The Instigator
Tophatdoc
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Lupricona
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Personal God Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,391 times Debate No: 43455
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

Tophatdoc

Pro

This debate is about whether the personal god exists. I as the Pro side, will be arguing that the personal god does not exist. The burden of proof is on my side to show that the personal god does not exist."Doge's Debate Rules" are applied to this debate.

Doge's Debate Rules:
1. All sources that are going to be used in the debate must be submitted in the first round. The only exception is the definitions of words being provided.The same amount of sources are limited on both sides. The maximum amount of sources in this debate is 10.

2. The debate is limited to 5,000 characters per round.

3. Both parties have 72 hours to respond.

4. Any insult utilized will result an automatic forfeit of the debate.

5. After the first round neither Pro nor Con can comment in the comment section. If this happens this results in the loss of the conduct point for the party that did this.

6. Any forfeit of a round results an in automatic loss of the debate.

7.Debate Structure:
-Round 1) Acceptance and sources are submitted.
-Round 2)Opening Arguments
-Round 3)Rebuttals-Round
-Round 4)Closing Arguments. No new evidence is allowed to be presented. Otherwise it is an automatic forfeit of all points.

My sources:
1. The Origin and Development of Religious Belief by Sabine-Baring Gould
2. http://ftp.iza.org...
3. http://plato.stanford.edu...
4. The Bible
5. http://www.christianitytoday.com...
6. Also Sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
7. Jenseits von Gut und Böse by Friedrich Nietzsche
8.http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
9.http://atheism.about.com...
10.http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...

Leave a comment in the comments section confirming that you accept the rules of the debate and that you are interested in debating.

Explanation of the source rules:The source rules benefit everyone who has read the debate rules so far because you have the chance to formulate your argument based off my sources. I am the party disadvantaged as a result of this not the challenger. It is more than fair for my opponent considering they can develop an argument against me based off the sources I have provided. The source rules are based off the "right of evidence" where evidence must be disclosed in preliminary hearings in court. Therefore the source point will automatically be tied.
Lupricona

Con

I accept the debate and look forward to a thought-provoking discussion.

Sources

1. The Bible

2. Gary Habermas, The Case for the Resurrected Jesus

3. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

4. http://www.wnd.com...

These four sources will be sufficient for my argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Tophatdoc

Pro

I would like to thank Pro for accepting this challenge.I will make this explicitly clear now, this debate is not about the existence of god or of multiple gods. But instead this a debate about a the existence of a personal god.A personal god which intervenes in human affairs.The resolution refers to does the personal god exist in the current point in time(not has a personal god ever existed).For the sake of my opponent(who is a Christian) I will be arguing against the personal god we see in the Abrahamic religions.

The following reasons are why the personal god does not exist:

1.The Personal God came into existence long after human beings came into existence.
The exact date of a monotheistic personal god came into existence in 14th century BC under the Egyptian Pharoah Akehnaten[1].Yet it is common knowledge among scientists that human beings have existed for over a 100 millenia at the very least. The concept of a personal god was asserted by one individual after this long period of time. So where was the personal god previously?We are lead to believe he was not personal previously at all.Why else would he not let anyone know of his existence?

[1]http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...

2.The Personal God has never asserted its' own existence.
The Personal God has only came into existence when a human being has chosen to written about such a figure.Yet a mouse can raid a household cabinet for food.A dog can go down the street and urinate on someone's lawn.A bear can maul a human being without hesitation.All of these creatures can act without a human being's permission but a personal god only exists when a human has decided to write about.If he is personal wouldn't he be able to interact as a live creature? I would so in the Abrahamic religions he does not.
[2]The Bible(KJV version)

3.The Personal God is an inanimate creature and not personal.
As I said above the Personal God has never spoken for itself so he must be silent and observant.Human beings have only spoken for such an entity.So how can he be personal?

