bound by the rules of logic.

You also asked why the cause of the Universe must exist outside of the Universe: If the cause of the Universe didn't exist outside of the Universe, the Universe would exist before it was created, which is impossible. Therefore, the cause must exist outside of the Universe.

I said, "Something is either personal or it isn't: There is no middle ground. Since the cause of the Universe logically cannot be impersonal, the cause must logically be personal.", and you said, "This does not prove God"s existence at all. I even said in the beginning that God was a personal being.".

I was explanation why the eternal, unchangeable, immaterial, omnipotent cause of the Universe must be a personal being. God is defined as an eternal, unchangeble, immaterial, omnipotent cause of the Universe, and the cause of the Universe must have those attributes, therefore, God exists.

Argument 2
1) The Church is not the Bible.
2) If I put what all the links said in text, it would go past the word limit: So links were needed. They are the exact same arguments either way.

Your Re-New Argument
I can simply qoute myself to answer it: The Universe is bound by time. God created the Universe. Therefore, God is not bound by time (Thus meaning he lives outside of it). Since God is not bound by time, and is omnipresent, he is everywhere, at every time period, all the time.

This means, that to say, "this means that the being has no potential to avoid its choices", is inaccurate, because it doesn't fit within the nature of God, thus meaning that it cannot be used as a valid argument against the existence of God.

Your New Argument
"You may object that God, being omnipotent, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. Therefore God cannot exist."

2 solutions to this one:

1) This was already answered.
The Universe is bound by time. God created the Universe. Therefore, God is not bound by time (Thus meaning he lives outside of it). Since God is not bound by time, and is omnipresent, he is everywhere, at every time period, all the time.

This means, that to say, "then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it", is inaccurate, because it doesn't fit within the nature of God, thus meaning that it cannot be used as a valid argument against the existence of God.

2) You are down playing omnipotence.
I could also object that God, being omnipotent, can change his mind and not change his mind at the same time.

An omnipotent being can do ANYTHING.
These things are included in ANYTHING: Being a married bachelor, and a Theist Atheist.
These things are not impossible to do for a being that can do ANYTHING.
Therefore, omnipotence is possible.
Therefore, an omnipotent being can exist.

Conclusion: Con cannot read my mind, and thus cannot determine if I purposely cheated. I believe liars go to the lake of fire, therefore I have no reason to lie about whether I purposefully cheated or not. There is no unfair advantage, because the arguments wil sink or float by themselves anyway. If Con cannot refute my points properly, he will lose.
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Con

Thank you for that response Pro, I will wrap up my debate.

“No, I don't think the corruption of the world is perfect. I am saying that God giving man free-will is the best possible thing God could have done, since God is perfect.”

First of all; where is your evidence that God is perfect? Secondly, the very idea that God gave man free-will is completely stupid. If a God exists at all, then it is impossible for anything to have free-will. A god is omniscient, knows past, present, future. Since God knows what happens in the future, it is fixed; you cannot change it, no free-will. So the idea that God gives you free-will, is completely idiotic.

“we are creative and intelligent as God is”

God is all-knowing, means he knows everything. Assuming you do not know everything then you are not as intelligent as God. An intelligent person can probably tell that this sentence is idiotic. Moving on…

“God created everything in the best way possible,”

This is completely wrong. What about cancer in children that takes thousands of innocent children’s lives, that was God’s perfect design. What about the millions of innocent families that are swept apart because of tsunamis, that was God’s perfect design too. What about ALS, a horrible disease that slowly paralyzes the innocent victim leaving him/her, trapped within their mind without escape except death? Thank God for his perfect design. If God exists, then he will have to beg for my forgiveness.

“It is not like a marrired bachelor, it is simple logic. God can do anything, therefore God can know what sin feels like without sinning. Thus your argument is invalid.”

Yes it is like a married bachelor. If God was omnipotent, then he can do anything, anything includes being a married bachelor. Being a married bachelor is impossible as you know, therefore omnipotence is impossible, and God cannot exist. Saying that you can know what sin is like without sinning is idiotic. It’s like saying that you can know what it’s like to see, without ever seeing. It’s impossible, I’m not sure how you don’t understand that being a married bachelor is impossible. I just don’t understand why you keep denying the stupidest things.

“The Universe is bound by time. God created the Universe. Therefore, God is not bound by time (Thus meaning he lives outside of it). Since God is not bound by time, and is omnipresent, he is everywhere, at every time period, all the time.”

