The Instigator
lord_starscream
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Nisectus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

in a god exists debate, BOP is on pro

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 1 vote the winner is...
lord_starscream
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 286 times Debate No: 75792
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

lord_starscream

Pro

It doesn't make sense giving proof of something that doesn't have proof to support it. Opponents in the usual God exists debate have no proof to support God, so then they ask what proof is there to prove he DOESN'T exist.
Nisectus

Con

God exists. I don't mean that there is bearded invisible giant man in the sky who puts people who don't believe in him in hell. I mean a non-literal God. This isn't an explanation for the creation of the universe, or a reason to resist political change and defy evidence in front of one's face. This is and idea that exists to give life purpose and meaning, to help us live in our pointless little lives. The God that exists isn't the one that the previous people you've debated with believe in. It is a God that was created by man. The belief in God isn't there because it makes sense; it doesn't, but it benefits mankind. If more fundamentalist Christians and atheists were able to break free of their narrow points of view and accept this, the world would be a better place.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_starscream

Pro

Big misinterpretation. This debate isn't about whether God exists or not, it is that in such a debate the Burden of Proof or BOP should be on Pro, meaning the one who says God exists. The BOP can't be shared or on Con as how can you have proof that something isn't here? For instance, I can say I have proof that you are not in my house by giving your address. But suppose I don't where you live, and I have determine whether you live in my city or not, how can I find proof that you are not in my city? Get the idea?
Nisectus

Con

No. I am not misinterpreting anything, I am a Christian, I believe in God, and that is what I am arguing. I am just arguing it in a different way from the most Christians you might debate this with. And the way in which i believe in God means that the only evidence I need is, well, the personal religious opinion of me and many others. This is just a different way that I believe in God, and it is not wrong. This actually is a whether God exists or not debate. It is a fact to me and the others that believe this, and our interpretation is its own proof.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_starscream

Pro

Con seems to be out of his mind. This debate is not about whether God exists or not, but that in such a debate the burden of proof should be on Pro rather than be shared or on con. Since Con failed to provide any argument so far related to the resolution, and I have proved the resolution, please vote for me.
Nisectus

Con

The name of this debate is "If God Exists Debate". I apologize for misinterpreting the title as what the words exactly said. If you agree with me, vote for me, on the God side. If you don't then don't.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nisectus 2 years ago
Nisectus
I realize that Pro wanted to debate with a more literal believer, and that I was not the kind of Christian he was looking for.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by daem0n 2 years ago
daem0n
lord_starscreamNisectusTied
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 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 makes an argument (weak as it is) that the burden of proof rests on someone who claims god exists, and Con never contradicts this. Con misunderstands the resolution.