The Instigator
LogicalMaddog
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
baylieboo22
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points

The Judeo-Christian god exists

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 5 votes the winner is...
LogicalMaddog
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,231 times Debate No: 33418
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

LogicalMaddog

Con

First of all, both sides have the burden of proof. My opponent must prove that the Judeo-Christian god exists while I must prove that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist.

This debate will follow the given setup. If the setup is not followed, it will be an automatic forfeit on the person's part. The first round is simply acceptance, definitions, and the rules. The second round will be simply the opening arguments for the position given. There will be no rebuttals in this round. The third round will be cross-examination only No arguments or rebuttals will be given this round. The fourth round will comprise of simply rebuttals to the former argument and the arguments from cross-examination. The fifth round will be the conclusion and the ending of all arguments. No new arguments will be given.

Now, the rules must be followed or it is an automatic forfeit for the person. Sources must be given for each round. There will be no semantics, trolling, or any sort of other misconduct.

Second of all, I will be giving the definitions. The Judeo-Christian concept of god is that he is the supreme being with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and divine simplicity.

With that said, we shall begin this debate in round two.
baylieboo22

Pro

I accept!

Since you provided the definition of Judeo-Christian God, I don't really feel the need to repeat that one.

Definitions:
Exist- To have real being whether material or spiritual

I'm really looking forward to this debate! Good luck!

Soures:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
LogicalMaddog

Con

Contention #1 - The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil, made by Epicurus, is outlined here -


1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect.

2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

3. If God is omniscient, then God knows where evil takes place.

4. If God is omnipresent, then God is wherever evil is.

5. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

6. Evil exists.

7. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil.

Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

As given by my definition of the Judeo-Christian concept of god, he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. These traits lead to the fact that “God” has the power to eliminate all evil, knows where evil takes place, is wherever evil is, and is obligated to eliminate evil. Evil exists, which means that the Judeo-Christian concept of a “god” does not exist. He cannot exist unless he lacks a quality given in the definition. Now, the only other possible flaw is that “evil” does not exist. However, in the Bible, it clearly says that evil exists including in James 3:16 which is a direct implication. Therefore God cannot exist because of the problem of evil.

Contention #2 – The Omnipotence Paradox

The omnipotence paradox argues that the concept of an omnipotent “god” in itself is contradictory. A simple question like “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?” explains how it is contradictory. God can either create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he can cease to be omnipotent. If God cannot create a stone which it cannot lift, then it seems it is already not omnipotent. The existence of an omnipotent entity is logically impossible and because God is an omnipotent entity, he cannot exist.


Contention #3 – The Problem of Hell

The problem of hell, unlike the problem of evil, is a wide spectrum of issues dealing with hell. I would like to first say that the concept of eternal damnation is not compatible with a just God. Human beings have a finite lifespan which means they can only commit a finite number of sins but hell is an infinite punishment. How is that justice? Justice is supposed to be “an eye for an eye” according to the Bible. Therefore, the concept of hell does not fit in with a God who delivers justice. Another issue I would like to talk about is why a merciful God would allow hell to exist. God’s infinite mercy would not allow an eternal cycle of punishment for any sinner. It not only would be cruel but also it would not be Therefore, an omnibenevolent God could not exist if hell existed. However, hell exists according to the Bible, so God cannot exist.

These three contentions are simply my opening argument for further arguments and elaborations.

Sources –

1. http://plato.stanford.edu...

2. http://bible.cc...

3. http://www.princeton.edu...

4. http://plato.stanford.edu...

baylieboo22

Pro

There are a lot of reasons people don't believe in God. There are a lot of reasons why God doesn't exist. But there is also many reasons why He does. Let's start of with the basics:



Reason 1:


The Earth is created perfectly. It’s size is perfect. If Earth was just a little smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible. If it were bigger, the atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, making it impossible to live on Earth.

The Earth is also located at the perfect distance from the sun. If it were closer, we would burn up. If farther, we would freeze. Even if we were just a smidge closer or farther to the sun, it could affect the way we live.

It also rotates on an axis, allowing the sun to warm each part of Earth everyday.

That being said, do you really believe that a “big bang” where a bunch of somethings exploded created this wonderful place we call Earth? I think not.

Some people think these are just a bunch of coincidences. Yeah, a lot of perfect coincidences.