Ok, I directly ask you for evidence:

Where’s your evidence that God created time. Or that he lives outside it?”

And you provide no evidence. Where’s your evidence that God created the universe? Where’s the evidence that God is not bound by time? Where’s your evidence that he lives outside it? Where’s your evidence that God is everywhere? Do not make all these claims without any evidence or they have no value at all. You will lose this debate if you continue to evade honest questions.

“You asked for the proof that God exists outside of the bounds of logic: The Universe is bound by the rules of logic. God created the Universe. Therefore, God is not bound by the rules of logic.”

This is just pathetic. You say you will provide proof of your claims, I read the proof, and it’s just more wild claims not backed by any evidence. Where’s the evidence that God created the universe? Where’s your evidence that God is not bound by the rules of logic?

“I was explanation why the eternal, unchangeable, immaterial, omnipotent cause of the Universe must be a personal being. God is defined as an eternal, unchangeble, immaterial, omnipotent cause of the Universe, and the cause of the Universe must have those attributes, therefore, God exists.”

Why must the creator of the universe have these traits, provide evidence.

“If I put what all the links said in text, it would go past the word limit: So links were needed. They are the exact same arguments either way.”

If you run out of room, then you run out of room for your arguments and you can only post as many arguments as fit. It would be unfair if I came and posted 100 links to different arguments that I did not create myself and say, “Here, read all these because I can’t type them out myself.” I’m debating you, not your links. Understand how a debate works before you do one.

“An omnipotent being can do ANYTHING.
These things are included in ANYTHING: Being a married bachelor, and a Theist Atheist.
These things are not impossible to do for a being that can do ANYTHING.
Therefore, omnipotence is possible.
Therefore, an omnipotent being can exist.”

I think any intelligent person would realize how idiotic this is and that it just makes my opponent look like a fool.

“If Con cannot refute my points properly, he will lose.”

My opponent then ends his argument properly with a threat. Says the one that cheated and posted his rebuttals in a quite improperly manner.

Arguments:

I will make my arguments short for this debate is so one-sided.

At the point of the Big Bang, all of the matter of the universe was in one spot. In this one spot was the entire universe, all of time, energy and space was bound in one spot. Therefore there was no time outside of the universe. God did not create the universe for there is no time outside of the universe, therefore he did not have any time to create it.

Conclusion:

This has been a boring debate and it is time to get it over with. My opponent has obviously cheated and given himself an unfair advantage over me in the entire debate. This will obviously be penalized in the voting section greatly. My opponent has also obviously made the most grammatical errors, making him penalized again in the voting section. Those are the only two obvious indicators that I will win on. I believe that I have had the better arguments based on evidence and truth while my opponents arguments are based on claims or just links to websites that argue for him. As far as citations, I honestly did not use any other sites, I just used my Bible on my Nook as a resource that was obvious in my arguments and does not need a citation. The only other area of voting is civility which should probably be used for the penalizing of my opponents cheating.

Therefore I conclude my debate and look forward to its outcome.

Esiar

Pro

Point 1
In your original point, you were talking about a perfect God. You set out to show why a perfect God couldn't exist. I refuted that. We were talking about a perfect God either way, and thus I do not need to prove that God must be perfect. Besides, It's impossible to prove anyway.

As for your point regarding that free-will is impossible with an omniscient God: This is completely illogical. You are forgetting that God is omnipotent as well. You are literally saying an omnipotent being cannot do something by saying God cannot give us free-will and still be omnipotent.

"God is all-knowing, means he knows everything. Assuming you do not know everything then you are not as intelligent as God"
I didn't say we were as intelligent as God is, but that we are also smart, as (Not that we are smart exactly like God) is smart. I.e., we are the most intelligent species on Earth, as God is the most intelligent being in the Universe.

"This is completely wrong. What about cancer in children that takes thousands of innocent children’s lives, that was God’s perfect design. What about the millions of innocent families that are swept apart because of tsunamis, that was God’s perfect design too. What about ALS, a horrible disease that slowly paralyzes the innocent victim leaving him/her, trapped within their mind without escape except death? Thank God for his perfect design. If God exists, then he will have to beg for my forgiveness."

Don't you remember your original point? You said, "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.".

This means, whatever thing God does is perfect. God gave man free will (See my first point), thus giving man free-will was the best thing that could have been done. But, since God knew this best choice would result in the things mentioned above, God gave his Son to save us from sin, so that after death, none of those things will exist any longer.

