Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#5546
You can present a strong argument against the spirit of God existing..
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1493
rating
17
debates
35.29%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Now it's pretty much impossible to provide proof of a negative. At least in this case .
So I tailored the topic for someone that can make a strong atheist argument.
Burden is completely on the pro side. Please answer all questions with an applicable yes or no. Be concise in layman's terms and not so much technical.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
A spirit apparently is an immaterial, real non physical being, entity, figure.
For instance the spirit of fear, in the spirit of Christmas, in the spirit of great so and so .
To the spirit of a what someone says, spirit of the law or rule.
You have a written rule that serves a technical order of control or enforcement .
As long as you have done what is necessary to fit the letter of the law, you technically have not made any violation.
This is how loopholes are utilized to get around a rule if said rule wasn't specific enough to eliminate a loophole.
For example a rule for a child to be in bed by a certain time. The intention of the rule is for the child to be asleep and not be up so late most likely entertaining themselves with elements outside their room and bed. That is the spirit of the rule. Something not said or materialized in the rules.
So therefore without specification, the child that is intelligent enough knows or is inventive to go around this by still being legal but still manages playtime even in bed.
Another example, this from a well know public television kids cartoon about the parents forbidding their son from watching their living room t.v. as he was grounded in his room with no t.v.
Well he got clever and used a pair of binoculars to watch t.v. through a neighbors window, called that neighbor and said "put the phone by the t.v.".
Another example out of an old sitcom from the 1950s of a wife that specifically said to her husband " you better not let me catch you with another woman".
He said " Honey I give you my word of honor, I'll never let you CATCH ME". She knew right then he just went with her exact words to be faithful to that and that's it. That was the joke in that show but it highlights what she wanted as a complete picture in her heart or to the spirit of what she desired as an unspoken rule.
The opposing side may be thinking this is getting too tangential. But I'll make it full circle. The spirit of God is a being that is unspoken. You can't hear God. Unseen, you can't see God. There are things naturally that we specifically see that has order, design.
So a being that is an almighty immaterial being, that couldn't be the BIG BANG, that's physical. It couldn't be any theory that we know of or don't know as it spans from some scientific natural assessment as you've guessed deals with the material reality again.
Before the opposing side starts, I want to put this forward. If you're going to present that the lack of evidence that you have personally seen, that is actually one if not the weakest argument.
Ok . That just doesn't hold up consistently. I do recommend coming up with something original.
Alright go ahead.
Just think about this, ok?
Ask yourself not HOW things are the way that they are, but WHY things are why there are. We can explain the mechanics of how certain things work using science but never the real reason behind them. Why couldn't the sky be green or the clouds be purple? We can explain how it being blue makes sense, but we could be living in a world where the sky is green and there is science to back that up.
The point I'm making is that the world is so specifically intended to be made up a certain way that evidently, there must be some divine creator that had a vision for how this universe was to be curated.
That is all. Prove me wrong with your science that God himself decided on.
Round 2
I'm sorry but I don't see a strong argument about the spirit of God not existing.
You're conveying to me to prove a decision of God where this is unrelated to the topic so take some time.
Put together a strong argument. If all you can argue is a lack of evidence, you can try it but fair warning, it is the weakest and simplest one. That's why it is the most common.
So easy you don't bother to refute it? Your incompetence is showing like the Trump shooter. Speaking of which, perfect timing. If God isn't real, how the FUCK is Trump still alive after what should've been a clear headshot?
Round 3
The opposing side is failing to provide a strong argument and is filibustering with irrelevant subjects.
I rest my case .
What case? You're simply being lazy my friend. God wouldn't approve. Your soul's f***ed.
Round 4
Oh the opposing side is still failing to provide a strong argument and is filibustering .
Don't shift the burden.
Apparently no strong opposing arguments can be made or else I'd be countering them by now.
I rest my case .
You can't say "oh your point bad I win yay" without providing a solid, concrete, well-articulated reason for expressing your belief. I extend
Round 5
Case closed.
Much thanks to the opposing side for participating.
Thank you readers.
Let's close this thing out so it can free up space for more substance filled exchanges.
In the forum y'all show up. Don't be scared here. I'm no challenge am I?
Do you mean to tell me there's not one atheist on here that can defend the stance of atheism?
There are atheists on this site aren't there?
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Not to be super nit picky or anything, but by god, do you mean strictly Christian god, or any god? Also, “strong argument” is pretty ambiguous.
I tweak the title to give folks a better understanding of what the previous one was. It's not about disproving God but proposing a strong argument.
So you can validly say or say that God is false. Not prove, but say it .
That was the meaning behind that former title ok.
This is ridiculous. How is anyone supposed to argue against this? You can almost never prove a negative, so this is pretty favored to you. Just saying.