4.Human beings are not rational creatures but rationalizing creatures.
As I said above in Point #2, the Personal God does not assert it's own existence. So we must examine human beings because they exclusively assert such an entity exists.First, let us understand the basic tenants of which human beings asserts and defines. The human being calls the organized noise he/she is capable of making a “language.”The human being calls the restraint of his own “behavior” “morals.” Even the names that human beings call themselves and others is exclusively asserted by the human being alone. Then the human being turns around with his vast amount of intelligence to claim what he defined is an absolute for other human beings to obey. If a personal god exists why would he be bound to a far inferior creature who must define his own existence. If human beings have defined their own existence they have also defined the existence of a personal god as well considering they must speak for said entity.Therefore the personal god can not exist because human beings must define its' existence. If human beings have to define the personal god, it is not a personal god.

6.Human beings fail to communicate with each other effectively.
Human beings who speak the same language struggle to communicate from the most complex issues to the simplest.For example,one may be discussing from an emotional standpoint while another may be speaking from a pragmatic standpoint.These two may disagree violently because they fail to understand the other sides line of reasoning.Yet human beings would struggle even more so to communicate with another human being speaking a different language.Then a human being has to observe animals in order to communicate even reasonably.So how can human beings communicate with a creature like a personal god of vast superiority?Human beings often fail to even understand their own neighbors who speak the same language so of course they would be incapable of communicating with a superior creature.

7.The Personal God does not intervene or no longer intervenes.
The Personal God if such an entity existed in the past no longer intervenes.For example,the God we see in the Old Testament in the Bible has failed to aid the Jews during the Holocaust or the Spanish Inquisition.This God has decided to stop acting in their defense or decided he does not like Jews anymore.

8.If a god or multiple gods exist they are not personal.
Instead I would argue that if a god or multiple gods exist they are passive in nature.If such a god exists he has given his message through human beings as we allegedly see in the Abrahamic religions.So he can not be personal if he is utilizing human beings to spread his message.Even in the Abrahamic religions the God never acts himself but acts through a prophet.If these events in the Bible happened under the order of a god,the god must be impersonal not personal.
Lupricona

Con

1. The Personal god came into existence long after human beings came into existence.

The link that my opponent gave was from a website that argued Akehnaten borrowed monotheism from the Jews. I don't see why he is using this source to make the statement that he is. Even if I conceded that Akenhaten was the first known person to practice monotheism, this would be an argument from ignorance, because we can't know for certain if there was anyone who practiced monotheism before him. Human history only goes so far.


I will argue in favor of the article that he posted- the Jews did practice monotheism, and it was always practiced from the beginning of mankind, as the Jews have recorded.

2.The Personal God has never asserted its' own existence.

I will concede to this to a point. Yes, Yahweh has never himself directly come to earth and asserted his existence.


Analogy time: How would a 2 dimensional being comprehend a 3 dimensional being passing through it's plane of existence?

During Moses' existence, it was explained that no one could see the face of Yahweh and live. I argue that this is why He does not come down and assert His own existence- we would not be able to survive it.

This is why God sends angels and responds to people with direct visions.

3-8

The rest of your points are pretty similar; I will address them all with my arguments for a personal God.


Miracles

If the Christian God exists, then it logically follows that miracles exist, as proclaimed by many passages in the Sciptures. So, if we see miracles today, that is consistent with the existence of a personal God, and so it is likely that God does exist.

If there were any place where we could see if miracles happen or not, I would argue that the best place would be in a hospital. 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles (http://www.wnd.com...) As people who are trained in their field would know when something happens that defies natural human biology, then if we trust the testimonies of the doctors in the survey, we can conclude that miracles do exist and happen today.


The Resurrection of Jesus

There are 12 historical facts that the majority of the skeptic historical scholars (Non-Christian scholars) concede to (Gary Habermas):





1. Jesus died by crucifixion.








2. He was buried.








3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.








4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).








5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).








6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.








7. The resurrection was the central message.








8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.








9. The Church was born and grew.








10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.








11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).








12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).













There are two options that I can see: Either the apostles saw the real resurrection of Christ, or they all hallucinated him at different times. The apostles and disciples of Jesus were martyred for their faith. They were truly convinced that they saw Jesus.

I will argue that it is more rational to believe that Jesus was actually resurrected and appeared to different people at different times than it is to believe in a similar hallucination to different people at different times. However, people will not die for a lie.

John 20: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!