Point 2
"Yes it is like a married bachelor. If God was omnipotent, then he can do anything, anything includes being a married bachelor. Being a married bachelor is impossible as you know, therefore omnipotence is impossible, and God cannot exist."

God is omnipotent, so he can do anything. Anything includes being a married bachelor. Therefore being a married bachelor is not impossible for God. Therefore an omnipotent God can exist.

You are treating omnipotence as if it can only include things that humans can wrap their heads around: This doesn't take into account the very definition of omnipotence, but downscales it to pseudo-omnipotence, therefore it cannot be used as an argument against a genuinely omnipotent God.

"Saying that you can know what sin is like without sinning is idiotic. It’s like saying that you can know what it’s like to see, without ever seeing. It’s impossible, I’m not sure how you don’t understand that being a married bachelor is impossible. I just don’t understand why you keep denying the stupidest things."

Again, God is omnipotent. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Anything includes seeing without eyes and being a married bachelor. It is impossible for a human to do these things, since they are bound by the rules of logic, but an omnipotent being is not bound by the rules of logic (If an omnipotent being was boundby logic, it wouldn't even be omnipotent). Therefore an omnipotent being can do those things.


Point 3
"Where’s your evidence that God created the universe?"
This is like saying, "What is your evidence that a bachelor isn't married?". God is defined as the creator of the Universe, so you are literally asking, "What is the proof that the creator of the Universe created the Universe?". The answer is simple: There's a reason he is called the creator of the Universe.

"Where’s the evidence that God is not bound by time?"
We are debating about the Christian God. The Christian God is defined as eternal.

"Where’s your evidence that he lives outside it?"
Since he is not bound by it, he can live outside of it.

"Where’s your evidence that God is not bound by the rules of logic?"
Again, we are discussing the Christian God. Nothing is impossible with this God (Mark 10:27), meaning he can do anything. Anything includes things outside of logic. Therefore, he is bound by the rules of logic. This argument also goes the exact same with time & matter.

"I think any intelligent person would realize how idiotic this is and that it just makes my opponent look like a fool."
I know any intelligent person would realize you are not going by the actual definition of omnipotence - The ability to do anything. And besides that point, you didn't even address it, you only called it idiotic and said I'm making myself look like a fool.

Side Point: "My opponent then ends his argument properly with a threat. Says the one that cheated and posted his rebuttals in a quite improperly manner."

It wasn't a threat, it was simple logic. If someone can't refute the other side's arguments, that person will lose the debate.

Argument
"Therefore there was no time outside of the universe."
I've been saying this since Round 2. Thank you for finally agreeing.

"God did not create the universe for there is no time outside of the universe, therefore he did not have any time to create it."
God doesn't need time to create it. He is omnipotent. It instantly happened because there was no time. This goes into the personal argument.

Conclusion
My opponent has actually given some of the best arguments against the existence of God I have seen so far. There's just slight logical holes in all of them, such as bounding a being that can do anything to merely only being able to do things we can comprehend.

In terms of cheating, again, I have no reason to lie about it, as I will never say that I purposely cheated ( (Unless I lie about and say I did cheat... But see what I say below) and will never repent of saying that it was only a mistake. I would be damning myself to a Lake of Fire for unrepentant sin.

In terms of linking websites, the arguments are the exact same ones that I would have brought up anyway, thus they are the same. The links say what I would have said. It's like someone talking for me... I could understand my opponent's point if all I did was post links, but not only a few of them. Their example of 100's of links inaccurate, because I wasn't only debating with links.

I don't know if I will win, since this website is full of Atheists, and many Atheists commonly don't have the sense to look into arguments, but when refutating them, the argument they are refuting refutes their rebuttal (I.e., my opponent's point that everything a perfect God must do is perfect, his point on married bachelors, and the one on Big Bang.

Comments
Here is why I personally think people wilfully become Atheists:
They have done abominable works, and, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So they condemn themselves.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.



Debate Round No. 4
127 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheism_Debater 1 year ago
Atheism_Debater
HEllo
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
Not a very critical examination of your sources =P
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
Mistake by me then. :-P
Posted by ZakOak 1 year ago
ZakOak
Why does Pro use an article about Jesus miracles by first century historian, that is admitted to be hoax in article itself?
Posted by Beagle_hugs 1 year ago
Beagle_hugs
I was pretty careful in my reading of the debate and will stand by my assessment of what could be improved.

