Debate Argument: The existence of God, or an omnipotent being is probable.

Con

I welcome my opponent to DDO. Pro has offered a resolution that I have never seen upheld. He has taken on the heaviest of burdens as the instigator of this debate. As Con, I will only offer a negative position. He has to show that an omnipotent being MUST exist and that this being "completely disprove[s]" atheism. I will start with definitions.

Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
I will accept the lack of belief in a god, also. You can chose as I don't think it will make a difference in this one.

Agnosticism: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Must: to be inevitably certain to; be compelled by nature
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Dissecting the resolution with the opening argument:

Pro presented the resolution on the premise of "probable", but he further clarified in his opening statement that this being, whatever it is, MUST exist. In addition, this being's existence disproves atheism. Given the definition of atheism, this being must be a god in the sense of existing outside of, and controlling, to whatever degree, the natural world; therefore, it (god from the resolution and opening statement) is not testable and is unfalsifiable by any of our work in science, as science deals only with the testable universe.

If Pro can show this God must exist, then atheism and agnosticism cannot survive. I am not familiar with any agnostic positions that coincide with a statement that God "must" exist but Pro is certainly welcome to provide these positions.

I await your case Pro.

Report this Argument

4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.

Posted by sherlockmethod 11 years ago

I only vote if my opponent forfeits; he did.

Report this Comment

Posted by Woodycanuck 11 years ago

Just curious, why so often do the debate titles not match what is being debated? I mean, to go from "probable" to absolute between the title and opening statement, seems absurd to me.

I'll bite.

Posted by Illegalcombatant 11 years ago

I might argue, but can we agree on some definitions first

God - Definition of God - Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover

Also what is your exact definition of "omnipotent"

		Pro	Tied	Con
	Who did you agree with before the debate?
	Who did you agree with after the debate?
	Who had better conduct?
	Who had better spelling and grammar?
	Who made more convincing arguments?
	Who used the most reliable sources?

Voting Style:	Open	Point System:	7 Point
Started:	11/28/2010	Category:	Religion
Updated:	11 years ago	Status:	Voting Period
Viewed:	1,520 times	Debate No:	13820

	crisratzys	sherlockmethod	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:	-		-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-		-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-		-	2 points
Total points awarded:	0	7

	crisratzys	sherlockmethod	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:	-		-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-		-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-		-	2 points
Total points awarded:	0	7

Pro There is substantial amount of evidence that a omnipotent being must exist, completely disproving Atheism, although not disproving the beliefs shared by agnostics. Report this Argument Con I welcome my opponent to DDO. Pro has offered a resolution that I have never seen upheld. He has taken on the heaviest of burdens as the instigator of this debate. As Con, I will only offer a negative position. He has to show that an omnipotent being MUST exist and that this being "completely disprove[s]" atheism. I will start with definitions. Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God. http://dictionary.reference.com... Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god. http://dictionary.reference.com... I will accept the lack of belief in a god, also. You can chose as I don't think it will make a difference in this one. Agnosticism: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. http://dictionary.reference.com... Must: to be inevitably certain to; be compelled by nature http://dictionary.reference.com... Dissecting the resolution with the opening argument: Pro presented the resolution on the premise of "probable", but he further clarified in his opening statement that this being, whatever it is, MUST exist. In addition, this being's existence disproves atheism. Given the definition of atheism, this being must be a god in the sense of existing outside of, and controlling, to whatever degree, the natural world; therefore, it (god from the resolution and opening statement) is not testable and is unfalsifiable by any of our work in science, as science deals only with the testable universe. If Pro can show this God must exist, then atheism and agnosticism cannot survive. I am not familiar with any agnostic positions that coincide with a statement that God "must" exist but Pro is certainly welcome to provide these positions. I await your case Pro. Report this Argument
Pro crisratzys forfeited this round. Con All points carry. Pro has not presented a case. Report this Argument
Pro crisratzys forfeited this round. Con All pts Con. Report this Argument

Big Issues

The existence of God, or an omnipotent being is probable.