The Instigator
sonak
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepticalone
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

does god exist

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 6 votes the winner is...
Skepticalone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 68552
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

sonak

Con

god dosnt exist as if he did he surely would have heard the cries of some terrorism's victims and helped them; he wouldn't let us create this divide of religion which becomes the reason of mass destruction many times; he wont let millions pay tributes of food candles or blankets when people die of hunger and cold so often; he would do something to stop people like hitler and send more like buddha or MK gandhi;he ll try to stop killings or subjugation of women or fraud with the sentiments of poor in is name etc.
Skepticalone

Pro

Thank you for instigating this debate, Con!

For the purposes of this debate, I will play devil's advocate and argue for god. It is important to point out a benevolent god is not the only plausible possibility. Con has suggested god would come to the rescue of those who are suffering in one form or another, and that would be true of a personal benevolent god. However, it would not be true of a deistic god.

Let me more clearly define a deism:

"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."[1]

A deistic god would be a deity who created the universe and the laws that govern it. The universal laws naturally brought all life into existence with no intervention necessary by this god. Since a deistic god is by definition impersonal, there is no reason to assume he/she/it would intervene on behalf of those suffering.

Lastly, Con has made the claim, "God does not exist", and having made a positive claim of certainty must share the burden of proof.

Good luck to you, Con.

[1] http://www.deism.com...
Debate Round No. 1
sonak

Con

sonak forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Pro

Since I have successfully illustrated a god can exist which would not be obliged to respond to suffering (a non-personal god), I will move on to arguments. Before I do this, I must point out it is not possible to scientifically 'prove' god exists (or does not exist) as god is outside the realm of science. Therefore, I will be providing argument(s) to establish it is reasonable to believe in god.

The First Cause:

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2: The universe began to exist.

C1: The universe must have been caused.

Given this, we can follow with:

1: If the universe was caused, then that cause is God.

C2: God Exists

For the time being, I will leave it there. I am not certain if Pro intends to respond, and overkill is over-rated. Back to you, Pro!

Debate Round No. 2
sonak

Con

sonak forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Pro

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
sonak

Con

sonak forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Pro

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 4
sonak

Con

sonak forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Pro

My argument and rebuttal stand. Pro has provided negation of neither. I thank Pro for instigating, and the reader (in advance) for voting!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sonak 1 year ago
sonak
of course i can use suffering to prove no god but their are many other such arguments as your good is either of the type who sends child realists to earth or he says you scoundrel you wait and watch I'll punish you so hard when you come up here i mean what nonsense if i had the power lkke him i would intervene and atop a heinous crime like that
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
Suffering in the world doesn't show God doesn't exist. For example, the Bible says suffering happens, and will happen until Christ returns: How could suffering give a reason to not believe the Bible?
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
Suffering in the world doesn't show God doesn't exist. For example, the Bible says suffering happens, and will happen until Christ returns: How could suffering give a reason to not believe the Bible?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
sonakSkepticaloneTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
sonakSkepticaloneTied
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: Aside from the forfeit, con has chosen the worst of lines of reasoning in supporting the debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
sonakSkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
sonakSkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
sonakSkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con who abused innocent semicolons.
Vote Placed by PGA 1 year ago
PGA
sonakSkepticaloneTied
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: Sonak (Con) issued only one brief argument against God, the argument for evil, and offered no response at all the Pro, whereas Pro tried to engage Con and gave more substance to his argument, with references, better grammar, sources, and won hands down in every category, therefore the argument should be judged and awarded in favor of Pro, Peter