The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Athias
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

The god of the bible does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Athias
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 747 times Debate No: 119889
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Rules:
Prove that the god of the bible exists

1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.
3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence.
4. Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT.

5. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed.

6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.
Athias

Con

Since you've failed to stipulate a definition for exist, I will. According to Merriam-Webster, The term exist is defined as such:

intransitive verb

a. To have real being whether material or spiritual.

Now I will stipulate the definitions of "being" "spiritual" and "real. "

being

noun

b (1) something that is conceivable and hence capable of existing.

spiritual

adjective

3. Concerning religious values.

real

c. (1) occurring or existing in actuality.

As a proviso, I must stipulate the acceptance of any description of actuality will not be subject to material constraints. Finally, I will stipulate the definitions of religion and relgious using Oxford:

Religion

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods.

Religious

2. Relating to or believing in a religion.

I must inform you that I did not create these definitions; I'm merely stipulating them using MW and Oxford citations. And with these stipulated definitions, I have proven the existence of not only God, But also all Gods, Since God(s) meets this criterion, I. E. Having spiritual being. In other words, God by definition exists. The other four rounds are unnecessary. As long as my stipulations are accepted and sustained, I've met my burden of proof without violating your rules.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Let's play by your kindergarten rules.
dictionary. Com
exist:
1. To have actual being; be:
The world exists, Whether you like it or not.
2. To have life or animation; live.
3. To continue to be or live:
Belief in magic still exists.
4. To have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:
Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. To achieve the basic needs of existence, As food and shelter:
He's not living, He's merely existing.

Now do you REALLY want to get into the definitions of "spiritual" and "religion" in which YOU completely ignored 3/4's of the definitions? I could have a lot of fun with that one. I just completed a debate on "Atheism is not a religion".

So you either play by the rules as set up in RD1, Or find yourself another debate as you know you cannot win this one which is why you came up with the absurd terminologies in meager attempts to try and weasel yourself out of something from in which you truly know better.
Athias

Con

They are not kindergarten rules. You cannot specify which rules of yours I've broken, Or haven't followed. Rule #5 nullifies rule #1. I've complied with Rules #2, #3, And #6. And #4 is conditional on the use of Bible verses, Which were unnecessary. I didn't ignore other definitions, I stipulated the ones necessary to formulate my proof. Now, Your error was in your lack of a stipulated definition, And now you're attempting to retroactively invalidate the cause for stipulation by offering up multiple definitions. Whether you scrutinize my argument's use of induction or deduction, My argument is sound. You just didn't expect proof by compositional semantics.

It is unnecessary to "weasel" my way out, Because I've already won this debate. You were expecting a proof using the scientific method, Which may have been useful if the burden was to prove God's physicality or material existence. But in debate, You can't "expect"; you must stipulate. I stipulated the most significant element of this debate; you did not. I win; you lose. You focused way too much on the method rather than its content. Take this as a lesson learned.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Oh OK, They are not your kindergarten rules. Then let's call them preschool rules. How's that for a mock up?
"You cannot specify which rules of yours I've broken, Or haven't followed. " Sure I can because you haven't even begun with numero uno and gone down with each link in the chain. Oh but wait by gum I didst thou forgeteth thee numero sixo who in which you can pleasure yourself on with reindeer droppings for alleth eyeth careth thee.

1. You haven't done.
2. Nobody has ever done in the entire history of the human race. But I guess your twinkletoes bang bang grande must think you are extra special and above everyone else.
3. That goes without saying.
4. Yah haven't presented any verses from your bible to support your case. Not too bright.

5. Nobody has ever been able to prove ---any--- god has ever existed from any religion in the entire existence of the human race. But garsh oh great useless manure pile of goat cheese, Once again you moist thinker yah must be bettwhore than everybody else who has ever lived to come up with any cheeze whiz answers.

"I stipulated the ones necessary to formulate my proof. " Which proof goo goo ga ga? "Now, Your error. . . " whoa there noodle boy, The debate was perfectly laid out in cotton jeans whoopie cushion voodoo doll love song so even a dimwitted dullard snot meat sow like you could figure it out. What's the prob? Not able to figure out what 2 = 2 =?