Luke 24: While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

The apostles refuted the idea that they were having a hallucinatory experience. They observed physical evidence of Jesus before believing He was resurrected. Since we know that they were convinced Jesus was resurrected, and people will not die for a lie, then only one option is left: Jesus was really resurrected.


If Jesus was resurrected the personal God Yahweh exists.

Debate Round No. 2
Tophatdoc

Pro

"The link that my opponent gave was from a website that argued Akehnaten borrowed monotheism from the Jews. I don't see why he is using this source to make the statement that he is."

See quote below.
" I looked up the dates of Moses and Akenhaten. What I read, which may be inaccurate was Moses was around 1200 BC and Akhenaten 1336 BC or thereabouts......the exact date of the Exodus is fairly controversial.....My opinion, based on all I know, is that the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt was between 1420 and 1400 BC."

The exact date of Akhenaten is known and the Exodus has never been pinpointed that is why it is controversial. The author offered his opinion on when the Exodus happened to suit his wishes. Therefore we should accept the reliable date we know as a definite rather than be guessers.

"This would be an argument from ignorance...The Jews did practice monotheism, and it was always practiced from the beginning of mankind, as the Jews have recorded."

I will concede that it is an argument from ignorance.But my opponent shortly after creates his own argument from ignorance by stating that Monotheism has always been practiced since the beginning of mankind.There is no evidence to stake such a claim.

"During Moses' existence, it was explained that no one could see the face of Yahweh and live. I argue that this is why He does not come down and assert His own existence- we would not be able to survive it.....This is why God sends angels and responds to people with direct visions."

I addressed this in point #6. How can one understand one that is superior(God) when one is incapable of effectively understanding one's equals(humans) or even one's inferiors(non-human animals)?Even if angels are sent the Personal God is not acting himself. Angels being sent, only further affirms point #8 that god is impersonal and passive.

"If the Christian God exists, then it logically follows that miracles exist, as proclaimed by many passages in the Sciptures....3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles"

This is not true, see point #4.Humans are not rational creatures and are often dismissive of things they are incapable of understanding.For example, it is common for humans to appropriate the term "genius" to someone who understands concepts which they fail to understand.Human beings will call someone an "idiot" for engaging in a certain behavior they consider incompetent.The appropriation of these terms by any means does not suggest understanding at all.I would say the act of appropriating these terms is the furthest thing from understanding since it is dismissive.

"Miracles" is another dismissal for such things that human beings are incapable of understanding.So how can one reason what one does not understand or is incapable of understanding?The alleged "Miracles" that human beings claim is nothing short of tawdry behavior on the part of human beings.It does not confirm the existence of a Christian God.It only shows that human beings constantly try to save face to cover their ignorance with such terms.

"If Jesus was resurrected the personal God Yahweh exists."

No, if Jesus was resurrected it only affirms the existence of a god. The evidence Con presented has not shown whether god is personal. He only brought up the existence of Jesus of Nazareth's alleged resurrection. But Jesus was the alleged son of god according to Christianity, was he not? This only affirms more that god must be passive or impersonal as I pointed out in Point #8 since he has acted through a third party again.

Note:My opponent has disregarded the debate structure even though he accepted this debate. I am referring to how in Round 2 he offered rebuttals rwhen he supposed to be presenting only an opening argument. This should result in the loss of his conduct points.
Lupricona

Con

Pro: Note:My opponent has disregarded the debate structure even though he accepted this debate. I am referring to how in Round 2 he offered rebuttals rwhen he supposed to be presenting only an opening argument. This should result in the loss of his conduct points.

I want to point out that, in Round 1, Pro stated "The burden of proof is on my side to show that the personal god does not exist.

As the burden of proof is on my opponent, all that is necessary for me in this debate is to refute every argument that he presents. If the burden of proof was shared, then we would open with our own arguments. As Pro stated that he alone wanted the BoP, then he cannot argue that I should lose conduct points for opening with refutations. My opening arguments would be refutations when the BoP is on him. Please acknowledge this when voting.

Exodus Event/ Monotheism

It would not matter when the Exodus event occured. The Jews practices monotheism long before Moses, so this argument is irrelevant. There is evidence that Monotheism has been practices since the beginning of time. The Bible records the history. Now, my opponent and I can argue the historical accuracy of the Bible if he would like, but we have the genealogical records in the Bible. He can only cast down on this written record, not disrpove it.

