The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,370 times Debate No: 103444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)




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


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


Someone wrote:

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

Yes it does.

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


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


You lost the debate -- goodbye!


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


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

You lost the debate -- goodbye!


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 21 through 29 records.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 3 years ago
Ad hominems, you haven't shown any attempt to rebuttal. I should, therefore, be declared the winner as all you did was spew an illogical argument.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Con posted the single worst argument in the history of the world, and then simply resorted to begging for someone to vote for his side.

I honestly suspect that Con has severe learning disabilities.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Also, that is 4 comments you've made to me after threatening to "ignore" me: Believers in atheist Dogma, such as you, are natural-born liars and way too attached, just like feces is way too attached to the bottom of people's boots:

How does the bottom of my boot feel to you, platoandaristotle?
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Premise 2b does make sense, actually.
Posted by platoandaristotle 3 years ago
I don't think premise 2b makes sense - see if you can figure out what I mean.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
What part of the phrase "objective religious ideals" do you fail to understand; "objective," "religious," or "ideals?"
Posted by brian.bors7 3 years ago
Hey Purushadasa,

Could you define your term "objective religious ideals" within these statements for me? I am unsure what you mean by that.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
No I don't.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
You still need to create a god.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
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.