"was in your lack of a stipulated definition, And now you're attempting to retroactively invalidate the cause for stipulation by offering up multiple definitions. " Nope. OK you want the definitions for "religion" and "spiritual"? NP since you did not provide them and you thus strayed from the subject. Oh and btw, If you do it again, It will mean your forfeiture of this debate. So the rules are simple. . . Once again either stick to the rules as stipulated oin RTD1 or move onto another debate. If you do not understand the rules as stip[ulated in RD1, Then my suggestion is for you to go back tp preschool and take your English classes all over and put some garlic onion beer deodorant beer belly on to help you think from your popping zit range of your groin pulls because sad to say, It not working here. But no need to worry choir boy lost in his mommies hamper waiting for that lovely smell of used sweat to curl down through your afterthoughts, You cannot use psychology against lil ole me because I'm so much better at it than you are.

"Whether you scrutinize my argument's. . . " What arguments? Gosh, I'm late for watching Baywatch. I gotta let this one fly.
Athias

Con

"Sure I can because you haven't even begun with numero uno and gone down with each link of the chain. . .

1. You haven't done. "


Rule #5 conflicts with and nullifies rule #1. You should have never stipulated it, Even for "extra credit. " You were far too concerned with specious rhetoric than with logic.

2. I just did. It's a simple construction really. I just understand compositional semantics. I estimate that you do not.

3. You outlawed the very standard you wanted implicitly understood.

4. Bible verses were unnecessary.

5. I just did.

"Which proof goo goo ga ga? "

The one with which you have a grievance.

"The debate was perfectly laid out. . . "

Yes, It was laid out with exception to the most significant element: the standard by which existence is established.

"Nope. OK you want the definitions for "religion" and "spiritual"? NP since you did not provide them and you thus strayed from the subject. "

I do not require the definitions of religion and spiritual. I've already stipulated them (RD1. ) And I haven't strayed. The subject matter over which we argue solicits the proof of God(s), While keeping in line with the rules you stipulated. I've done this despite your attempts at retroactive revision.

"If you do it again, It will mean your forfeiture of this debate. "

That's not up to you. You do not have the authority to dictate the rules of forfeiture. We both agreed when engaging this debate to this site's rule of forfeiture, Which is determined using time constraints.

"Once again either stick to the rules as stipulated oin RTD1 or move onto another debate. "

Once again, You have not been able to delineate which rules I've broken. You're merely stating that I broke them with no substantial information to that effect.

"What arguments? "

Argument. Singular. I made a single argument. One was all which was necessary.

Your decorum is poor; and your grasp of logic has yet to be seen. This is not the forums or the comments section. This is a DEBATE. Your impressions of my character do not matter in the slightest because my character is not the subject. Take that into consideration before your next response.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Rules:
Prove that the god of the bible exists

1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.
3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence.
4. Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT.

5. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed.

If you do not wish to follow MY rules, Not YOUR rules, Leave. I---don't---care. I'm not here to please you. Darn! Oh and btw, Guess what snookums? I didn't even bother reading past your first sentence of your most recent RD. Darn again! We're not going to play your meager childish games anymore. If you cannot prove your god exists, In which case we both know that you can't, Then you have to claw back up your scrotum soda whimsical whatevers that even you don't understand that would never pass any barcodes in your cabbage batbrain to reach that big black baby bumbling babbling horseshoe crab between your legs that collects mold called a diaper.
I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post another argument unless you have something intelligent to say. Thanx. It would be most appreciated. Have a nice huggable chummy day.
Athias

Con

You've exhausted every sophistic tactic you can conceive. You'd rather insult than engage thoughtfully in this debate. If the definitions I stipulated are true--and they are true--then God exists by definition. You can't refute that. You failed to consider the meaning of the words you used, Let alone clarify their meaning and stipulate them. And now that you are at a loss, You indulge puerile behavior as means to veil your incapacity to deconstruct and dismantle my argument.

