The Instigator
JackofSpade
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

You can't know the end result unless your 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 2 votes the winner is...
gryephon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 472 times Debate No: 74036
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

JackofSpade

Pro

The end result of any persons life from Obama to the homeless joe down the street the end result is only seen if you're god.
gryephon

Con

Well any being with oomniscience can know the end results and not be God. For example Uxie from pokemon,

http://powerlisting.wikia.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
JackofSpade

Pro

A real person could never possess "omniscience" noone can or will.
gryephon

Con

There were no requirements for the being to be real or existing at the start of the debate. So i'll assume that you agree with my argument that non-real beings can know the end result.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Spirit_Dianite 2 years ago
Spirit_Dianite
I am a god.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
==================================================================
>Reported vote: barbiesofetch // Moderator action: REMOVED<

3 points to Pro (arguments), 4 points to Con (conduct, S&G, sources). Reasons for voting decision: I think CON's arguments are irrational and hold no logic. CON didn't specify his meaning of non-real beings. Like, wtf does that even mean? And what do you conceive real being?

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain conduct, S&G, and sources.
=================================================================
Posted by wampe 2 years ago
wampe
gryephon,

If Pro can argue God as omniscient by definition Con care argue XYZ has omniscience by definition as well. Now if Pro gave evidence that God or omniscience were real things, than I could see the issue with bringing up fictional omniscient beings.
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
Sorry BarbieSoFetch for the confusion on non-real. When I said that, I was talking about imaginary beings that have been thought up by people (Easter Bunny, Batman, etc.) but aren"t real or existing, or characters that haven"t been dreamed up yet (e.g. Marvel"s Daredevil first appeared in the 1960s, so if we were talking about this in the 1950s Daredevil would be non-imaginary because he hasn"t been imagined yet)

I should have said imaginary so that what I was saying wasn"t confusing" for that I apologize.
Also if you"re confused about what I said "real or existing", I distinguish between reality and existence as two completely different concepts. For example today, tomorrow and yesterday are all as real as today" But tomorrow and yesterday doesn"t exist today. I think the existence of things is merely relative to what point in time you"re talking about

But thank you for the vote.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
You only have two rounds. Want a first round argument?
Posted by Poe-vahkiin 2 years ago
Poe-vahkiin
The unknown. The vast expense that we cannot hope to comprehend, that may be neither physical nor spiritual. We must wait until death comes to us.
Posted by JackofSpade 2 years ago
JackofSpade
Okay but what's the end result of that?
Posted by Poe-vahkiin 2 years ago
Poe-vahkiin
I know how everybody's life is going to end. With death.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wampe 2 years ago
wampe
JackofSpadegryephonTied
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: Anything with omniscience would "know the end result" as pro pointed out.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
JackofSpadegryephonTied
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: Pro made only a baseless assertion. No rules were established, so Con's argument was valid.