The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
42lifeuniverseverything
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

see=no god

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 2 votes the winner is...
42lifeuniverseverything
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 91575
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (57)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

guess the last place to look for god is in the dark
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

I accept.

I am glad my opponent wishes to debate this topic and hopefully further our understanding of the universe through every single debate.

While many debates can be made on the existence of God, this is your argument *sigh. Well I will debate two rounds with you.

RESPONSES: Your argument is quite short. Essentially you argue with the support of the resolution's wording and your round 1 sentence that you have to see God to know he exists. Because you woke up today and did not see God, then God must not exist per your argument.

I have a couple responses. A) Your eyes can deceive you. Have you ever heard of mirages? They are real, and are proof that your sense of eyesight is not as omniscient as you claim it to be. B) God is not dependent on your seeing him. If he is actually real, then God could exist without you seeing him, because you are highly inferior of a being to God and God could easily hide himself from your knowledge because of that. Common logic.

My only argument (right now).

1. Universal Negative Proposition.

You implied through your argument something that in logic is called a universal negative proposition. Essentially you argue that A does not equal B. In order to make this claim however, you must know everything that exists within A (and I mean everything), and everything that exists within B, and be able to spot the difference that shows they do not equate.

So that sounds easy enough to understand right? So where is your universal negative? You claim that God does not equal existence. But to claim this and be believed, you essentially have to be God himself. Why? Because you claim to know the entirety of God (which no man can claim), and the entirety of the Universe itself and everything that exists in it. You have claimed to have examined the entire universe for a trace of God and have not found him. But to be able to do that you need omniscience, which is a trait only possessed by God.

So ultimately you must either prove that you are God in your response, or forfeit the round over a poor logical argument being your only argument for the resolution. I leave you the choice, and hope that you have a good day.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

havnt seen santa to

how do you know mirages exist if you cant see them.. know=certain
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

Right, correct that you have not seen Santa. Would you like to know why? Because Santa does exist, but he is your parents. Also Saint Nicolaus did exist per stories, so Santa is not totally fictional. Honestly you are giving me the run of the mill response to my logical argument.

You are trying to defy my logic, but casting uncertainty onto life as a whole and what we know. Note this, if you wish to question whether we can know anything, make a debate on that, not on a topic of whether God exists. If you want to debate whether God exists, then don't make a universal negative proposition. It really is not that hard. You are a pinning me as the failure point of your argument, but really it is you who did not provide a good logical reason why God does not exist.

As for mirages, here is how you know it is a mirage. If you think you see water in the desert when you are dehydrated, and walk towards that beautiful pool of water for 4 hours before realizing it is staying in the same place ahead of you the whole time, then you begin to clue in to the fact that the pool of water is a figment of your imagination. If a gps were shown to you then, you would see that water was not for hundreds of miles in all directions. This would prove to you that your eyes with the help of your brain were constructing a mirage.

I was merely suggesting that because God is all powerful and all knowing by nature, he could pull the wool over your eyes, give you a mirage, and you would not realize it until death. So that argument was not responded to you at all actually. You just misunderstood it, which is fine.

In the end, voters I urge you to VOTE CON because Pro was highly illogical in this debate. Thank you, and thank you to my oppoenent for presenting this challenge.
Debate Round No. 2
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
votes prove i am probably the best in here, almost 0 percent
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 9 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
I understand how terrible he is. But I thought the debate could be interesting.
Posted by BenD 9 months ago
BenD
How did he get to 99th percentile when he wins 16%??
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
well you have to be a retard to claim that
Posted by Meropenem777 9 months ago
Meropenem777
Con, I hope you knew what kind of person you were debating. It wasn't worth that much effort to win against this guy tbh lol.
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
the cheese moon shines brightest when its full
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
imagination is false
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
imagination is false
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
you didnt disprove a thing
Posted by BenD 9 months ago
BenD
I have heard it said this way: Disproving God because you can't see him is like disproving the existance of ancient potery artifacts in an area because you can't find them with a metal detector. If they were really there, you would not find them with the metal detector because you are using the wrong instrament. The potery may very well be there.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BenD 9 months ago
BenD
vi_spex42lifeuniverseverythingTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Only one side HAD arguments. As the instigator, I would expect you to be ready to debate the topic. You failed to rebut anything.
Vote Placed by Richardsonalj 9 months ago
Richardsonalj
vi_spex42lifeuniverseverythingTied
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: vi_spex, you are the instigator which means you must provide points to prove your claims. 42 readily argued that eyes are not as great as you think they are. It would be nice if he provided reliable sources, it would've benefitted him with seven points. Although 42 had some grammatical errors, I grade based off percentage. Obviously vi's grammar was graded 100% for failure. Since 42 was not joking within the debate, he gets conduct.