Instigator / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6817
Debating the existence of god (Regardless of the religion) (NO AI)
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 2,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1382
rating
482
debates
46.89%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
I support the idea that god doesn't exist because we lack enough proper evidence that he exists. And as evidence i find personal experiences irrelevant, or just simply people saying that the Bible says something, the bible doesn't prove the existence of god, and it is just a written story.
Morally i also think that since god is allegedly all knowing, 1 John 3:20 states that "God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything." means that he can foresee our future without us even being born, and lets take an atheist person as an example, if he knows that this atheist will be an atheist throughout his life what is the point of even creating him if you are going to place him in the hell after his death.
Also a really important thing to take note on, is that every single choise, every single belief and your whole behavior is changed throughout your life by external factors, which is the people you meet, where you've been raised, what events you went through, and all of those external factors are built by god, so basically its not your fault that you are an atheist, or you believe in another god (depends where you've been born), and technically hes morally responsible for that, therefore him placing you in hell is illogical.
Pro
#2
Greetings.
"Debating the existence of god (Regardless of the religion)"
So this is a nice topic.
It is because it is open ended.
So the religion of laveyan satanism.
That god I believe exists.
It's proven in me, you and every person on the planet.
A person whether him or herself is a god.
This is not only based on the satanic biblical writings but also the holy writings.
Even in logical terms, which atheists lean on to get to their atheism ultimately as an ultimate religious position in life.
The religion of atheism of course is about the faith in him or herself and being his or her own authority. The so called morality is based on his or her approval. The commandments or laws according to one's own mind is all that matters.
I'll make responses to some things.
"I support the idea that god doesn't exist because we lack enough proper evidence that he exists."
This is highly fallacious. The statement says "we" and I don't know who the "we" are , really.
Maybe to you there is not enough evidence. So by saying there's not enough, you didn't say there is none. You said "lack enough". So is there some?
If there is some, then you can have some support of the idea of whatever god existing that's in question, right.
"And as evidence i find personal experiences irrelevant"
It's due to personal experiences and emotions that are the primary causes of atheism. Not so much the so called lack of evidence or no evidence which is a very weak basis once explored. So there's more to it than that reason alone. Many atheists are anti or misotheists.
"if he knows that this atheist will be an atheist throughout his life what is the point of even creating him if you are going to place him in the hell after his death."
Having a poor understanding or misunderstanding of something really does nothing to disprove anything. It proves at the very least and possibly most, the lack of understanding.
" so basically its not your fault that you are an atheist, or you believe in another god (depends where you've been born), and technically hes morally responsible for that, therefore him placing you in hell is illogical."
Just speaks to more of not understanding a thing that doesn't really discount it. As far as the fault, not really a point to discuss .
I yield due to low character space.
Round 2
Con
#3
So first of all let's get past this massive contradiction. If you believe in 'LaVeyan Satanism', then you have to agree that your religion believes in no literal God. Instead, they use 'Satan' as a metaphorical way to refer to one's own ego. Therefore if you tell me "that god i believe exists is proven in me and you", you are literally agreeing with me that there is no supernatural creator, except that you've chosen to redefine what the term means to make yourself feel deep.
Let's address your attempt at semantics:“Lack Enough Evidence” Trap: You are playing word games. When you say “we lack enough proper evidence,” it’s obvious what this means – there is currently inadequate or flawed evidence being presented (“holy books” / personal feelings). This does NOT imply that “there’s a little bit of real evidence.” It implies that the amount of evidence available isn’t sufficient to demonstrate a massive claim.
If I tell you I have a dragon in my garage and show you a drawing, you would be correct to call my evidence insufficient. It’s not true that the dragon is partially real, but rather that I haven’t provided sufficient evidence. The burden of proof lies with me, not on you.
Atheism Is A Religion: As if. This is objectively wrong. Atheism is the simple recognition that given zero empirical data, you do not believe in deities. There is no greater religious practice than “not collecting stamps.”
Dodging Moral Contradiction: Instead of answering my post about omniscience/hell, you decided to declare I don’t understand, which is a total cop-out. If a creator god is 100% all-knowing, he designed your life’s trajectory well before birth. He set up these dominoes, knows exactly how each one will fall, sees them fall and punishes the domino. This is an absolute logical/moral failure. You can’t just change what “god” means, ignore the logical fallacies of omniscience, and say you’ve disproved anything.
Pro
#4
"So first of all let's get past this massive contradiction. If you believe in 'LaVeyan Satanism', then you have to agree that your religion believes in no literal God. Instead, they use 'Satan' as a metaphorical way to refer to one's own ego. Therefore if you tell me "that god i believe exists is proven in me and you", you are literally agreeing with me that there is no supernatural creator, except that you've chosen to redefine what the term means to make yourself feel deep."
Son you have to concede the point that you said "Regardless of the religion" . You did not say the religion with a supernatural god. I'm sorry but you dropped the ball on your own foot. So technically I'm perfectly valid in my point that the god of the religion I listed is proven to exist and you can't disprove it.
In the future, it'll help you to stay extremely specific in topics. Learn from this to never ever feel so confident to engage in broad territory.
"You are playing word games. When you say “we lack enough proper evidence,” it’s obvious what this means – there is currently inadequate or flawed evidence being presented (“holy books” / personal feelings). This does NOT imply that “there’s a little bit of real evidence.” It implies that the amount of evidence available isn’t sufficient to demonstrate a massive claim."