As far as voting is concerned, I don't like the voting system. Technically, a person should get the "reliable sources" vote if he used the most reliable sources, even if his use of those sources was completely wrong. That doesn't make sense to me. Also, the voting system is flawed. A few voters shouldn't be able to decide anything except in cases of an obvious victory. When both sides of the debate are of similar quality, people who believe the vote is tied might not vote, and even if they do vote, their vote is meaningless. There should be a way to weigh ties so that a few points one way or another does not decide a heavily voted debate.

As far as the quality of debates, I'm considering whether this is a waste of my time. There aren't many OPs that I see that are interesting to debate. There are frequent problems with the way an OP is constructed in terms of ambiguity or in terms of a person trying to guarantee himself a win. Debate itself is not very intelligent, and usually taking the trouble to carefully present a round will result in the opponent forfeiting. Add to this that the elites have an attitude about their prowess and who merits a contest with them...in real life I've seen and done work that is more impressive on a daily basis. So, this is really getting to feel like a waste of time, not an adequate substitute for the engagement that fades at certain times in life.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
I reported it too. At the very least it seems like reported votes are dealt with.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
OK, the faulty vote is gone.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
Like this guy:
http://www.debate.org...
Is purposefully voting for one user all 7 points, just typing "k" as his RFD. I've reported him and his votes yet nothing has been done. System needs to be fixed.
Posted by hayhen13 1 year ago
hayhen13
I agree.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
Sad truth.
Many of the newer members just state their opinion in a debate and forfeit the last 2 rounds, excellent noobsniping potential. As well they often vote based on opinion rather than a measure of both sides' arguments. It's a flawed system that needs to be fixed.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Prescott 1 year ago
Prescott
hayhen13EsiarTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: The best conduct goes to pro because con's constant complaining about Pro cheating, while true, came off as whiny and unbecoming. I read the rules, I know Pro violated them, I understand being told once by Con, but being told every round was over the top especially for Con's final conclusion. Spelling and grammar definitely goes to Con. Pro, don't debate on devices that vastly limit your abilities and then complain about it. Instead wait until you can debate on adequate devices or just become better at utilizing your limited device. Convincing arguments goes to Con by default. Pro's arguments were self contradictory, at times incomplete (see end of round 2), and often they were baseless assertions they refused or were unable to backup. I also have to give Con the most reliable sources vote. Even though both sides referenced the bible, Pro used several dubious sources in round 2.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 1 year ago
MrJosh
hayhen13EsiarTied
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: Sources and S&G are really non-issues here. PRO loses conduct for not following the rules of the debate. CON wins arguments because PRO did not really rebut them, he simply claimed that they were wrong. Also, many of PRO's arguments are not even arguments, they are claims with a link to someone else who makes the argument.
Vote Placed by Beagle_hugs 1 year ago
Beagle_hugs
hayhen13EsiarTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
21MolonLabe
hayhen13EsiarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Can had better spelling and grammar. Both Pro and Con gave strong arguments. When rebutting, most of Con's rebuttals was calling Pro's arguments idiotic, which is why I gave Pro the points for Conduct and Arguments. Pro is the only one that used sources, but this argument was based more so on logic rather that hard evidence, so I gave those points to neither.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
hayhen13EsiarTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Noted Pro's break from format by posting rebuttals in R2, however he was sincere. I would have just disregarded those rebuttals but Con engaged in them, as such the arguments became live. Furthermore Con demonstrated contemptible conduct throughout this entire debate, frequently insulting/mocking Pro and his arguments, and a Pealing to voter incredulity. The condescending tone taken throughout the entire debate by Con was also noted, and even went as far as to affect the legitimacy of his arguments. Continued in comments.
Vote Placed by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
hayhen13EsiarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments: Summary of RFD: Pro loses conduct points for knowingly making illegal rebuttals in R2 (and especially for making pathetic excuses for it) and for trying to make arguments by posting a series of links instead of making their own arguments. Pro loses spelling and grammar for obvious reasons. If we are to judge a debate by quality of logical reasoning, refuatation of the opponent's arguments, and support of claims through evidence and logic, then this debate was heavily one-sided in favour of Con. Something that suprises me about Pro is the belief that god defies logic, yet the existence of a god that defies logic can be logically derived. I.e., the belief that we can logically derive a conclusion that is logically incoherent and logically impossible by definition. This is a logical issue that Pro needs to address.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
hayhen13EsiarTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments :)
Vote Placed by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
hayhen13EsiarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.