Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6365
The classical theist god isn’t necessarily extant.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 9,500
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1382
rating
446
debates
45.74%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
So let's go through the topic and help out the folks in the comments because they're severely thrown off.
The topic is :The classical theist god isn’t necessarily extant.
Whatever "classical" is. Most known, typical, traditional, etc.
It is not necessarily or that the god of theism, whoever ,is needed to exist.
I take the position that there is no evidence on the natural scientific side known that the god of theism exists, so there is no mandate that there is an existence.
There's no reason or cause to claim the necessity. That's it .
The opposite side takes the opposite position that there is so show the proof of that.
I'm not saying the god of theism exists, doesn't exist. I'm saying there is no apparent cause to prove the necessity of existence.
It's like saying there has to be a cause. There's a necessity for a cause you might say. Ok where's my basis for the necessity?
I don't have one. For a short round debate, I don't think I have to go much further.
Round 2
I am new to this website, apparently according to the comments I’m not even on the right side. My apologies. I might just need to make an entirely new debate page.
Atheism is a religion.
Case closed.
Topic and Pro/Con is confusing:
I'm thinking the Pro and Con are backwards based on the title of the debate, if AvgAtheist is "con" to the topic, then isn't he arguing that classical theist god "is" necessarily extant. And then Pro should be arguing God "isn't" necessarily extant. Maybe I read Mall wrong, and don't know AvgAtheist, but based on the name, and on what I know about Mall, I think they have it backwards, I don't see an atheist arguing that God necessarily exists, and I don't see Mall arguing God doesn't exist..
Correct me if I am wrong here, but the argument is: A theist god, even if existed previously, might be dead now?
theist god? which one? christian?
You are Con, so you are against topic?