Miracles

My opponent attempts to reduce miracles to ignorant people that only use miracles because of tawdry behavior. He completely missed my argument.

Doctors are professionals in the medical field. They understand human biology. They understand science. They do not claim miracles because of ignorance on medical matters. They testify that miracles exist because they see things happen that go against the natural methods of human biology. This is not an argument from ignorance- it's an argument against contradiction, that is, because it is going against nature, it must be supernatural. When there are only two options, and we cut out one option, then the other must be true. If my opponent wants to refute this, he must supply another option (besides ignorance, as I have already refuted that claim).

Jesus Proves a personal God

My opponent argues that even if Jesus was resurrected, this does not prove that God is personal. My opponent has never defined what he means by personal. I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, though. So i'll offer this: The Scriptures paint the God of Christianity as a God who interacts with humanity through means of angels, dreams, miracles, and prophets. This is the God of Christianity, and the personal God is one who interacts and cares about each person. My opponent is using semantics to refute his personal description of the Christian God.

If Christ was resurrected, then His words ring true, and the personal God Yahweh does exist. My opponent offered no rebuttals towards the argument for Christ's resurrection.
Debate Round No. 3
Tophatdoc

Pro

I will offer some explanations, a summary of debate points, and my conclusion this round.

"As Pro stated that he alone wanted the BoP, then he cannot argue that I should lose conduct points for opening with refutations. My opening arguments would be refutations when the BoP is on him. Please acknowledge this when voting."


The debate structure is effectively clear for Con to read. The burden of proof being on me as Pro has nothing to do with Con presenting opening arguments. Be it very well noted that Con should of read the debate structure of the debate before accepting the debate.To act as if it does not exist or dodging it may be considered by some to be unethical.The definition of what an "opening argument" is not for my opponent to define.There are dictionaries that do that.You won't find any of those definitions refering to a rebuttal.An opening argument refers to introductory statements only, not responses or rebuttals.

"Doctors are professionals in the medical field. They understand human biology. They understand science. They do not claim miracles because of ignorance on medical matters. They testify that miracles exist because they see things happen that go against the natural methods of human biology. This is not an argument from ignorance- it's an argument against contradiction, that is, because it is going against nature, it must be supernatural. When there are only two options, and we cut out one option, then the other must be true. If my opponent wants to refute this, he must supply another option (besides ignorance, as I have already refuted that claim)."

This is an appeal to authority.Con has not demonstrated how doctors are biologically different from other human beings. If he is not saying they are biologically different then I already addressed this in point #4 of Round 2. Human beings are not rational and they define things as they fit.If human beings have the ability to define things as they see fit then what they define is only relative to the definer.So Con can not claim he refuted anything of the sort when he did not even address or refute point #4 in Round 2.

"If Christ was resurrected, then His words ring true, and the personal God Yahweh does exist. My opponent offered no rebuttals towards the argument for Christ's resurrection."

The results Con provided don't detemine causation or the origin of a personal god.If he believes it does he must provide the proof.The conclusion of the resurrection does not affirm nor negate the existence of a personal god.This point is inconsequential.


Let us sum up the points of debate I provided in Round 2:
1.The Personal God came into existence long after human beings came into existence.
This point has been tossed out due to fallacy.

2.The Personal God has never asserted its' own existence.
Con conceded this point in Round 2.

3.The Personal God is an inanimate creature and not personal.
This point stands as is.Con was unable to refute it.

4.Human beings are not rational creatures but rationalizing creatures.
This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.

5.Human beings fail to communicate with each other effectively.
This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.

6.The Personal God does not intervene or no longer intervenes.
This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.

7.If a god or multiple gods exist they are not personal.
This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.

Conclusion:
I would like to thank Con for participating in this debate.I enjoyed it.My opponent agreed that the personal god does not assert itself in Round 2.Then I addressed in Round 2 those that assert the personal god's existence; human beings.I showed that human beings are not rational creatures and define their existence as they wish.This why the personal god can not exist because it is human beings that are defining its' existence exclusively.Even my opponent defined the behavior of god or offered a definition of said behavior in Round 3.But he admitted in Round 2 that only humans beings have asserted his existence.God must be passive if he exists, Con did not offer one ounce of evidence of how god is personal.Con offered examples of messangers of god only. That only further validates my argument further.The personal god does not exist.If you came to the conclusion that the personal god does not exist after reading this debate,Vote Pro.
Lupricona

Con

Pro's assertion for my loss of conduct point.

