The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
woohooman
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

theists and atheists lack evidence.. therfore can never win a debate

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...
woohooman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 260 times Debate No: 93830
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

theists and atheists have no arguments.. and the only one that has any sort of debate power is the agnostic by default..

theist and atheist claims are like recordings or broken record looping
woohooman

Con

What does it mean to win a debate? Doesn't it simply mean that your opponent concedes? In this case, an atheist and a theist are both capable of winning a debate as both have a pool of evidence to draw from to create a case for or against the belief in God.
Whether they win the debate depends on their talent for debate, the strength of their evidence and the position of their opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

got plenty of broken records

to win a debate.. you are right forfeit, at one point it becomes very clear to the opponent he can not escape... 5 rounds disable any possibility of this

they have no arguments.. they dont even exist in the debate.. its like denial of denial is the highest level you get out of them, and that is suggested claims as proof...

is there a god?

they can have no talent, there is no math or certainty involved..
woohooman

Con

Your assertion is that atheists/theists do not have evidence and as a result can not win a debate.
This is false. Both positions have evidence.

Generally, an argument will begin by defining God. Let's say, the usual non-denominational Christian God: all-knowing, all-powerful omnibenevolent creator of the universe as described in the Bible.

The atheists evidence would be in finding logical inconsistencies with God as described in this context. They can pick apart the Bible in its historical and scientific inaccuracies or they can expose God's nature as paradoxical (how can an benevolent being allow evil to exist and still be benevolent?). These act as evidence against God's existence and can be strong enough to dissuade some people from belief in God.

A theist also has evidence to chose from: the creation of the universe necessitates a creator. How can good and bad be said to exist without some objective standard for "goodness"? The testimonial of thousands of matyrs and other believers over the centuries.

Whether or not this evidence is sufficient is certainly up to the person being presented with the evidence but clearly this warrants more than "not proof so it doesn't count".
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

you can not prove non existence with physical evidence when for something to be physical it has to exist

ow you just define god then.. remember to describe in detail carefully and i want a naked painting to

it is true you have claimed a known god to be all powerfull

health is good.. no god involved
woohooman

Con

you can not prove non existence with physical evidence

You can't prove a negative period. I don't understand the purpose of the assertion.


when for something to be physical it has to exist

ow you just define god then.. remember to describe in detail carefully and i want a naked painting to

I was using the usual Christian depiction of God as an example. I could have just as easily used a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh God in that example.

In the example I gave, I did not use "corporeal" to describe God. It is possible for God to exist but not have a physical form that we can perceive. Human perception is, after all, limited to three spatial dimmension and one time dimmension. Things can exist without an obvious or observable physical prescense.
For example, I cannot observe your thoughts but I can reason that they exist through logic.

It hould not be assumed that God has a body to pose naked for a painting (I assumed that comment was a joke).


it is true you have claimed a known god to be all powerfull

In that specific example, yes, God is defined as being all-powerful. However, I would not assert that God as being a "known god" (whatever that means).


health is good.. no god involved

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://witscience.org...
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Health and God can overlap.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
eveything you posted
Posted by woohooman 7 months ago
woohooman
I was an atheist for most of my life but converted pretty recently.
What denial are you talking about?
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
but it was fun yes, you do present a progression in denial as can be dealt with easily.. with enough rounds
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
we can do it again.. but there is not much to argue with a broken record
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
have you given up on faith and belief entirely?
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
it is as if you think god is true
Posted by woohooman 7 months ago
woohooman
Fun debate. We should do it again sometime.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
guess xthats as far as pikachu gets xD
Posted by woohooman 7 months ago
woohooman
But, PowerPikachu21, the argument isn't about whether or not God can be proven. Only whether or not a theist or atheist can present evidence and win a debate.

For the record, I'm a theist who has argued in favor of God's existence and I make a point not to cite the Bible. Expecting an atheist to accept the Bible as any kind of authority is silly.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 7 months ago
PowerPikachu21
Technically, a God can't be proven nor disproven. A thiest will attempt to disprove evolution, and cite the bible a lot. An athiest will prove evolution, and attempt to disprove the Bible as a reliable source. An agnostic has no idea what to believe.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sashil 7 months ago
Sashil
vi_spexwoohoomanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO asserts that atheists/theists lack evidence to win a supposed given debate, if one was to ever take place. He supports his assertion by stating that it's not possible to present tangible evidences for an intangible being. CON rebuts by presenting actual arguments that theists and atheists would use to win debates and by this he drives home the message that, logic can be used to establish a rationale that, even if the argument doesn't prove god's existence, can still be enough to win a hypothetical debate. Whether the presented evidences ultimately proves the existence of God is immaterial to this debate since that's outside the domain of the resolution. Hence, I award the points for argument to CON. I wish good luck to both the contestants :)