Is God Real? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Is God Real?

Debate Information

Real: /ri:/l
adjective
1.actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
2.(of a thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.

Fact:
1. God is not real.
PlaffelvohfenAlofRIJGXdebatePRO
Debate Details +



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • Mayhap, you only see the fake matters related to God. Do you deny the existence of God? If God is not real, then why are you discussing it here? Do we also discuss the sky is blue? Because its a fact sky is blue. You are only here because you still have believed that God is real. :)
    PlaffelvohfenJGXdebatePROromir7xlJ_dolphin_473
  • AlofRIAlofRI 906 Pts
    I never could get into the god thingy. If one came up to me and tapped me on the shoulder and said: "Boy, le'me tell ya what .... ! " Then I'd have to believe. 

    I could stand getting into a "goddess thingy" now and then, though, but, at my age, she'd have to be a powerful goddess.   :'(
    JGXdebatePRO
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @BonitaVanhooser
    Mayhap, you only see the fake matters related to God.

    Well, actually you are right. The only thing I have ever seen about God is fake matters.

    As a matter of fact, all that you and everybody else has seen related to God is fake matters.
    God is fake.
    AlofRIJGXdebatePRO
  • JGXdebatePROJGXdebatePRO 240 Pts
    edited September 12
    Mayhap, you only see the fake matters related to God. Do you deny the existence of God? If God is not real, then why are you discussing it here? Do we also discuss the sky is blue? Because its a fact sky is blue. You are only here because you still have believed that God is real. :)
    Erm...

    @BonitaVanhooser ...

    I am debating about it to prove that godd is NOT real...
    duh...
    “I’d be lying if I said things are going according to my plan… but beggars can’t be choosers, right?” – Madara Uchiha
  • TKDBTKDB 667 Pts
    edited September 13
    @Swolliw

    Fact:

    The anti Religious, have radicalized Science, to harass God, with whom they have zero beliefs in?

    How many anti Religious books have been written, and their radicalized version of Science, is the primary back bone of their anti Religious publishing's?

    Hundreds have been written.

    Could their radicalized version of Science, be capable of sending humanity into space?

    I would love to see what NASA, thought about the radicalized version of Science that the anti Religious use to harass Religion with?

     Richard Dawkins, debating NASA, in regards to the radicalized Science, that apparently the anti Religious mentality wise, invest in?
  • @TKDB
    The anti Religious, have radicalized Science

    That is an unqualified extremist view and plays no part in decent intelligent discussion.
    As with all extremist, conspiratorial views, it is completely wrong and is the thoughts of an unbalanced mind.
    DeeJGXdebatePRO
  • DeeDee 2591 Pts
    @TKDB

     Richard Dawkins, debating NASA, in regards to the radicalized Science, that apparently the anti Religious mentality wise, invest in?


    Give us all an example of ‘radicalized science’ you lunatic? Bet you run and hide as usual as one thing you can never do is back any of your BS up 
    JGXdebatePRO
  • TKDBTKDB 667 Pts
    @Dee

    Radicalized Science, is the mental manure that the anti Religious preachers use to fuel their narratives.
    JGXdebatePRO
  • DeeDee 2591 Pts
    edited September 14
    @TKDB

    Radicalized Science, is the mental manure that the anti Religious preachers use to fuel their narratives.

    I asked for an example you clown 
    JGXdebatePRO
  • GOD is an axion, axioms are as real, as real can really get.

     The axiom GOD simply does not support the civil complaint of accusation that sayings as IN GOD WE TRUST, God bless America and Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you, GOD? Are violations of church and state.

    In politics, the violation of church and state is often better hidden in how many laws are written unconstitutional, meaning-based from complex principles that are not basic in an idea of truth.

    Example: owning marijuana, growing marijuana, and using marijuana is instantly illegal, as the truth of harm is kept by limited ways of use, air pollution created by the burning of marijuana the greatest harm. This type influence on others dictates its regulation by law on a constitutional field to keep religions from profiting of forms of religion outside their own shared belief. This is actually what is to be proven as a type of violation of the separation of church and state, as the use of ownership as the necessity for legal violation requires faith that law is to really address the simple concern of air pollution by its use and effects on the lives of others.


  • Fact!

