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

The God of the Bible exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 112801
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Mingodalia

Pro

I will take the position that the God of the Bible exists. Con will take the position that the God of the Bible does not exist.
backwardseden

Con

http://www.youtube.com... - Burden of Proof
http://www.youtube.com... - Testing for god
http://www.youtube.com... - World must have a creator
http://www.youtube.com... - How do you know god isn't real?

1. Refute the hosts of the Atheist Experience videos.

2. You cannot prove that YOUR god exists regardless if you using the bible or not in which no god of the bible would ---never--- use text to as a form of communication, the worst form of communication to begin with. I mean come on here, the bible is not proof of evidence of any kind. To prove it, NOBODY, not one person, no one, has ---ever--- been able to prove YOUR god's existence according to the bible, Where oh where and how do you get your biblical and godly instructions from that you, nor anyone follows, so you are NOT a christian, nor can you or anyone ---ever--- be. But first yah gotta prove your god exists. So demonstrate, offer some tests, and make evident that YOUR god exists according to the bible.

Teeny tiny eye squint text will not be acceptable.
Debate Round No. 1
Mingodalia

Pro

CON:

- Burden of Proof
- Testing for god
- World must have a creator
- How do you know god isn't real?

1. Refute the hosts of the Atheist Experience videos.

-----

Aah. Nothing better than Matt Dillahunty, a man made famous for dodging in debate, hence the term "The Dillahunty Dodge".

http://www.silverweapon.com...

And interesting that Con needs an atheist radio show to debate for him...

Nevertheless, the points in the video were rather simple to rebuttal, and some of them weren't points I even need to rebuttal in a "God exists" debate.

-----

BURDEN OF PROOF

Very good. In Round 4 of my debate with this same opponent, I provided a lengthy rebuttal of which Con then chose to forfeit the round with no rebuttal because he had none.

debate.org/debates/Why-cant-christians-take-their-god-at-his-word-Well-only-whenit-suits-them-as-is-the-christian-way/1/

The point of Round 4 was that if the Bible were correct, its end times claims should come true. I demonstrated that they have. Even better still, the Bible's claims in Isaiah that Damascus, Syria will be reduced to rubble in the end times is happening in real time as we speak.

"The burden concerning Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from resembling a city, and it shall become a heap of ruins." (ISAIAH 17:1)

http://biblehub.com...

Pictures of Damascus today-

1)

https://static01.nyt.com...

2)

http://m.beforeitsnews.com...

3)

http://www.endtimesprophecywatch.com...

In Round 4 of the other debate, the premise was made from 3 distinct claims of a point in the "end times".

1)The gospel spreads to every nation. It even tells you specifically that this (the gospel spreading to every nation) is the key sign that the end is upon us.

2)It then makes a paradoxial claim, stating there will be a "falling away" from the Christian faith and an open rebellion against it.

3)It makes another paradoxial claim, describing another future religious system (The beast system) that begins spreading across the Earth, even specifically rejecting the notion that "Jesus is the son of God", beheading Christians and imprisoning them in mass, being antisemitic, bowing to an image, etc. If there are 100 descriptions of this future religious system, Islam matches it to a "T".

And if Con wants to say it's just a big coincidence, it really isn't. Islam itself claims that it (Islam) is in Biblical prophecy. If you ask a Muslim where, they will point to the book of Revelation, then point to "The beast from the sea", otherwise known to Christians as the kingdom and the religious system of the Antichrist. But rather than call this legendary figure "The Antichrist", Muslims call him "The Mahdi", meaning they see him as their Islamic messiah.

This is explained in greater detail in Round 4 of the other debate I had with Con.

debate.org/debates/Why-cant-christians-take-their-god-at-his-word-Well-only-whenit-suits-them-as-is-the-christian-way/1/

-----

TESTING FOR GOD

1)Prophecy is an easy testing for God. If the Bible makes paradoxial claims (and it does), and then those claims manifest into reality, it is logical to then come to the conclusion that the prophets have some inside knowledge from the god they claim.

2)The findings of Physicist James Gates would be a naturalistic proof of intelligent design to go hand in hand with the prophecy claim in point 1.

(James Gates Video)

https://youtu.be...

