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

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
Moelogy has forfeited round #5.
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: 8/1/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 103358
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




So I have been spreading this rumor around that I left Islam and became an atheist lately mostly to play the devil's advocate. These did not happen and I will never become atheist but I was merely trying to collect as many as rebuttals as possible.

I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God.

Definitions :

Universe - all of space, matter, time and energy

God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being.

Exists - to have an objective being or existence.

Rules :

-no trolling
-no forfeits
-no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary)

Rounds :

Round one - acceptance
R2) arguments
R3) Rebuttals + arguments
R4) Rebuttals
R5) Rebuttals

BOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.


I accept. Of course, I am arguing against the proposition that God exists.
Debate Round No. 1


Oh I forgot to fix a mechanism within this debate so I will have to repost. I want to change max characters to 10,000 rather than 8,000


I would love to accept your new debate but this one needs to end first.
Debate Round No. 2


You can't engage in 2 debates with the same person at the same time. So this debate needs to end, before I accept your new one.
Maybe someone else will accept your other debate, but I do want to debate, I'm just not sure I can.
Debate Round No. 3


Called off debate, do not vote.


I'm still being told arguments are due
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by platoandaristotle 2 years ago
What is the link to the repost?
Posted by Moelogy 2 years ago
But he is by definition necessary. If he is outside the universe, he is timeless and therefore there is no time before him for anything to create him hence uncaused and necessary.

What's bothering you with the definition.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
If you change the definition of god to be,

god - the omnipotent, omniscient, omibenevolent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority,

then I'll accept as Con.
This debate has 0 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.