The Instigator
Monteray
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
ClassicRobert
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Yeh Ladka / Larki hai Allah

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 3 votes the winner is...
ClassicRobert
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 33025
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Monteray

Con

I believe that no human can ever be God .

Btw Jesus was not human , He was a higher being for all the Christians wondering:)

Please vote against (me)
ClassicRobert

Pro

If I understand this debate, it seems that I will be arguing that a human can be God. In order to prove my point, I only have to find an example of a human in history who could be considered "God." I will start by posting the definition of God, as defined by Merriam-Webster (3):

1. capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

The definition that applies here is 1a, as that definition specifies the capitalized usage of God, which is used in my opponent's argument. 1b, while it does fall under the capitalized usage, is irrelevant because it refers to only the Christian religion, and religion was not specified in the terms of the debate. Here is my example of a human who fits the definition of God:

Haile Selassie was seen by the Rastafarians as the second coming of Jesus Christ (1). Through the Holy Trinity, which claims the three natures of God to be the father, the son, and the holy ghost, with Jesus Christ being the son, that would mean that Jesus is considered to be God (2). Haile Selassie, being seen as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, would therefore be God, who is "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" as defined by definition 1a. One might say that Haile Selassie was just a normal man, and does not deserve to be given the title of God. However, the key words in definition 1a is "worshipped as." This means that regardless of whether or not Haile Selassie was actually creator and ruler of the universe is irrelevant. All that actually matters is whether or not he is "worshipped as" creator and ruler of the universe or not. As the holy trinity shows Jesus Christ to be God, a Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is creator and ruler of the universe, and the Rastafarians worship Haile Selassie as the second coming of Jesus Christ, than that means that Haile Selassie fits the definition of God.

Please vote pro

Sources:
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
2. http://www.kisol.com...
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Monteray 4 years ago
Monteray
Yeah sorry about this i Just had to create 3 rangom debates so that the website may confirm my identity without using a phone . My apologies :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by effimero89 4 years ago
effimero89
MonterayClassicRobertTied
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: Con blew me away with his clear and valid points
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
MonterayClassicRobertTied
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: I don't believe Con knew the definition of the word God.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MonterayClassicRobertTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a coherent argument with reliable sources, whereas Con didn't do much of anything.