-----

WORLD MUST HAVE A CREATOR

I don't argue that a god is necessary for our world, universe, or reality to exist, so it's moot. I argue that there is proof that there is a god.

As the woman in Con's second video stated, if reality matches the claim, then it is rational to accept the claim as true or very likely true. I refer you back to the points made in the "Burden of Proof" section in this debate.

Her point was that if she says she has a cup in her hand, and you see one in her hand, she probably really does have a cup in her hand. I showed you the cup in my hand at the beginning of the debate in the "Burden of Proof" section.

-----

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD ISN'T REAL-

1)This is a question for an atheist, not me.

2)Whether one can prove a negative or not isn't an argument I have made, nor does the conceptualization challenge my above premise in the "Burden of Proof" section at the beginning of this debate.

-----

CON SAYS:
"no god of the bible would ---never--- use text to as a form of communication"

A complete assumption and conjecture based on nothing. Objectively prove the god of the Bible would never use text, a book, words, the Internet, paper, email, etc. Then show how that would prove God does not exist.

-----

CON SAYS:
"the worst form of communication to begin with."

An opinion. The next Joe Blow could claim it's the best form. Nevertheless, communication choice has nothing to do with one's existence.

-----

CON SAYS:
"To prove it, NOBODY, not one person, no one, has ---ever--- been able to prove YOUR god's existence according to the bible."

I did at the beginning of this debate, and in my other debate with Con in Round 4. Con gave no rebuttal of any kind in Round 4 of that debate. He forfeited the round.

debate.org/debates/Why-cant-christians-take-their-god-at-his-word-Well-only-whenit-suits-them-as-is-the-christian-way/1/

-----

CON SAYS:
"Where oh where and how do you get your biblical and godly instructions from that you, nor anyone follows, so you are NOT a christian, nor can you or anyone ---ever--- be.""

An ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the existence of God. But if Con wants reasoning in regards to his attack, he should study Biblical terms like "saved by grace", "He will not deny Himself", and "you are saved by faith and faith alone." A simple Google search should yield plenty of good results.
backwardseden

Con

CON:- Burden of Proof - Testing for god - World must have a creator- How do you know god isn't real? 1. Refute the hosts of the Atheist Experience videos.----

"Aah. Nothing better than Matt Dillahunty, a man made famous for dodging in debate, hence the term "The Dillahunty Dodge"." Which means you do not have any outs so you came up with that miserable lame excuse. Its also point blank obvious that you did not watch the videos. You call it a "radio show" when its not. And he had a lot more to say than "evolution" in which was scarcely mentioned, if at all. But then again your debating skills seriously lack. Oh and oh yeah um other hosts had a lot to say in which you dodged them - naturally.

So since you completely ignored the videos, and didn"t watch them, you have nothing to refute which is the typical christian window to completely ignore evidence especially when slapped in the face with it.

Matt Slick, in being a creationist, and for that matter all creationists, no exceptions, none, are all thrown to the trash and are complete bile and worthless. Why your little heartbeat of smothered testicle spotted hair remover asks? Because they are ALL NO EXCEPTIONS NONE chicken s--t refugee mousey poltron skillet fried cowards who cannot under any circumstance stand behind their product, namely their god, who in which they are smart enough to ---never--- put their god on trial again. They are NOT as stupid, and as completely as irrelevant as you. That"s because they know that all they have is faith based oriented and faith cannot be proved which is what the videos made a strong point of in which you completely ignored which is not a surprise as you completely ignore evidence. And faith is not evidence. And creationists know this. So again, all creationists, are thrown to the trash and are throw away rubbish. If creationists cannot stand behind their product, namely their god, then they most certainly cannot be trusted in any possible way.

Next time you might want to examine evidence before you and think about what is stated before using it as your battery powered easy bake oven, when in fact it totally destroys any argument you can possibly have.

Since it is point blank obvious that you didn"t watch the videos, I"m not going to continue with this debate until you do. And then if you can actually counter to what the HOSTS, not only with what Matt Dillahunty has to say, who is a brilliant debater and no creationist has yet to win a debate against him or any of the Atheist Experience hosts for that matter, simply because no one has yet to prove that god even exists, I"m not going to continue with this debate.

