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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ockham has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 106077
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists.

By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises.

God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1]

If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. The following types of definition are unacceptable: (a) Definitions that attempt to win the debate by defining God as something that obviously exists, like "God is love" or "God is the universe." (b) Definitions that attempt to define God as something radically different from the traditional Judeo-Christian God as conceived of by Anselm, Aquinas, Richard Swinburne, or other traditional authors.

Please note that the character maximum for this debate is 5,000 characters per round.



Well for clarity's sake, I am indeed surprised that you have invited me to this very merry discussion, well, first of all to summarize my argument, I'm going to start in saying that "We know that animals think in different way", so in that way we know that there exists animal world and which is to say different from the human world (Dummettian-cum-
Davidsonian analysis), by that we aspire to break out of the limitations of merely human perception, and perceive the world as it is in itself"the single reality that underlies the very different perceptions that constitute the world of animals and the world of humans.

By means of science, we have made some progress towards understanding the world as it is in itself"we can point to ways in which scientific descriptions of the world are improvements on the description based on our bare perceptions, so our aspiration to know the world as it is in itself cannot be dismissed as an incoherent longing. But insofar as this aspiration is coherent, "in itself" cannot mean "without reference to the perceptions of any being." So it really is the notion of reference, there should be a strict universal notion of reference which refers to us and of course it takes one mind only to recognize us being a bare referent. So this bare referent (which is us) of course is being referred or being recognized by the strict rational mind and I think it would be illogical for someone to negate that we are a bare referent.

Thus the single world that underlies the different perceptions of humans and other species can only be understood as being the world as apprehended by a being whose knowledge constitutes the way things are"in other words, the world as apprehended by God.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.