Instigator / Pro
7
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
won
Topic
#5645

Christian god cannot be real

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Moozer325
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
4
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Description

Christian god as described in the Bible cannot exist.

By accepting this debate you also accept that the Bible is either the complete word of god or the Bible is completely made by mankind. There’s not saying that some scriptures are real and others are not. No picking and choosing.

Primary burden of proof rests with Pro. Pro must prove that he is impossible and Con must prove that he is at least somewhat possible.

God has not been proven false . Some of you are straight up lying to yourselves believing that.

-->
@Owen_T

Thank you for casting a vote on my behalf. As a thank you, I am going to start a roach farm as you suggested. I am hoping to provide maybe 5% of the world's meat, milk, and egg supply by 2026.

Quick correction to comment #4:

F(x) should equal 1/X, not X/0

Oops!

-->
@Yesterdaystomorrow

Well thanks anyways. I always appreciate some commentary on my debate skills.

Given that I cannot vote, I will cast an unofficial one here in the comments. I suppose my one vote will have some weight if nobody else votes.

In my interpretation of what Moozer intended by saying a "Christian God", he means "A god as described by Christianity" (As described by the bible, effectively).
Moozer then argues that something cannot be defined by contradictions.
We can look to math to help us understand this: anything divided by zero is explicitly 'undefined'. Mathematicians will refuse to define X/0 solely because contradictions lie in any definition.
F(x)=X/0
Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (-) = -infinity
But, Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (+) = +infinity.
A contradiction.
After reading the arguments, it is apparent that Moozer successfully proved this. Namely, the death of Judas sold the point for me.
However, I will note that demonstrating evolution is pretty much a certainty would not suffice as evidence for this argument. This is due to the nature of the contradiction, where it is one view contradicting another. In other words: "You are lying! No, I'm not!" Even if we were 99.999% sure evolution is real, there is the slimmest of chances still that creationism would occur, which is enough of a point for Mall. This is different from what Moozer needed to show more of, where one view contradicts itself. In other words: "I am lying!" Since we know here that whichever point is true, provable, or not, the person stating it is still contradicting themselves.

On this basis, Moozer would have my vote.
**HOWEVER**
If we wanted to go further into math, we would learn of Kurt Gödle. Kurt Gödle managed to demonstrate in his Incompleteness Theorems that there exist true statements in math that cannot be proven true. Using only math, he effectively managed to write a true statement stating, "This statement cannot be proven." Which upended countless mathematical assumptions at the time.

What I am getting at with this is that there does exist one niche spot in math that is in itself still up for contention which demonstrates even the slightest possibility for 'true contradictions'.
On THIS basis, if we truly wanted to cherry-pick for a single cherry in an entire field of cherry trees, there exists one way in which Mall may have grounds to say he won this debate.
My vote is for Moozer, but if we wanted to jump 1000 hurdles, there is one argument I see that Mall could still fight for.

votes

Votes

I would have loved to accept this debate.