The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ChurnedCreamery
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Proof of God Via Opposing Religious Ideals:

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
ChurnedCreamery
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,369 times Debate No: 103444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

1. If God does not exist, objective religious ideals do not exist.

2. Objective religious ideals do exist:

2a. If opposing religious ideals exist, some religious ideals are wrong.

2b. If some religious ideals are wrong, objective religious ideals exist.

2c. Opposing religious ideals do exist.

2d. Therefore, some religious ideals are wrong.

2e. Therefore, objective religious ideals do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists. QED
ChurnedCreamery

Con

I accept, but what you stated does not add up
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"I accept, but what you stated does not add up"

Yes it does.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
ChurnedCreamery

Con

Just because someone disagrees with what you said doesn't mean that you lose the debate, you're awfully pretentious
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

You lost the debate -- goodbye!
ChurnedCreamery

Con

Nah, you haven't explained anything, nor have you posted a single argument
Here is mine:
There is no objectively good or bad, only perception. We can thus come to any conclusion regarding the existence of a God from objectively good or bad beliefs.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

Congratulations for posting the single worst argument I have ever seen in my entire life.

You lost the debate -- goodbye!
ChurnedCreamery

Con

Vote con, Pro has shown to have no innate ability to refute.
He has clearly only shown dogmatic ideas and or beliefs, once again, I must reiterate, vote con
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Actually, I have won every debate in which I have participated on this site, except for one (which I deliberately forfeited).

Without God, being prideful could neither be a sin nor could it be objectively wrong.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between a virtuous person and an abhorrent person.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Actually, I have won every debate in which I have participated on this site, except for one (which I deliberately forfeited).

Without God, being prideful could neither be a sin nor could it be objectively wrong.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between a virtuous person and an abhorrent person.
Posted by EnchantedPlatinum 3 years ago
EnchantedPlatinum
According to the rules of this website, you saying "You lose" carries absolutely no weight. In your mind, you may have a perfect winning streak but your account plainly states that you have zero wins. You are very self-centered and indulge too much in the sin of Pride.

If God were real, you would be an abhorrent person.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Oh yes, I really do -- I have decided, and I shall continue to decide.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 3 years ago
ChurnedCreamery
No, you don't.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Yes, I do get to decide who wins.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 3 years ago
ChurnedCreamery
No, you don't get to decide who wins, that's stupid as anyone who feels so strongly about his beliefs isn't going to change their decision over a petty internet dispute. The winner is decided by the general consensus of the public, aka people who vote, not you.
"I honestly suspect that Con has severe learning disabilities."
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Thomas, yes I do get to decide who wins.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
That wasn't an ad hominem -- it was a comment about your argument.
Posted by thomas12354 3 years ago
thomas12354
This isn't really about the debate but rather the approaches and formalities. To the Pro's side i believe you misunderstand the point that you are trying to prove to others your point you do not get to decide who wins it is up to the others who witness and read your debate. If you constantly say you lost the debate thank you for your time, it hurts your own argument as you appear to be unwilling to any other opinion therefore missing the point of debating and not actually targeting your audience and therefore not here to change minds but make yourself feel better. However this is a very interesting debate but rather a missed opportunity due to the approaches of the Pro's side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaChurnedCreameryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shat on Aristotle's grave for his opening argument. There was nothing Con could do about it.

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