Oh and oh yeah I"m going to ignore the link you provided on evolution. And then again this debate in not on the debate on proving evolution anyway. But to humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize you in which you fully deserve BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PAY ANY ATTENTION, NOR INTERPRET TO WHAT OTHERS SAY oh well and with a very big duh evolution is proven fact.
Antibiotic resistant microbes, better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.

Superbug 1.a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides.
(has developed mean evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now
http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary
http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria
http://www.youtube.com... - Rise Of Superbugs Resistant To Antibiotics | Full Documentary
http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance

You know something? You are such a miserable poker player that I'd take all of your chips before you'd even were to sit down to the game.
Debate Round No. 2
Mingodalia

Pro

CON SAYS:
"So since you completely ignored the videos, and didn"t watch them."

1)I'm in a debate with you, not Matt Dillahunty, thus am not obligated to debate Matt Dillahunty.

2)I watched all 4. They weren't particularly thought provoking or even interesting. Listening to the guy tell Dillahunty a droning tale about how he always looked around thinking someone created all this was...a snore fest...

3)I mentioned examples from the videos. I'm starting to doubt your comprehension skills at this point.

-----

CON SAYS:
"Oh and oh yeah I"m going to ignore the link you provided on evolution."

I didn't provide any links on evolution...

-----

CON SAYS:
"Since it is point blank obvious that you didn"t watch the videos, I"m not going to continue with this debate until you do."

Con can't refute my points, nor did he attempt to. That says it all.

-----

All of my points still stand.
backwardseden

Con

OK this debate is now over because you truly are a complete and total imbecile and a christian who cannot possibly handle evidence when slapped in the face with it. You are also a true !00% true in every way contradictory hypocrite, just like your god, if there ever was one.
1. The videos as stated before, in which you cannot pay any attention to HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY THAN JUST MATT DIILLAHUNTY. Oh but wait, its perfectly OK for you to provide websites and allow them to speak for you and me not allow videos to speak for me so that proves you to be a true 100% fallible contradictory hypocrite.
2. The videos presented ANOTHER 5, HOSTS yes can you count that high? 5, FIVE, the number three and the number six are right out, and the number thou shalt count is five. Now throw the holy hand grenade in. One, two, five! Yes five other hosts who also had something to say and not just Matt. And there's quite a bit that they as well as him had to say that simply cannot be typed up in a 10,000 character debate. Oh but wait, you use websites where YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM and that's perfectly OK. Um nope. Oh and with a very BIG duh, watching something something at the same time as well as listening to it, unless you are blind and or deaf is a lot easier than reading something, especially when it doesn't fit and is completely useless and you can take in a lot more information with A LOT MORE EASE AND COMFORT by watching something. Bye.

Oh well gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, since you are such a true 100% contradictory hypocrite and stating something so completely ignorant such as "m in a debate with you, not Matt Dillahunty, thus am not obligated to debate Matt Dillahunty" then that means YOU cannot use your bible, not ever for any reason. and that's because Dillahunty knows a lot more about the bible, god and religion than you ---ever--- will. And frankly so do I.
Debate Round No. 3
Mingodalia

Pro

Con's entire offense was videos that would take hours to go through. If video's are allowed, here is Matt Dilahunty, the Atheist host in the videos, being schooled and having no responses to a theist debater.

https://youtu.be...

Con's entire defense was to not play defense. He had no response for any of my points because he didn't know how to respond or rebuttal my points.

The point? Con has videos of an atheist known for dodging points and not having answers in debates with theists. I debated, and Con gave us nothing but crickets as responses.

He wants science in general to be a rebuke of theism, but it is science itself that is proving theism. Con wants a video. Here you go.

James Gates, physicist, and Head Science Adviser to President Barack Obama-

https://youtu.be...

Now let's see if Con is anti science....
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by tanner_1230 3 years ago
tanner_1230
What a shame go through the whole debate to forfeit in the final round shame shame shame
Posted by jent0401 3 years ago
jent0401
Christianity is not based on hate and evil. It has hate and evil as elements to it.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@canis - Oh that is 100% very true as always. And where oh where, and how do they (does a man or men) dream up their god(s)? That takes an imagination. Unless its based on hate and evil which is what christianity is.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Any god is a dream..If the dream stops..Well no god..But yes ..Dreams do exist.
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.