The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

A god exists

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 88442
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




This will be a fact based round. I will argue that one can logically assume that there exists no gods. For added difficulty against myself, I will define god extremely generally. If my opponent can logically prove that the Christian god exists, then they will have won. If my opponent can logically prove that fairies exist, then they will have won. If my opponent can prove that any being exists that is capable of defying the laws of nature, they will have won. I look forward to this debate.


Round 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only from Con. Pro Constructs argument
Round 2- Rebuttals
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Rebuttals. Closing remarks from Pro. No new rebuttals may be made here.
Round 5- Closing Remarks from Con. No new rebuttals may be made here. Pro will in this round post only the following: "Null Post As Agreed" Posting anything but this constitutes immediate loss for the Pro.

Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes an immediate loss.

God - a god is any concious supernatural being/agency.
Existence - for a thing to exist it must have any kind physical manifestation in the natural universe that logically must imply its cause.


I just read through Con's ridiculous debate rules, and If I had read the rules prior to accepting the debate...I would have just left a comment in the comment section. Namely, telling Con that his debate rules are nothing but silly manipulations of language and logic constructed into an closed off argument.

"Definitins only from Con. Pro only constructs arguments."
What? How can Con assert that only he defines what things mean. Then he might as well debate a tree. If he doesn't want to allow for an absolution to his superficially contrived definitions, he doesn't want to have a discussion at all.

Pro cannot have closing arguments? Con is going to make a rebuttle against his

Con asks the proposition does "a god exist."?
Or he demands us prove the proposition that he made (illogical in itself) that "a god exists."
Fine. I believe God exists. But when taking a look at Con's deceptive rules what do i find!

He has essentially defined on his own the word "god" and the word "exist". He didn't use any substance from reality , a dictionary or any authorative source...instead he relied on his imagination to dictate, define, tell us what "god" or "exist" means. Well i could say con cannot change my definitions either and say "god is turth" and "existence is that which persists regardless" and then there you have it, the truth persists and god exists!

But if i did that, what shall Con say!? "Oh you christian charlatan! Decieving me by means of your words!"
When two sides communicate, words are extremely important in conveying the accurate meaning across from one side to another. Absent of drawing pictures, words allow us to express all our ideas and event the deep emotions unexpressable by drawing out a diagram.

Con cannot define words, and say they are not up for interpretation. When words themselves are nothing but social conventions between two or more ppl.

Let's have a look at his silly definitions and invalid logical constructs that are built off of those definitions.

"God - a god is any concious supernatural being/agency."
1. Although its hard to agree this is what ANY one thinks of as god or God when they say god,,,, (this definition seems more appropriate with " ghost" )...let us assume we agree to this first fallacious/misleading defintion to begin with, since God is undefined any how...

The more apparent logical problem in con's debate rules is that he is defining the out come of his debate.

"Existence - for a thing to exist it must have any kind physical manifestation in the natural universe that logically must imply its cause."
1. Manifestation, is a synonym for "beginning to exist. " you cannot use a word to define itself. Fallacy.
2. Further u said "physical " manifestation. Which is like saying "existence is only that which is physical existence." Which is reducing the idea of existence down to the subcategory of physical existence which is absolutely illogical.
3. Then you said "natural...causes." Implying that anything that exists, MUST have a cause. Although logically that is true, it does NOT imply God is a "thing" or if "natural...causes"

So back to your definition of God.
"Supernatural agent:being."

Con does not define "supernatural". Nor does he define "agent".

If we accept Con's argument, since Sharry who is a Farmer's Insurance Agent, but not in the "physical" realm nor can her employment be explained by "natural..causes." Sherry the farmer's agent must not exist. Her employment may also be considered supernatrual, since it goes beyond any natural explanation for its causes.

Also. In respect to Con's rules I wont go as far as to define "supernatural" but I will point out, IM PRETTY SURE, con has that definition confused as well. Because that which is supernatural, does not mean it does not exist within nathure. It only means it is SUPER nature and thus UNEXPLAINED by science and APPEARING TO transcend physical laws. (But may not actually be doing so. Ie. The bermuda triangle )

But i will need to at this point ask Con to redefine his definition of exist. As it only seems fair. Unless he wants to assert that his Consciousness does not exist as well.

"Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence. Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations." - Wikipedia.

God has commonly be held to persist whether Con likes it or not, thinks about Him or not, believes in him or Not, understands Him or not. In the absence of understanding God, it is ridiculous to assume you have absence of his Evidence. What Con lacks is not logical or hard evidence for God, he lacks the knowledge to discern that evidence, should it exist.

So if the notion of God persists. And to exist is that which persists. And there is evidence that exists and this is the commonly held notion. Logically it would be fair to assume, God also exists.
Debate Round No. 1


We have restructured the debate. Please find it here:


chipmonk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Jean-Paul_Blartre forfeited this round.


chipmonk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Jean-Paul_Blartre forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Jean-Paul_Blartre forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
@jean. Well said!
Posted by Jean-Paul_Blartre 2 years ago
Oh well this is terribly obnoxious. If you had qualms with my definitions I would have been MORE than willing to accept any definitions you would like to posit, rather than arguing over which definitions are correct. I am not interested in my definition of god, so I thought I would pose a definition that was so broad that any other definition of God could be contained within. Clearly that has backfired.

I am however interested in arguing whether or not god exists. I'll cede to your arguments if you'd like, or we can agree to not finish this debate. Either way, I'd like to discuss with you the reality of the god you believe in. If you are interested in discussing this with me, please issue a debate challenge (in a preferably similar format) with your own preferred definitions of God and Existence so that we can actually discuss something interesting (i.e. not semantics).
No votes have been placed for this debate.