The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
hilton16
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

The existence of God

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 8 votes the winner is...
hilton16
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,491 times Debate No: 31662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (8)

 

qopel

Con

The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim (pro).
hilton16

Pro

The burden of proof is also on those who make the negative claim (pro) because you cannot prove there isn't a God. I'll let you start the first argument than i'll rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Con

My opponent is trying to shift the burden of proof. Nobody has to prove a negative.
hilton16

Pro

I am not trying to shift the burden of proof. We both share the burden of prove. Because you state "the existence of God" and you oppose it (con) now you have to provide evidence that there isn't a "God." I am in no way trying to shift the burden of proof. but rather a share of the burden of proof. Yes somenoe person has to prove the negative. Because if one person is proving the postive than theres an opponent who has to prove the negative. If both of us was going to prove the positive than this wouldn't be a "pro and con" on this debate. rather "Con and Con" or "Pro and Pro"
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Con

I set up the rules and made it clear that the burden of proof was on pro. My opponent didn't have to accept the debate, but now that he did, he can't go and change the rules. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster, Bigfoot, tinker bell, or aliens don't exist. That doesn't mean that they do exist. So, my opponent will either have to prove there is a God or forfeit.

I would suggest starting out by defining what "god" is, before trying to prove it exists.

Good luck.
hilton16

Pro

Ok...

What/Who is God,
  • (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being
  • (in certain other religions) A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity
Now, nothing that is true is true, but for which it's true is true. God exist, it doesn't have to be that we see his presence to believe he exist. For he is in the "heaven."

If we humans exist, than why can't a person/supreme being exist. Like President's are the supreme ruler of the land so it is with a "God" being the supreme being.

Let me further, i'm not sure or know that you're born in the 1990's. And if you were born in the 1990's and Abraham Lincoln is born March 4, 1861, you wouldn't known the existance of Abrham Lincoln if it hadn't been for History Book. Now let's say we were debating on the existance of Abraham Lincoln and i say that Abraham Lincoln doesn't existance you wouldn't in no way proof your point because you cannot show the presence of him in front of me. Only to state that he's in the "history book" that's how it is with "God"

"Fideists acknowledge that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is available in the "natural light of human reason" alone.[3] Other religions, such as Buddhism, do not concern themselves with the existence of gods at all." the fact that i am a christian and i believe that there is a God proves that there is an existance of God. But you not believing there is a God shows that you don't believe in the existance of God. So if we where theorically argument on the existance of God none of us will win, because the matter of fact is that we both have different religious belief, or views. Now, from reading the bible and other sources of christaian and God do i believe there is a God.


Let me further, Ontological argument

The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:[21]

  1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
  2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
  3. Therefore, God exists.[21]
Empirical arguments[edit]Aquinas' Five Ways

In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God's existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[18][19] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[20] Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause,necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.

  • The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[18]
  • Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[18]
  • The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[18]
  • Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good – a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[18]
  • The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[18]
If there isn't a God, than why would the US, the greatest country in the world, that give everyone freedom, have on the dollar bill "In God we trust", some of US buildings are incrave with God's writing. The President, and our politicans, are to put their hand on the bible to repeat after whatever the man is saying. "So help me God." but i'm not going to use this as my argument. but i'm only trying to put out.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.google.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
I lost this debate with a cheat. Shame on all who voted against me.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
rcnoe71 wrote:
: The burden of proof falls on the one who makes a claim. If one says God does not exist... prove it, just as if someone say he does. People generally say, "I believe" there is a God of a belief there is not, but belief is not necessarily truth.

True, but, in this debate, it was specified in the OP that Pro would be the one making the claim.
Posted by rcnoe71 3 years ago
rcnoe71
The burden of proof falls on the one who makes a claim. If one says God does not exist... prove it, just as if someone say he does. People generally say, "I believe" there is a God of a belief there is not, but belief is not necessarily truth.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@qopel- Such an intellectually compelling statement. I'm dumbstruck by this astute response and have the deep desire to express my gratitude of such realizations of ontological proportions by quoting that back to you.

And with that, I bid this thread adieu.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
STFU....you can quote mine me on that.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@qopel- Quote-mining will get you nowhere... Didn't you say you were done with me?
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
@x2MuzioPlayer You VB and I proved you did with your own words.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@qopel- If you believe that people shouldn't be impartial in their voting standards, then I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you with an impartial RFD, so... bye?
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
@x2MuzioPlayer If you don't think any of the arguments presented are particularly convincing (at all), then you have no right to award votes for "Made more convincing arguments" to anyone.
You VB me and that's proof of it. I'm done with you.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@qopel- I leave my personal convictions out of my RFD. It's as simple as that. I think personal convictions cloud fair voting so I leave them where they should remain: in my own head. I don't personally think Pro's arguments are strong, but I don't have anything by Con to weigh against them. Yes, it was the last round, so that would be impossible, but you challenged Pro to bring an argument forward, and he did.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The only rule was the Pro had the Burden of proof. He spent the entirety of the debate trying to fight this rule (which should have been negotiated in the comments and not after accepting the debate) until the last round when he made several last-round argument. Since Con didn't have the opportunity to respond, they must be ignored. Arguments + Conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Typhlochactas 3 years ago
Typhlochactas
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave a last round argument. *Withdrawing after a new point was made
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally, I don't evaluate new arguments in the final round, but I'm actually obliged to make an exception here. Up until the final round, Con was winning, since Pro had the BoP (and Con the BoR). Con didn't have to argue anything, and all he'd have needed to do to win is say, "no new arguments in the last round since I can't answer them." Instead, Con explicitly challenged Pro by giving him a framework for his next speech: "I would suggest starting out by defining what 'god' is, before trying to prove it exists. Good luck." I really don't know how else to interpret this other than him giving Pro the option to argue in his last round under the initial rules that he has the BoP. While I don't think any of the arguments presented are particularly convincing (at all), I don't have anything other than my own evaluation of the arguments to weigh against them. I can elaborate in the comments if anyone wants me to.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fulfilled burden of proof and sources. What many people seem to not understand is that while the burden of proof was on him, Con could have made arguments anyway. In addition, Con said "good luck" as if the debate was still going on even in the last round.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, but didn't provide any arguments until the last round when Con could not respond to them.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fulfilled his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
qopelhilton16Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't make arguments until the last round. So conduct goes to Con