Reason 2:


This might not be scientific, but screw it. Basically, without a God, another way the universe was created was that there was “Nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.”

So, when we die, we obviously think we just, what, disappear? Yeah, definitely. *Sarcastic smirk* That’s exactly what happens. We just “go away”. No, I don’t think so. Think about it. Really, truly think about it. Where do we go when we die? We have to go somewhere. If we are able to live, and think, and see and smell and hear, don’t you think it’s crazy for us to just, not exist anymore?




Reason 3:


Three days after His crucifixion, He rose from the dead, a fact affirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6).This record shows proof of who “Jesus Is” . As the Apostle Paul said, this thing “was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).

chapter 10, in which Joshua asks God to stop the world for . . . "about a full day!" The astronomers had happened upon proof that God controls the universe on a day-to-day basis, that the Bible is literally true, and that by extension the "myth" of creation is, in fact, a reality




Reason 4: (Actually, just a lot of little reasons)


Two rocks or any elements banging together which have no consciousness or conscience produce beings with consciousness and conscience. Really?

Something can’t come from nothing. Since the universe can’t cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator, for no other option exists. Cosmologists call this the Transcendent Causal Agent.




Since most atheist scholars concede a) Jesus was a real person, b) he really died on the cross and c) the disciples truly believed they had seen him resurrected on more than one occasion in various group settings, the burden of the proof falls on the atheist to come up with a naturalistic explanation for these facts or give His life to Christ if he were to be intellectually honest with himself.



Sources:
http://www.everystudent.com...
http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://biblocality.com...!
Debate Round No. 2
LogicalMaddog

Con

It is currently time for cross-examination. Before I elaborate, my opponent has plagiarized and has given an automatic forfeit in this debate. Plagiarism is “the act of stealing and passing off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own.” From this website, http://www.everystudent.com..., in the website’s first contention, she has copied, pasted, and edited what it said.

The exact paragraph says “The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter…”

Her plagiarized part of the argument wasThe Earth is created perfectly. It’s size is perfect. If Earth was just a little smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible. If it were bigger, the atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, making it impossible to live on Earth.”

It gives nearly the exact words of the paragraph with minor edits, additions, and deletions. I have underlined the parts of the article that were plagiarized. However, in her last argument, she also plagiarized again. The website, http://biblocality.com..., had this on its list.

The exact paragraph said:

“1) Two rocks or any elements banging together which have no consciousness or conscience produce beings with consciousness and conscience. Really?

2) …….

3) Something can’t come from nothing. Since the universe can’t cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator, for no other option exists. Cosmologists call this the Transcendent Causal Agent.

4) ……

5)....

6) Since most atheist scholars concede a) Jesus was a real person, b) he really died on the cross and c) the disciples truly believed they had seen him resurrected on more than one occasion in various group settings, the burden of the proof falls on the atheist to come up with a naturalistic explanation for these facts or give His life to Christ if he were to be intellectually honest with himself.

7) …..”

I did not want to waste character space so I “…” the parts of the article that were not plagarized.

Now her own arguments were “Two rocks or any elements banging together which have no consciousness or conscience produce beings with consciousness and conscience. Really?

Something can’t come from nothing. Since the universe can’t cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator, for no other option exists. Cosmologists call this the Transcendent Causal Agent.


Since most atheist scholars concede a) Jesus was a real person, b) he really died on the cross and c) the disciples truly believed they had seen him resurrected on more than one occasion in various group settings, the burden of the proof falls on the atheist to come up with a naturalistic explanation for these facts or give His life to Christ if he were to be intellectually honest with himself.”

Anyways, at first, for the first reason, I was a bit skeptical if you were actually plagiarizing or not but this is a clear act of plagiarizing. I declare this debate to be officially over because any debater can tell you plagiarism is an act of misconduct. You have ruined this debate and the quality of it.

baylieboo22

Pro

Hmm...I was under the impression we were debating the existence of God, not if I plagiarized. And, for the record, I didn't. I cited my sources and gave credit to the author. So, I used some of the same things and wording, but at least I cited where I got it from. Also, I don't remember you saying anything about plagiarizing in the rules.


"First of all, both sides have the burden of proof. My opponent must prove that the Judeo-Christian god exists while I must prove that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist.

