proof god is not real
Debate Rounds (3)
anything that is created or constructed is a machine, and life is nature, the human body is nature
Pro has named two categories of things that exist: machines and nature. Pro has not proven that god is not machine or nature. Pro has not proven that god does not exist.
god is a creator, nature is not created, life is nature.. or nature is not a machine
Pro states god is a creator, but has not stated how being a creator prevents god from being nature or machine.
Pro states nature is not created, but has not stated how not being created prevents god from being nature.
Pro states life is nature, but has not stated how life being nature prevents god from being nature.
Pro states nature is not machine, but has not state how nature not being machine prevents god from being machine.
My original point stands. Pro has not proven that god is not real.
surely god didnt create himself.. cmon now
you can get to arguing now.. my proposition stands as true and undefeated until you demonstrate how you didnt fail miserably
you dont have a point..
Pro argues that god did not create god. That is not proof that god is not real.
Pro has identified nature as real.
Pro has said nature is not created.
Pro has not proven that god is not nature.
If god is nature, then god is not created, so there is no need for god to create god.
Pro has not proven god is not real.
The debate topic is "proof god is not real". Burden of Proof is on Pro to prove that god is not real. I succeed if I show that Pro has not done this. I have shown that Pro has not proven that god is not real. I have not failed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by skipsaweirdo 1 week ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pros continued with assertions that had no basis in logic or no support for them as being anything but blathering. Pro is a blatherskite whose words and thoughts were nothing more than amphiboly. I think pro misunderstands how to be eristic and that was his motivation not sincere discourse. Cons rebuttals were an excellent example of exhibiting eutaxy. He responded to pros assertions and they were stultified.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.