The Instigator
johnlubba
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There are no compelling arguments based on science to suggest God is personal.

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 2 votes the winner is...
johnlubba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 996 times Debate No: 28548
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

johnlubba

Pro

Another God debate,

I will start by saying, This debate is to assume that the universe was created by a singular God. Once accepted, It is my opponents Bop to prove by Philosophy, Science or any other method that God is able to be personal to every living entity, or we can narrow it down to humans for the simplicity of the debate.

Note: this is a debate which favors the existence of God. but unlike other debates where people choose regular arguments, Such as the theological argument or the argument for design, and the ontological argument or the KCA, And others which only suggest that it is likely that God exists, I have found no strong arguments that can compel me to accept, that God is personal with his subjects.

I look forward to a worthy opponent and thank them in advance.
RationalMadman

Con

The moment God assists some people, he inherently has caused a disadvantage to others in this world of competition. In other words whatever God does "Yin" will always have a downfall "Yan" thus god is incapable of being personal without affecting everything and everyone by the butterfly effect.
Debate Round No. 1
johnlubba

Pro

Rationalmadman.

So are you saying God is able to be personal but won't ? What you are saying is very vague.

Please provide a sound argument as to how God can be shown to be personal.
RationalMadman

Con

You wish for a bigger penis, God gives it to you. What has this done to any and all men competing with you for a woman? Caused a disadvantage. What has this in turn done to children of that woman? Forced them to have your genetics as opposed to what they could have had. What does this do to the sons of you? Allow them to inherit big penis genes. What does this in turn do to the men they compete with?

Don't like that example? Let's try another.

You pray for amazing grades, God gives you temporary super intelligence and you get straight A's, you compete with a guy who didn't pray for good grades and although a natural genius happened to get slightly lower percentile A's than you, but only one of you will get the place in the university... God had to give one of you slightly better than the other... Boom, you get in. What has this done to the other guy? Disadvantaged him career-wise for his whole life. Now what if that guy had the true capacity to have been the next Einstein but because God was trying to be personal, he didn't care for the big error he made to humanity in allowing a mediocre guy who prayed for intelligence to just get them.

Truth is whatever god will do in trying to be personal will always, inevitably, undoubtedly have an extreme chain reaction and affects fate negatively in a way (every positive has a negative counterpart) it is impossible for God to only worry about one person without harming others in the process indirectly. God is the ruler of all, it is impossible for him to neglect this and assume he can alter one cog in the machine without f*cking the whole mechanism up.
Debate Round No. 2
johnlubba

Pro

RationalMadMan,

As much as I appreciate your point of view, I feel it does very little to strengthen your position of arguing for A God who is personal with his subjects.

In fact, it seems your argument leans more towards an impersonal God who doesn't want to interfere.

You have provided me nothing to refute.

Vote Pro.
RationalMadman

Con

What I am saying is that it is impossible for God to be personal with his subjects unless he is personal with all at once in one big game plan. Considering that there seems to be a clear logic and fate to the madness I assume God is personal but is BALANCING HOW PERSONAL HE IS with one and another. In my round 2 debate I was explaining how easy it is to make an error if he were too personal.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
"What I am saying is that it is impossible for God to be personal with his subjects unless he is personal with all at once in one big game plan. Considering that there seems to be a clear logic and fate to the madness I assume God is personal but is BALANCING HOW PERSONAL HE IS with one and another. In my round 2 debate I was explaining how easy it is to make an error if he were too personal."

That is horrible hair splitting jibberish. You just reinvent a better version of god then the ones written about thousands of years ago.

Without those ridiculous writings, you would have no idea about a god.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
johnlubbaRationalMadmanTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments are pretty vague and he doesn't do much in the way of explaining them, so I can't really give arguments voters to either side. Pro displays better conduct by being both clear and civil in his refutations however.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
johnlubbaRationalMadmanTied
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: Pro placed the entire burden of proof on Con to show that God is able to "be personal with" every living human, which I take to mean God being able to interact with directly or have a personal relationship or something along those lines. Nothing Con said even remotely addressed that subject, so Pro had nothing to refute. Con just attempted to showed that it's impossible for God to interat with one person, but nobody else, without disastrous consequences. But that doesn't show that God is actually ABLE to interact with all people, so Con didn't carry his burden of proof.