This debate will follow the given setup. If the setup is not followed, it will be an automatic forfeit on the person's part. The first round is simply acceptance, definitions, and the rules. The second round will be simply the opening arguments for the position given. There will be no rebuttals in this round. The third round will be cross-examination only No arguments or rebuttals will be given this round. The fourth round will comprise of simply rebuttals to the former argument and the arguments from cross-examination. The fifth round will be the conclusion and the ending of all arguments. No new arguments will be given.

Now, the rules must be followed or it is an automatic forfeit for the person. Sources must be given for each round. There will be no semantics, trolling, or any sort of other misconduct.

Second of all, I will be giving the definitions. The Judeo-Christian concept of god is that he is the supreme being with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and divine simplicity.

With that said, we shall begin this debate in round two"


Did I give sources, yes. Did I troll, no. I followed the rules, so how the heck can you say I didn't follow the rules? It says nothing about "plagiarizing". You can't call off the debate when you clearly didn't address the rules specifically. So excuse me. I didn't do anything against the rules. Calm your crap, bud. I just wanted a friendly debate, but obviously, i'm not getting that. Fine, I forfeit, vote for con, LogicalMaddog.
Debate Round No. 3
LogicalMaddog

Con

We were debating the existence of God but you gave an automatic forfeit by breaking the rules presented. You did technically cite sources and give credit to the authors but you also copied and pasted other people's work. You have to quote the copied and pasted arguments. Even though you gave credit to the websites, you did not quote the arguments which meant that the arguments were supposed to be yours rather than someone else's. You copied and pasted the exact arguments from your last source which is ultimately the reason why the debate ended.

I said "Sources must be given for each round. There will be no semantics, trolling, or any sort of other misconduct." Plagarism is a form of misconduct in debate. Therefore, you were breaking the rules. Therefore, it was an automatic forfeit in your part. My opponent has already automatically forfeited which means that you should vote for Con.
baylieboo22

Pro

baylieboo22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LogicalMaddog

Con

My opponent has forfeited. Vote Con.
baylieboo22

Pro

baylieboo22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 3 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I'm sorry, but reading this debate almost made my eyes bleed.
Posted by sagacity 3 years ago
sagacity
faith is only required in the absence of evidence.
Posted by CierraNicole 3 years ago
CierraNicole
Ever heard of FAITH???
Posted by CierraNicole 3 years ago
CierraNicole
God is real!
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
Also, using the Bible as proof of god is like using the book Peter pan to prove neverland.
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
"The Earth is created perfectly " no it is not. Its atmosphere and size have nothing to do with how it wascreated..in fact wwhen the earth formed it was not habitable at all. Once life was capable, it would have still been unsuitable for life as we know it, hydrogen, methane and nitrogen were more prevalent than breathable oxygen. We could not have live on the planet when it was formed. There are constant discoveries of planets similar to ours, earth is not that special.
Posted by baylieboo22 3 years ago
baylieboo22
Woah, my bad, reason 3 is kinda screwed up............I meant to take the last part out.......
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
LogicalMaddogbaylieboo22Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Plagiarized. When corrected, she defended her plagiarizing by saying, "Also, I don't remember you saying anything about plagiarizing in the rules." Plagiarizing is cheating. Full forfeit.
Vote Placed by Diirez 3 years ago
Diirez
LogicalMaddogbaylieboo22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better conduct and sources.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
LogicalMaddogbaylieboo22Tied
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: Forfeit or plagiarism (take your pick). I'm skeptical to believe Pro intentionally plagiarized, rather she didn't understand how to correctly cite quotable pieces of information. However, plagiarism is still plagiarism. Lesson learned, moving on. Edit: It's been brought to my attention that my RFD doesn't thoroughly explain each of my points, so I'll elaborate. Conduct and arguments go together for forfeiture and/or plagiarism. Reliable sources go to Con as well, since the only sources Pro used were plagiarized; but getting past that, Con's sources are well respected institutions while Pro's were not-so-much. S&G was meant to go to Pro, that was my mistake (If I remember right, it was two mistakes to one, or something along those lines). Any further clarifications, feel free to ask in the comments.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
LogicalMaddogbaylieboo22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering natoast
Vote Placed by natoast 3 years ago
natoast
LogicalMaddogbaylieboo22Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Not for plagiarism or forfeiting, but because round two was really, really bad.