The Instigator
nires
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

islam is the true religion and 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,686 times Debate No: 16639
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

nires

Pro

God exists if not prove it to me
petersaysstuff

Con

Well first let me state that the BOP is on the person making the magical claim. (Yet I will provide some paradoxes that your god would fit into)

A good way to understand the BOP regarding god is to use an analogy called Russell's Teapot:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
[1]

Ergo we can see that you must first prove your god's existence.

Paradoxes: (These will be some paradoxes that work with the Christian god and I assume the Islamic god)

Omnipotence:
Can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it?
If yes he is not omnipotent,
If no he is not omnipotent hence an omnipotent being cannot and does not exist.

Problem of evil:
"If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?"

~~Epicurus[2]

Here we can see that a) it is your burden to prove god does exist and I have also shown that your god is incompatible with reality.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot
[2] http://dangerousintersection.org...
Debate Round No. 1
nires

Pro

You, my friend, asked me the most easiest question of all..... before i answer it i want to tell you some mistakes you have done.....
you said can god create something he cannot lift? in this sentence it tells me that you are comparing god with humans...... you, my friend, don't know the actual meaning of god... god is the creator of anything and everything and he is indepentant..... god is the most powerful thing and will remain that way....
for example i want you to image that the world we live in is eternal... no one dies and there are only freedom and happiness.. can you imagine that this actually happens... no you can't, this is because the brain is very small and is only capable to accept some information not all. this is the reason you cannot imagine god being sooo powerful....
God does exists..if something as small as a pencil need a creator how can something as big as earth doesnt have any?

Athiesm was created saying earth has no creation, how can you believe in a religion that says earth doesn't have a creator when the religion itself has its own creator?
petersaysstuff

Con

Well the funny thing is you didn't answer any of my arguments and provided no real ones of your own. The only thing you said was "Athiesm was created saying earth has no creation, how can you believe in a religion that says earth doesn't have a creator when the religion itself has its own creator?" and I will disprove everything in here.

//"Athiesm was created saying earth has no creation//
This is false. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god(s), not how the earth was formed. Also, you make the common fallacy of equating something being formed or having a beginning to being made by a god when it is simply not true. We have a comprehensive theory about how planets are formed.[1]

//how can you believe in a religion that says earth doesn't have a creator when the religion itself has its own creator?//
Atheism by definition is not a religion (it's a personal relationship with reality). The definition of religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" [2] whereas the definition of atheism is "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."[3] hence one can easily see that atheism is not a religion. People say the earth doesn't have a creator because, again, we have a comprehensive theory about how planets form. (see footnote 1)
Also, atheism has no one creator, it is merely looking objectively at the world and seeing that is no evidence for god and I say this to any people who are undecided that are reading this debate, so far my opponent has provided no evidence fro the existence of a god and has not answered my arguments, she just said my mind was to small to comprehend god.

[1] http://www.msnucleus.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
nires

Pro

ok than let us start over again... tell me what you believe in and why?
petersaysstuff

Con

I argue that there is no god simply because there is a) no physical need for a god and b) because there is flat out no credible evidence for one.

By the by vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wolfhaines 5 years ago
wolfhaines
The paradox is designed to show that religion is false, not that God does not exist. Religion is what makes the attempt at describing God and attributing him with features. God may well be just as mistake prone and constantly learning as we are. But there is still not a scrap of evidence he exists, it is all theoretical. We cannot base our actions towards each other on something that cannot be proven and cannot be described without paradox.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
What BennyW said: God could create a rock he couldn't lift and then lift it.
Posted by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
Although con clearly won this I want to bring up a faulty argument he used. The thing about God not being able to create a rock too heavy for him to lift is merely a semantic paradox and in no way disproves God's existence. Actually that question mike make a good debate topic.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Pro lost this with his very first round as far as I'm concerned.
"God exists if not prove it to me"
Dude, that's fvcking pathetic.
Conduct: Conduct to Con for not losing his temper with such ridiculous rubbish.
S&G: Obviously; Pro was barely coherent.
Arguments: BOP completely unfulfilled. Not only did you not make an argument for the existence of God (and there are good ones!) but you didn't come close to proving Allah is the true God. Please try harder. Read some of popculturepooka and InquireTruth's debates. Vague assertions will get you nowhere here.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Done deal!
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
Sounds great! Bring it on :)
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Ok...we agree with bush so let's do abortion. I'll challenge you when I'm ready.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
I am for abortion so we could do that but I'm fine with either. Take your pick :)
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Ok. George Bush was a BAD president! (I am pro!)
Abortion (I am con)
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
Sounds cool. If you think of anything let me know. I'm cool with debating any topic on any side (for or against)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
nirespetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This one is a hard one for me to vote on. lol I'm a Christian, so I don't believe Islam is the true religion, but I do believe that God exists. So I agreed with both before the debate. However, Pro unfairly placed the burden of proof on Con. Pro also made some pretty weak arguments to support his case.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
nirespetersaysstuffTied
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: Although I'm sad for theists... it's encouraging (sort of) that it isn't just Christians on this site who don't know how to debate.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
nirespetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no real argument
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
nirespetersaysstuffTied
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: Obvious.ro had no idea what he was talking about
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
nirespetersaysstuffTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 pt to Pro as a new member for making a worthy debate topic, 1 pt for staying polite through the exchange. 3 pt to Con for making an argument and elevating this to an actual debate. I would suggest a counter challenge from peter to nires.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
nirespetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct, SandG and Arguments to Con. See comments for elaboration.