On to closing arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

Still can't prove that your god exists? That's what I thought. No answer. Btw, I have an extreme distaste for those who do not have an education or intelligence on the subject(s) that they profess to having knowledge upon and they really don't, And yet they pretend that they do such as you. And because they don't they invent excuses for that specific subject and or flat out lie such as you. When this happens, Which happens quite often, They will soon have no genuine friends or loved ones if it keeps up (hey you probably don't because of all your gibberish that you don't understand from your yick yak) and their teachers will ALWAYS mark that paper with an F as you obviously and blatantly have gone through sooooo many times. And it is my right to degrade, Dehumanize and belittle them or walk away in which I sometimes do with my brand of sarcastic, Dumb, Idiotic, Original, Gone from this universe, Blah blah black sheep have you any fool insults. This is something that is taught in college. Again, If you don't like it, Leave. I---don't---care. I'm not here to please a laughing gas laugh box that hasn't graduated from preschool like you. I truly was hoping for an intelligent educated debate. But as usual, Especially with brainwashed neanderthal nonsensical neon norbit chewrags like yourself that obviously didn't happen. Now go outside and puddle in your dog's litterbox. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say. And we both know that your penny ante yardstick you call a yoga jet ski is the furthest thing from any kind of truth to be gained from anything.
Athias

Con

Closing Arguments

1. My opponent immediately stipulates a set of rules which seek to shift the burden of proof of his assertortic proposition:"The god of the bible does not exist. " My opponent neglects his obligation as the instigator in proving this proposition true. My obligation as the contender whether satisfied or not does not absolve him of his obligation. He clearly has not met his burden of proof. .

2. The stipulated rules are as follows: (1) Prove that there is only one creator/god, (2)Test, Demonstrate, An assert this God, (3) No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence, (4) Chapters and verses only please from either KJV, NIV, NLT, (5) For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed, And (6) Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.

3. Now if we dissect these rules we learn a few things: (1) My opponent had not considered carefully the logical consistency of his rules; (2) Rule #5 nullifies rule #1 because it allows for the assertion and proof of multiple Gods; (3) Rule #2 and Rule #3 dictate that any "test, Demonstration, And assertion" of God not conform to the scientific method. So as long as one does not use the scientific, The condition of his rules would be met, And (4) Rule #6 is nonsensical since neither of us can prohibit user Dsjpk5 from the voting procedures.

4. My opponent failed to stipulate, However, The means by which one establishes existence. He merely assumes a material nature to existence. If he wanted to limit the establishment of existence to material descriptions, He should have stipulated the definition of existence. Since he failed to do so, This allowed me to stipulate a definition for existence. Furthermore, A material description of existence would have been inconsistent with Rule #3, Which outlawed the scientific method.

5. I stipulated a definition for existence which consisted of an immaterial description. In doing so, I also stipulated the components of this definition with other stipulated definitions. Arguing by induction, Or deduction, I proved God's existence with the assistance of compositional semantics. Rule #1 is nullified; My proof satisfies Rule #2 and Rule #3; Rule #4 is unnecessary since the Bible in its entirety acknowledges the existence of God. If however I must cite a specific Bible verse, I cite Hebrews Chapter 11, Verse 6. Rule #5 is satisfied; and Rule #6 is nonsensical.

6. My opponent contended that I had argued in dereliction to his stipulated rules, yet failed to delineate which rules I had broken with any substantial information. He merely stated that I had broken them. He, However, Could not state how.

7. My opponent resorted to attempted insults and qualifications of my character. He has displayed poor decorum in this formal debate.

Take these points into consideration for those of you who are interested in weighing in. And thank you to the interested readers.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MindSwimmer 3 years ago
MindSwimmer
@Blazzered - You, Sir, Are an idiot.
Posted by Blazzered 3 years ago
Blazzered
Pro showed an awful lack of conduct through rounds 2-5. Immediately resorting to insulting Con when he gave definitions, Which Pro failed to do, To important key words for debates such as these. Referring to Con laying out definitions as "kindergarten rules" in R2, And then in R3 referring to it as "preschool rules". Then completely attacking Con personally, Telling him to "go back to preschool" and typing out a whole paragraph insulting him directly. Then in R4 resorted to name calling Con ("snookums") and stating he didn't bother reading what Con had to say. Then in R5 continued with insulting Con, Going on a rant about dehumanizing and belittling people who he refers are like Con, And referring to Con as "brainwashed neanderthal nonsensical neon norbit chewrags".

Con never resorts to insulting Pro and shows good conduct and remains calm through the debate. Con remains more focused on arguing the definitions and pointing out Pros flawed rules, Rather than throw mock and insults back.

With this being the case, I reward points of Conduct to Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenAthiasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro admits insulting Con In round five. This is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 3 years ago
Blazzered
backwardsedenAthiasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

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