    GOD is real and not all legal legislators as a team, people, or attorneys are competent to represent the fact in a generic state of matters before a court of law, civil and/or criminal.

    Fact!
    Not all those who share a public belief do so with only the understanding of influencing a forecast to the legal outcome that may come. A common defense to the general welfare of posterity is the keystone in the arch of liberty.
  • @Dee

    Pi is the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle equaling 3.14159 is an example of radical science.
  • @John_C_87
    GOD is real and not all legal legislators as a team, people, or attorneys are competent to represent the fact in a generic state of matters before a court of law, civil and/or criminal.

    IF (and I mean, a giant IF) God is ever discovered, it will be by experienced, educated, unbiased scientists, not by a bunch of deluded, airheaded nitwits.
  • Swolliw said:
    @John_C_87
    GOD is real and not all legal legislators as a team, people, or attorneys are competent to represent the fact in a generic state of matters before a court of law, civil and/or criminal.

    IF (and I mean, a giant IF) God is ever discovered, it will be by experienced, educated, unbiased scientists, not by a bunch of deluded, airheaded nitwits.
    GOD is a numerical axiom. If God is ever discovered has nothing to do with the ability and the right for the representation to present a real GOD. God had been discovered and you had simply been excluded from that discovery. Science needs to prove l GOD is not a numerical axiom and this simple task by hypothesis has not been proven. After 20 years of an open challenge, not one person or scientist has disproven GOD as a numerical axiom.
  • @John_C_87
    ......not one person or scientist has disproven GOD as a numerical axiom.

    "Numerical axiom" eh? So is that the latest mumbo jumbo reasoning to come from God believers?
    Which proves nothing except that no greater power than God can be conceived.
    So what?
    God has not been discovered except as an idea in the minds of deluded nitwits.

  • "Numerical axiom" eh? So is that the latest mumbo jumbo reasoning to come from God believers?
    No, not at all, why would a numerical axiom need you or anyone for that matter to believe in it? It is simply the evidence God is not just a religion it is not something to be proven greater than the, your words, supposed religious god. It simply is a real, it simply is a reason. Nothing more.
  • @John_C_87
    No, not at all, why would a numerical axiom need you or anyone for that matter to believe in it? It is simply the evidence God is not just a religion it is not something to be proven greater than the, your words, supposed religious god. It simply is a real, it simply is a reason. Nothing more.

    And you are still deliberately (if not, just out of pure lack of intellect) confuscating the issue. Yes, it is real (the axiom) but that in no way validates nor has any bearing on the presence of God, does it?
    There is no such thing as God, there never has been and nobody but nobody has ever come up with the slightest bit of evidence or proof that God exists.
    You are deluded and you are using poor excuses and poor suggestive reasoning to try somehow to justify your lunacy.
  • Yes, it is real (the axiom) [ but!!? ] that in no way validates nor has any bearing on the presence of God, does it?

    It is highly unlikely the person who is suggesting that a mathematic equation that equals a number value in a combination of languages in a world of many languages is using poor suggestive reasoning. The ability to understanding even the basic concept of roman numerals or simple forms of algebra is evidence enough to point out your mistake made by presumption, letters are not only used to create words and you appear to be attempting to publicly police the religious notion, word of God. Something so simplistic and obvious is worthy of a scientific rebuttal proving all false claims there are no such things as math equations that are not common knowledge, popular or instructed to everyone.

    Lunacy? Doesn't it make far more sense in something so connected to loyalty as a pledge or oath a person might be asked to stand under a principle of equating problems for a solution instead of fabricated interpretation? The translation made by me, to be scrutinized by anyone over the years is not to remove the principle of religion and public shared belief, it is stating a less popular variation of real historical evidence which paints a more complete picture of the liberty of freedom of expression people hold as thinkers and doers.

    You are deluded and you are using poor excuses and poor suggestive reasoning to try somehow to justify your lunacy.
    And you, simply stubbornly showing a lack of the ability to understand, learn, and reason new perspective, it is very clear no consistent principle of finding the practical solutions from many problems exists as a human genetic trait.
  • @John_C_87
    And you, simply stubbornly showing a lack of the ability to understand, learn, and reason new perspective, it is very clear no consistent principle of finding the practical solutions from many problems exists as a human genetic trait.

