The Instigator
Sketchy
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
Calvincambridge
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The biblical God probably doesn't 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 18174
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

Sketchy

Pro


By Pro, I am arguing that God probably doesn't exist. For the purposes of this debate, God shall refer to the Judeo-Christian deity.

God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority

Exist - To have actual being

Rules:

    1. The burden of proof shall be shared.

    1. No arguments in the first round.

    1. Con must state in Round 1 if God is also omniscient and/or omnibenevolent. If Con doesn't choose, I will assume God is both.

    1. Any ad hominem attacks will result in disqualification.

    1. You may quote and use the Bible as a source, but I will not accept it as proof. Example:

"Genesis says this, and it is much more reliable than fossils!" = BAD
"Ezekiel 23:20 is an example of how the Bible is family-friendly." = GOOD


If you have any questions, or would like me to change the rules in any way, please comment or message me. Thank you!
Calvincambridge

Con

I accept but what is ad hominem
Debate Round No. 1
Sketchy

Pro

Ad hominem is when you insult someone to prove their argument wrong.

My opponent didn’t choose God’s ‘omni’s, so as the rules clearly state, you will argue that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists.


The Evil/Suffering Problem

  1. Suffering and evil are present on Earth.
  2. Since God is omniscient He knows evil is happening, He is omnibenevolent so He must end all evil, and He is omnipotent so he has the power to end all evil.
  3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


Omnipotence Paradox

Since God is omnipotent, he can do anything, right? Can he microwave a piece of pizza so hot, that he himself can’t eat it?


My arguments are short, but sweet. I will add additional arguments to the following rounds if needed.

Calvincambridge

Con

The thing is that God is all loving to people therefore he could not kill the evildoers because in doing that would not be loving therefore the only way to be all loving is to let things play out.

Good point he could do so but he can also make anything as hot as he wants and still eat it


P.S no offence just stating my belief on this I think God dosent like pizza. I think his favoratie food is lamb.
Debate Round No. 2
Sketchy

Pro

"The thing is that God is all loving to people therefore he could not kill the evildoers because in doing that would not be loving therefore the only way to be all loving is to let things play out."
But God is omnipotent, so why couldn't He simply make the evildoers good?

"P.S no offence just stating my belief on this I think God dosent like pizza. I think his favoratie food is lamb."
I don't see how that would offend me...how does this pertains to this debate?

My opponent failed to counter my arguments or propose any of his own, so I will extend my arguments for this round.
Calvincambridge

Con

Why would God want to make a pizza so hot he couldent eat it
Debate Round No. 3
Sketchy

Pro

"Why would God want to make a pizza so hot he couldent eat it"
It doesn't matter if God wants to make it. It is impossible for Him to create it, so He is not omnipotent.

My opponent STILL has yet to post any arguments or valid rebuttals. We agreed to share the burden of proof and Con has failed completely in that aspect alone. Even if Con were to present amazing, irrefutable arguments in the final round, I believe I still win because he has wasted two whole rounds focusing on trivial issues that are obviously unimportant in this debate. Vote Pro!
Calvincambridge

Con

He could make a pizza so hot he couldn't eat it because it would disintegrate
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Falcon, he is pretty funny but he wastes peoples time who are trying to instigate a serious challenge. Of course by now I think people know that if he accepts don't even bother with a real argument. It won't be necessary.
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
Calvin mixed up this debate with his daily comics...Oops.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I was just saying that CalvinCambridge is really funny and random and provides great entertainment.
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Falcon, you of all people are the last person I would expect to defend his nonsense. What happened to all those ideas of yours?
Posted by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
CON needs to stop trolling. Don't accept debates unless you're serious about then. He accepted my debate, oh boy; can't wait to see this.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
CalvinCambridge is favorite troll. He is just too funny. Did you see in the Electric cars, he suggested that we go back to using horses? Or on the welfare debate, he also suggested using horses?
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Calvincambridge, do you have a purpose for being here?
Posted by Sketchy 3 years ago
Sketchy
Really? Well, I'll at least try. Maybe I'll get a good laugh out of it.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
free win for sketchy, calvincambridge is a troll.
Posted by Sketchy 3 years ago
Sketchy
I know all of the rules just say '1.', but the DDO editor was acting up and I couldn't fix it.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: While Pro had some problems with his arguments, Con rebutted none of his points...Con also didn't know his grammar book as well.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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: Troll user is a troll.
Vote Placed by seraine 3 years ago
seraine
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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: Obvious.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 3 years ago
DetectableNinja
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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: Obvious. Con did not rebut effectively.
Vote Placed by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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: Con needs to stop trolling
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough call. Arguments are tied since Pro's logic was fallacious. "so hot that he coudn't eat it". I am not exactly sure which fallacy it is but there are tons of ways Pro could have made his argument. Conduct to Pro because Con was trolling. SG to Pro because Con spelt coudn't as couldent.
Vote Placed by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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: Pro didn't make a very thorough argument but I think he knew that he didn't have to against a troll.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
SketchyCalvincambridgeTied
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: close call. The "Why would God want to make a pizza so hot he couldent eat it" defense was highly convincing. Still AFF wins.