It's not about playing so called word games. It's about you throwing words around not using them meaningfully. I go by exactly what you say. I don't assume by subjective implication and what is obvious is subjective interpretation and perception. So to stay objective, we go by exact terms on the face of them.
By you saying "NOT imply that there’s a little bit of real evidence" and then say "It implies that the amount of evidence available", is a colossal mess of what the truth you're attempting to convey really is. If there is no " little bit of real evidence " but there is an "amount of evidence available", is the amount available real?
Let's clean this up here. Again, still begs the question. If we have SOME evidence, that AMOUNT AVAILABLE isn't enough, but it must be SOME , right. It's not playing with words . It's paying attention to the actual words you are misusing making a sloppy point of them and ultimately using them against you.
Then your point about not supporting an idea with having some evidence doesn't follow so you evaded the point.
I yield due space.
Round 3
Con
#5
Your entire case rests on a classic bait-and-switch. You aren’t actually proving the existence of God; you’re redefining the word so broadly that the debate becomes meaningless.
When I said "regardless of religion," I meant we aren't limited to one specific faith like Christianity or Islam. I didn't mean that any metaphorical use of the word counts as proof. If a religion decides to call the ocean "God," proving the ocean exists doesn’t prove a deity exists. It just proves the ocean is there and someone slapped a divine label on it.
That is exactly what you are doing with LaVeyan Satanism. In that framework, "God" or "Satan" isn't a literal, supernatural creator, it’s just a symbol for the human ego and self. So when you claim this "god" exists because humans exist, you haven’t proven a deity. You’ve just pointed at humans and given them a religious title. That’s equivocation. If "God" just means "a person," then sure, God exists because we exist. But that’s a word game, not a meaningful argument.
Furthermore, you are twisting my words when you claim my phrase "lack enough evidence" means I admit evidence exists. People present holy books, emotions, or claims all the time, but presenting something doesn't make it credible. A drawing of a dragon is technically "evidence" of a dragon in the weakest sense, but it doesn't prove dragons are real. Your evidence is simply insufficient to justify belief in an objective deity.
Finally, you completely side-stepped my moral argument by just telling me I "don't understand." That’s not a rebuttal. If an all-knowing God creates a person, knowing beforehand they will be an atheist, and places them in an environment that shapes that belief, God is responsible for the outcome. Punishing that person eternally for conditions God created is logically and morally incoherent. Tell me how that contradiction is resolved, because so far, you haven't.
You haven't proven God. You’ve just renamed humans and dodged the burden of proof. Stretched language doesn't create a creator.
Pro
#6
"Your entire case rests on a classic bait-and-switch. You aren’t actually proving the existence of God; you’re redefining the word so broadly that the debate becomes meaningless.
When I said "regardless of religion," I meant we aren't limited to one specific faith like Christianity or Islam. I didn't mean that any metaphorical use of the word counts as proof."
Look if I believe and have faith in myself to be a god, obeyed and authoritative, that is my religion, you can't refute it.
You made your topic so broad, I didn't have to switch anything. The flaw in your topic permitted my religion to qualify for the criteria.
Doesn't matter what you had in mind. If what you had in mind you wanted to debate, you should of specified it instead of being indirect dancing around it.
Own up to it.
" So when you claim this "god" exists because humans exist, you haven’t proven a deity. You’ve just pointed at humans and given them a religious title. "
That's what the religious satanists believe. You ought to respect these atheists religion. It's right out of the satanic bible. It's a faith. Just because you weren't prepared to argue against that , doesn't give right to deny it.
"But that’s a word game, not a meaningful argument."
There you go downplaying somebody's faith again.
"A drawing of a dragon is technically "evidence" of a dragon in the weakest sense, but it doesn't prove dragons are real. Your evidence is simply insufficient to justify belief in an objective deity."
I'm not going to argue with you on what constitutes evidence to you. Like I said in the comments, a drawing is not evidence. If what is in question is not proven by the drawing, it's not evidence, period.
"You haven't proven God. You’ve just renamed humans and dodged the burden of proof. Stretched language doesn't create a creator."
If you want a debate about proving a SPECIFIC god exists, I suggest you come up with a topic that specifies exactly that.
This one ain't it. You said regardless of the religion and you made a big mistake when you stated that because you're apparently ignorant to ALL the different religions out there including the ones atheists believe in.
You weren't ready. Sorry.
As far as I'm concerned, I was to prove a god exists, regardless of the religion meaning it doesn't matter what the religion I prove that god exists in .
I rest my case .
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Due to the lack of space, I'll put my remaining responses in the comments. My main point is valid and proven and can't be refuted and overcome.
"If I tell you I have a dragon in my garage and show you a drawing, you would be correct to call my evidence insufficient. It’s not true that the dragon is partially real, but rather that I haven’t provided sufficient evidence. The burden of proof lies with me, not on you."
This is not correct. It be correct to call the drawing NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, not insufficient evidence. Something is either evidence or not. There's no in-between.
Your remaining points are just argumentative over semantics. Weren't really worth responding to in the actual debate round.
Even without addressing your "drawing" illustration, you already hung yourself admitting evidence exists indirectly, just not satisfactory which is a non sequitur in its own right or nature.