The Instigator
I-AM-AWESOME
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
DeJesus.Lisette
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

The Theory of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
DeJesus.Lisette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 504 times Debate No: 59493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

I-AM-AWESOME

Con

To start out here are the rules
1. Must take the side of believing in god.
2. No curse words or direct attacks.
3. Must provide argument evidence with citation (of website) or chapter in book.
Here is my opening statement: To my opinion the existence of god cannot be proved with real evidence. The nonexistent of god can, therefore it is more logical to not believe in the theory of god.
I await your response.
DeJesus.Lisette

Pro

Just because a thing hasn"t been proven, doesn"t mean it doesn"t exist (I know that"s not a claim that you made)
Yes, man's logic seems to better support the nonexistence of God (and not even to everyone on earth), but man"s limited world view, and natural imperfection, leaves room for a potential being that operates in ways that we just don"t understand, that are totally different from what we"ve deemed fact
If you can accept that there may be things that don"t operate in accordance to man"s theoretical science, then you must accept the possibility of God"s existence. If God possibly exists, earthly logic doesn"t apply to him. So saying it's more logical to not believe in the theory of god than to believe in the theory of god is illogical
Debate Round No. 1
I-AM-AWESOME

Con

Thank's replying,
I never said scientific logic applies to everything there are some things that cannot be explained. Nobody knows everything. especially the huge things that are so complex. Which leads me to discuss my point. The majority of scientists do not believe in god. It has been proven that the more we advanced in technology and intelligence the less scientists believe in god. Another thing you said is god works in strange ways we cannot understand, well than how is it that the majority of Genesis describes what god is saying, BEFORE WE EXISTED. How did humans know what god said if he has never communicated with us?
I await your reply. Bye
(http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com...)
DeJesus.Lisette

Pro

DeJesus.Lisette forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
I-AM-AWESOME

Con

Due to your silence I shall continue. The theory of god isn't crazy just not completely accurate and probably not true. Thank you for debating me. Goodbye.
DeJesus.Lisette

Pro

I don't believe in god, and I certainly don't believe that anyone know anything god has said, unless someone spoke to him personally and if someone said they did I wouldn't believe them anyway. But I do believe a god could exist. If we can agree that there may be things that completely go against science, then an all mighty eternal holy creator could exist, and even his most faithful followers would be unable to comprehend his being. Unless you disagree and u think man's earthly observations that lead him to conclusions that he called fact are the only possible truth to the world, which I would say is rather closed-minded, then it is not illogical that a god could exist.
And i never said god works in strange ways
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Eggsample 2 years ago
Eggsample
Religion is always a hard topic to discuss. both sides have very strong views.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
I-AM-AWESOMEDeJesus.LisetteTied
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: FF. Badd gramer. Pro failed to prove God exists; Pro's BOP is not just to prove possibility, but necessity (Con's positive atheistic beliefs are irrelevant to the resolution). Con had a source.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I-AM-AWESOMEDeJesus.LisetteTied
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: Con had BoP to show that god's "non-existence" can be proven. The only source given was a blog. No proof that he does NOT exist