theists and atheists lack evidence.. therfore can never win a debate
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: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 388 times | Debate No: | 93830 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)
 Pro theist and atheist claims are like recordings or broken record looping  Con Whether they win the debate depends on their talent for debate, the strength of their evidence and the position of their opponent. |
 |
|
Pro 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.. Con 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". |
 |
|
Pro 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 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. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sashil 1 year ago
| vi_spex | woohooman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 |
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 :)
What denial are you talking about?
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.