    Come on now, you are still beating around the bush. I know exactly what you are talking about which is why I raised the question: ".....that in no way validates nor has any bearing on the presence of God, does it?"
    Because: "a numerical axiom proves absolutely nothing except that no greater power than God can be conceived"

    Your assertion that "God is real" is ridiculous and coming up with the usual "scientific explanations" flabbergasts only an audience of those who are naive and gullible (i.e. religious converts) who will accept anything at face value. You may as well just say in simple terms "the concept of God is real in the eye of the beholder" without trying to hoodwink others with hollow jargon.
    Science and religion are poles apart and never the twain shall meet.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 395 Pts
    "a numerical axiom proves absolutely nothing except that no greater power than God can be conceived"

    This specification is not the same as this specification.

     1.actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
    2.(of a thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.

    The statement made is confident and forceful only because it meets your definition of real described in the conditions of lines 1 and 2 by definition. The one used to supposedly making a claim to disqualify the letters G,o, and d, the principle of axiom met both conditions set by you 1, and 2 and yields the fact. You are biding the time as you cannot discredit a condition set by numerical axiom, science and religion are both a principle of education and it is the distance between them which is jargon you are trying to create.

    Does or does it not? The principle of axiom meets your test of real by definition as an adjective? You have already admitted it this and simply give excuses by adding other additional conditions to not admit the mistake.


  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @John_C_87
     The principle of axiom meets your test of real by definition as an adjective? You have already admitted it this and simply give excuses by adding other additional conditions to not admit the mistake.
    The thing is that you are using the axiom to (inferringly) quote out of context., i.e. that the axiom refers to "no greater power than God can be conceived". (not has been) That does not make the subject of the axiom alone (God) real.
    Hey, unless we are talking about "conception" meaning "birth". Then we can get into a discussion about the birth of Jesus Christ.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 395 Pts
    An axiom is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
    What you wish to do is not accept the axiom as self-evident, the G = 400, O = 11, and D = 500 can go on to be used in the building of a statement that 500 + 11 - 400 = 89,  becomes a proposition as it completes a likely task of transition from statement to proposition as an idea of consideration, a term of its likely success or difficulty.

    You and others make a clear choice of difficulty in the consideration of the idea there is nothing out of context.


  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @John_C_87
    An axiom is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

    That's right...but what is the axiom?.........."
    no greater power than God can be conceived".
    And what does that axiom mean? Diddly squat.
    Does it mean that God is real? No.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 395 Pts
    Swolliw said:
    @John_C_87
    An axiom is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

    That's right...but what is the axiom?.........."
    no greater power than God can be conceived".
    And what does that axiom mean? Diddly squat.
    Does it mean that God is real? No.

    That's right...but what does that is an axiom? In this instance, a statement which becomes a self-evidently true proposition. In opposition to the axiom of letters as the word having a definition to a string of words, you hold creating a statement that becomes a proposition that is under most conditions always false, providing that any equal representation can be denied as part of the argument. The argument you attempt to make is a basic idea all mathematics are not real, therefore no mathematics can ever be real, that argument is very weak. We speak of not just an axiom the whole idea is a "numeric axiom", the test of power is in proving a mathematical axiom can not be created in such a way a result is created by the variables collected to make the question that can be equated to a real number.

    Does it mean that God is real? No.
    Does it mean you can not mentally accept a numerical axiom GOD is natural? No, as the established self-evident truth assembles the one condition that disproves the hypothesis GOD must be a religion only and therefore does not have to represented by just scripture The idea of axiom being 10 minutes old or 10,000 years old does not matter when it may, or may not be accepted, but as a numeric axiom still would be the natural part of real number in either time frame, now! Then!

    And what does that axiom mean? 
    You are asking the wrong question as accepts or self-evident truth is the choice for public presentation. An what does a numerical axiom make? Does it make natural real numbers? How does a numerical axiom compare to numeric arrays, numeric calculations, and numeric algorithms of real numbers? These are relevant questions. When G is equal to four-hundred when O is equal to eleven when D is equal to five-hundred at any time, then an equation can be created were four-hundred can be added with eleven forming a number four-hundred and eleven, then by using the four-hundred and elven and taking it from five-hundred, the solution of eighty-nine is than formulated result. In a numeric axiom when natural numbers are added to calculation natural numbers are returned.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch