The Instigator
invisibledeity
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TrustmeImlying
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

The abrahamic 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 8 votes the winner is...
TrustmeImlying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 46009
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

invisibledeity

Con

Come on, RETARD BOY!!!

Let's see HARD EVIDENCE ther is a god! Let's particularly see hard evidence THAT THE ABRAHAMIC GOD EXIST!!!!

Either give me hard evidence, or admit: YOU HAVE NONE, AND ARE TALKING OUT OF YOUR BEHIND!!!

LOL!
TrustmeImlying

Pro

I'm an atheist, but I'll gladly play devils advocate against someone as intelligent and respectable as my opponent.

(I'm not sure who the "retard boy" is you have such a curiously creepy obsession for, but I shall accept this debate and be... whatever the opposite of the statement "The Abrahamic God!!!" could be.)

The website says, "It is important to check your grammar and spelling, otherwise you may be penalized by the voters."
You rebel, you!

My argument:

Absolute truth must exist:
There must be absolute truth. If you were to say there isn't absolute truth, that would be an absolute statement, which would contradict itself.

Absolute knowledge must exist:
If you know of ANYTHING to be true, than it is absolute knowledge. To say you don't think of anything to be true is both deceitful and an admission of absolute knowledge.

Logic exists and is unchanging:
Logic, described as valid reasoning, must exist for us to apply the rules of the universe consistently. It must be unchanging as nothing can ever challenge a perfectly logical conclusion. As a perfectly logical conclusion applies seamlessly with our laws of the universe, which we know to be unchanging.

Logic cannot be made of matter:
Matter changes, and if matter changes, it cannot possess within it the ability to uphold logic, as logic is absolute and unchanging.

Logic is universal:
No person can come to the conclusion that gravity doesn't apply to them, and it be true. In the same sense, following true logic, we must all come to the same universal conclusions logically, as it is an underlying force we cannot alter.

Because Absolute truth, knowledge and logic exist:

Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone who does (God), something we don't know could contradict what we think we know.

If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm.

Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change.

Without God, we couldn't truly know anything at the risk of discovering something outside of our knowledge, causing an upheaval.
We couldn't say anything was true, because if there's not an ultimate truth to work towards, then we're just directionless energy.
Nothing would be logical or follow any rules, because there's no ultimate logic behind the workings of our universe.

As further evidence, proving that logic is immaterial could prove God. Just because something isn't physically testable, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are a multitude of things in the universe we cannot observe or test that are existing just fine without us.
Debate Round No. 1
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Technicallyderped 3 years ago
Technicallyderped
Dear Invisibledeity,

You're losing many of these debates because you insult your opponent. Well, among other reasons. ^-^

-Tech <3
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
*and the crowd goes nuts*
Posted by TrustmeImlying 3 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Wow! I feel as though I should get an award of some kind, I'm like the pest control guy.
Posted by invisibledeity 3 years ago
invisibledeity
I am leaving this website because of the biased voting and FAKE atheists!!! THAT INCLUDES YOU TOO LYING DUDE!!
Posted by TrustmeImlying 3 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Oh man, I genuinely laughed at that second rhyme, that was awesome.
Posted by invisibledeity 3 years ago
invisibledeity
This website is such STUPID BIASED VOTING!!
Posted by invisibledeity 3 years ago
invisibledeity
THere was once an IDIOT
WHo was a stupid IDIOT
His name was imlying
and he did lots of lYING
laying in bed instead of TRYING!!

HAHA!!
Posted by TrustmeImlying 3 years ago
TrustmeImlying
I guess forced rhymes are better than homoerotic undertones
Posted by invisibledeity 3 years ago
invisibledeity
Trust me I'm lying
He said he was DYING!!!
He LOST THE DEBATE
FAILURE WAS HIS FATE!!!
BECAUSE HE WAS LYING!!!

LOL!!
Posted by TrustmeImlying 3 years ago
TrustmeImlying
You sure do talk about my behind a lot...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's conduct was awful, and he didn't bother to make any arguments.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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: This decision is obvious, but I'll write my RFD anyway. Con called his opponent "retard boy" without knowing whether or not his opponent was in fact a retard or a boy, which means he's probably a eugenecist and a sexist. And there's all of that other stuff about making ridiculously stupid assumptions about his opponent's preparedness and ability to reason. If I need to explain S&G please go to English class... Now. Pro actually made arguments. Pro used sources. That's why pro gets the full seven point win.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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: yeah...
Vote Placed by hexfirewell7172 3 years ago
hexfirewell7172
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: u
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: complete fail on part of the con, ive met dead squirrels who could have made a better debate then this one
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had arguments, whilst Con did not.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had terrible, report-worthy conduct. Pro brought in a case while Con did not. Without a rebuttal round, Con simply has no case. Con's argument was Argument From Absence... Con's grammar and spelling was also bad.
Vote Placed by CynicalDiogenes 3 years ago
CynicalDiogenes
invisibledeityTrustmeImlyingTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: You don't really start a debate with 'come on,Retard Boy!!' and expect to win do you? Con made absolutely no arguments in a one round debate.You seriously need God(if he exists)!