In a philosophical argument, when someone asserts a claim, as my opponent has done, the fallacy of ingorance occurs if the burden of proof is shifted to the challenger. My opponent set me up so that I would be in error during Round 2. I could not have argued my own position, because I am the challenger. My opponent deserves the loss of a conduct point, because he has repeated his accusation at me, while I've already explained why he is in error.

Miracles

My opponent argues that I made an appeal to authority. No. This is testimony- you cannot use fallacies when dealing with testimony. Testimony is dealt with the reliability of the witness. Doctors are a reliable witness, because they are trained in the medical field. As already stated, doctors are superior to laymen in the intelligence with human biology- they would understand when a miracle is taking place. If miracles happen, that is a direct cause from God. Therefore, a personal God exists.

Christ's Resurrection

My opponent never refuted Christ's resurrection. If Christ was resurrected, God have to have raised Him. If Christ made claims about a personal God, and then predicted that God would raise Him, and then the event happened as He said, we can trust His testimony that God is personal.


1.The Personal God came into existence long after human beings came into existence.
This point has been tossed out due to fallacy.

2.The Personal God has never asserted its' own existence.
I conceded this point in Round 2. It is also irrelevant to whether a personal God exists or not.

3.The Personal God is an inanimate creature and not personal.
The argument for Christ and miracles refute this.

4.Human beings are not rational creatures but rationalizing creatures.
This is irrelevant to the resolution.

5.Human beings fail to communicate with each other effectively.
Irrelevant to the resolution.

6.The Personal God does not intervene or no longer intervenes.
Refuted with the miracles argument.

7.If a god or multiple gods exist they are not personal.
Refuted with the Christ and miracles arguments.

Conclusion

A personal God exists. The strongest argument was the resurrection of Jesus.

Thank you for the debate, Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
In extension of my RFD; I think pro created an extremely high burden of proof on himself, which should have been easy to refute, but since con lacked the proper understanding of pro's burden of proof the arguments went unchallenged despite the fact that from Con's perspective he probably felt like he addressed each point.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD: A point on formatting: Guys, you both had some formatting issues. Pro: Please put spaces after period. Con: There were some huge gaps there in your list. Stuff like that makes it hard to read. Thus, I found S&G equal.

Conduct: I didn't see anything big enough to warrant the awarding of the point.

Sources: I found Pro to have used more, and more reliable, sources. However, this unfortunately didn't help him win Arguments, see below.

Arguments:

I'll preface this by saying that I am an atheist. However, Pro, you shot yourself in the foot when you accepted the BoP to prove your resolution. You weren't left to just question the existence, you had to prove the non-existence. And several of your points didn't even support that. The whole "origin of monotheistic god" point neither supported your position (which was specific to a personal god existing TODAY, nor was particularly supporting in gneral, since the concept of personal god/s has been around a bit longer. The argument wasn't very strong. Neither were, to be honest, many of the other arguments. Remember that your burden was to PROVE god doesn't exist. Ask yourself if any of those points, in isolation and even unrebutted, actually DISprove a personal God. I don't think so, though they are very good points in a general sense...they'd fit well if you didn't have the BoP, and were instead responding to an opponent who DID.

All in all an interesting read though. I know I sound critical, but overall good job guys.

As always, happy to clarify anything in this RFD.
Posted by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
@Tophatdoc, fair enough, I understand your position. I look forward to your debate with Lupricona.

I think the affirmative has an impossible burden to meet. One cannot prove a negative statement. You cannot prove that something does not exist., it's a logical fallacy known as a negative proof fallacy. You cannot prove nor dis-prove the existence of a personal God, especially one that by definition would be beyond natural instruments of observation.

A lack of evidence does not prove proposition false. Nor does this inability to disprove the proposition prove the proposition false. The proposition must sit indefinitely in the realm of the unknowable.

