The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
amigodana
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

god is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes-9
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...
amigodana
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,552 times Debate No: 71749
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (326)
Votes (6)

 

vi_spex

Pro

god can not create life because anything that is constructed or created is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature
amigodana

Con

Lets first define who god is. Can you please define god according to your understanding? We cannot define truth or false until we establish who he is first.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

god is imaginary, a creator

false=belief=imagination
true=know=physical experience
truth=knowledge=memory of know
amigodana

Con

There are two different types of a god in the bible; which do you conclude is false?

The title of your debate states "god is false". The scriptures say;

(Psalms 82:6) "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

(John 10:34) "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

So according to scripture you are a god (little "g"). Which makes YOU false. And I agree!

However, if you would like to discuss the truth, the God of the bible (Big "G") Then you may want to redefine things. Because according to scripture every jot and tittle makes a difference in deciding truth.

(Matthew 5:18) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

which god isnt imaginary, and a creator

if any truth existed about god, god would necessarily be true, god is false
amigodana

Con

So, we agree that you are imaginary and false. you have just forfeited.

Thank you for your time; Unless you would like to redefine things.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

why am i imaginary and false?
amigodana

Con

That is your words!

The title of your debate states "god is false". The scriptures say;

(Psalms 82:6) "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

(John 10:34) "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

So according to scripture you are a god (little "g"). Which makes YOU false. And I agree!

You will have to answer your own question here.

Why do you want to speak falsely?
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

it being in my mind, is me being it

you have alredy seen the beginning of the pyramid capstone reflection with an eye, just above in an earlier round

destruction=turn my back

i am true false and truth
amigodana

Con

1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

(1 Timothy 6:4-5) "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, {5} Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

(John 8:43-45) "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. {44} Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. {45} And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
Debate Round No. 5
326 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
i dont have belief systems
Posted by Zombie812 7 months ago
Zombie812
lol vi_spex said he doesn't exist

this is a gr8 deb8 m8
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 1 year ago
Daniel_Nemes
Sheesh, bluesteel is just reporting away...
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
======================================================================
>Daniel_Nemes // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Seriously, no contest. vi_spex cannot for sentences to save his/her life. Sheesh.}

[*Reason for removal*] While this RFD adequately explained its S&G vote, it failed to explain its argument, sources, and conduct votes.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Gabe1e // Moderator action: Removed<

5 points to Con (arguments, S&G, conduct). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: So, first Pro states that "god is imaginary." which is fine, because the resolution is "God is false." Then the next round Pro states "which god isnt imaginary, and a creator if any truth existed about god, god would necessarily be true, god is false" Therefore, Pro forfeits. God isn't imaginary, therefore he must be real. But, in this case, the resolution is "god is false." So Pro just admitted God is in fact not false.}

[*Reason for removal*] While this RFD provides an adequate explanation for "arguments," it fails to explain its conduct and S&G votes.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Gabe1e // Moderator action: Removed<

5 points to Con (arguments, S&G, conduct). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: So, first Pro states that "god is imaginary." which is fine, because the resolution is "God is false." Then the next round Pro states "which god isnt imaginary, and a creator if any truth existed about god, god would necessarily be true, god is false" Therefore, Pro forfeits. God isn't imaginary, therefore he must be real. But, in this case, the resolution is "god is false." So Pro just admitted God is in fact not false.}

[*Reason for removal*] While this RFD provides an adequate explanation for "arguments," it fails to explain its conduct and S&G votes.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
======================================================================
>MLG_Pingu // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: vi_spex has no idea how to write complete and understandable sentences, and gave no real information save for an opinion}

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain conduct and sources vote.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: Reesaroni // Moderator action: removed<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: I believe in God ?\_(?)_/?}

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD voted based solely on personal bias and did not explain any of the point categories it awarded.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>TheJuniorVarsityNovice // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything but conduct). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: little g}

[*Reason for removal*] I don't know what "little g" means.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Marauder // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to learn how to put together coherent thoughts rather than string random ones together before posting his arguments in the future. Arguments, like thoughts themselves, need to flow into one another smoothly to make for a persuasive and readable argument}

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain S&G, conduct, and sources. As explained with Sidewalker's RFD, a debater may do a *really* bad job, but that doesn't automatically merit awarding all 7 points to his opponent without explanation of each point category. Anyone looking at Pro's argument can see he had bad S&G, but that point still needs to be explained in each RFD. And it's not obvious, on its face, why Pro should lose conduct and sources, without some sort of explanation.
=====================================================================
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 1 year ago
Marauder
vi_spexamigodanaTied
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: Let's try this again..... Conduct: I take conduct away from Con because 1 sentence round rebuttals are not just bad they are the marks or either a troll or someone who at the very least is not giving their opponent the courtesy of their best S&G: Con does not capitalize Arguments: Pro is better at stringer together thoughts so that they flow into each other. Sources: Pro quotes the Bible, a powerful source in most any debate to a large demographic of the population you could ever want to pursued of something. Is that good enough Bluesteel?
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
vi_spexamigodanaTied
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: I am voting for amigodana because vi_spex forfeits the round by conceding to amigodana's argument/statement that: "according to scripture you are a god (little "g"). Which makes YOU false." this clearly negates the resolution as it shows that vi_spex is a god and is not false. This is a weak argument but it goes uncontested in the round. so, little g for the win/lose.
Vote Placed by ButterCatX 1 year ago
ButterCatX
vi_spexamigodanaTied
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: This was a terrible debate on both sides. Both had BoP and neither fulfilled it. The grammar was terrible, the only source was the bible which is hardly reliable. This debate is only a top debate because it is one of the god is real vs. false debates so everyone comments on it. #fixthereligiondebates
Vote Placed by simonstuffles 1 year ago
simonstuffles
vi_spexamigodanaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro arguments were a little lackluster, to say the least. Con argued a case, albeit a weak one, that remained uncontested throughout the debate. Pro has not figured out how to type capital letters.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
vi_spexamigodanaTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con used the Bible as his primary source and tactically ensured that Pro was deviating from Pro's initial argument. Pro's arguments were merely queries and as Pro was making the proposition that "God is false", the BoP was on Pro. Pro did not fulfill Pro's BoP and was unable to rebut Con's arguments. Pro's spellings and grammar were poor and Con used the only source in the debate. 6 points to Con.
Vote Placed by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
vi_spexamigodanaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had horrible grammar where as con did not. Con had horrible sources, stemming from a book that holds no value to be a creditable source, yet pro used none. Both arguments are equal, neither are convincing, one was horribly done and the other basic bible thumping.