In debate whomever instigates the proposition, as Tophatdoc admits, has the burden of proof. Tophatdoc cannot prove that a personal God does not exist. If the negative can explain how a personal God COULD be possible then the negative must win.

The only way the Affirmative can win is if he can provide a compelling phenomenological definition of "prove" that set the bar for a proof well below the standard understood in formal logic.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Define exist someone might simply propose that god exists in their mind as a "imaginary friend' it would exist ... in the imagination only but exist you should clarify what this god is supposed to be/responsible for.
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
@Hierocles, I am going to try to be as fair about this as about this as I possibly can. Also no one can accept this debate in the current point in time(at least I think). I said in the first round "The burden of proof is on my side to show that the personal god does not exist." I am not questioning the existence of a god but the concept of a personal god that exists in most religions. A god that intervenes one's behalf as we see in the Abrahamic religions.

@Lupricona, I will send you the invite if Hierocles doesn't respond or doesn't want to debate by 12:00 PM EST. I'm in a bit of rush to get this debate started.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
I don't believe it is possible to base an argument off your sources. Depending on what your argument is, I would want to quote experts, cite studies or observe copyrights on other peoples work that I may want to use to refute your case. This is not possible to do with what sources you provide. I do not see the point of constricting the sources that may be used in the debate to the sources you provide. This "right of evidence" you quote is obviously inapplicable as each side knows the case they wish to provide. Furthermore, sources=/= evidence, and thus your justification of the 'right of evidence' for preliminary statement of sources does not hold water.
Posted by Lupricona 3 years ago
Lupricona
Not to undermine you, Hierocles, but I also am interested in debating with you, Tophatdoc. Hierocles did post first, so he has fair claim to the Pro side, but if you like having an extra option to decide, I would be debating from the Christian personal God perspective. May the best man win the favor of Hierocles. Cheers!
Posted by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
Tophatdoc, I am new to this society, but I think I will provide a sufficient challenge. I tried accepting the challenge, but it wouldn't let me because of my current website rank. Loosen your contender requirements and I will accept your challenge. I accept all of your source rules - they are fair. Your resolution states that a "personal God does Not exist." Since you are supporting the resolution in the Affirmative, would you not agree that the Affirmative has the burden of proof? Couldn't the negative simply take the agnostic position?
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
The source rules benefit everyone who has commented so far because you have the chance to formulate your argument based off my sources. I am the party disadvantaged as a result of this not the challenger. It is more than fair for my opponent considering they can. The source rule is based off the "right of evidence" where evidence must be disclosed in preliminary hearings in court. Nevertheless, I am canceling the debate because I have come down with a fever after being in the cold for an hour and a half. I probably won't be doing debates for a while either. I will open the same debate for anyone interested when my fever is gone down.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
I agree the rules are stupid, even with you assuming BoP. It is rigged.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
TophatdocLupriconaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was wise to limit the scope of the debate by defining a "personal god" in purely historical-literary terms and set himself upon the task of not disproving any personal god, but specifically the personal god in the literature of ancient Jewish texts. This is a tenuous framework that Lupricona failed to challenge. Indeed, he fell for it and ceded that advantage to the Pro by staking the Con?s case on the existence of Jesus as told to us in the literature of the gospels. This is problematic for Con?s case because though many, including myself, have in faith in Jesus Christ as a personal God, this is a matter of faith and cannot be seen as proof of a personal god, especially when the bible was compiled generations after His crucifixion. I would have awarded a couple points to Pro for more compelling arguments, but ultimately he did have the burden of proof and he failed to meet that burden. Con pointed this out, and Pro responded only with conduct arguments that seemed moot.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
TophatdocLupriconaTied
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: I don't think pro did enough to define " personal god " . I had to go offline to ensure I had a proper understanding of what that entailed. It seemed like con was confused by the term as well because he argued for the existence of a "god" but forgot the "personal" part. Pro gets arguments because god tried to defend the concept of an interacting god as opposed to a personal one. I felt conduct was good on both sides. And sources shouldn't be given to much weight in this style of debate. There was nothing wrong with anyone's sources anyway. S&G was good on both sides. See comments for more....
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
TophatdocLupriconaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.