Be it resolved that no God exists

D1. Concessions My opponent admits they made these statements so all I have to do is find a religion which worships man. Let me first begin by defining anthropolatry as the worship of human beings. My opponent by proclaiming himself god is making anthropolatric comments about himself, in saying he is God. My opponent cannot be an atheist because he is stating he is God. In fact, according to your broad definition of God, religion is defined as the worship of a deity, Marxism therefore can be considered a religion. Karl Marx taught "Man is God. " Marxism teaches anthropolatry. My opponent, by stating they are god is affirming the existence of a god, in the form of man. (1) There is a religion, according to the definition agreed upon in Round 1, which holds man to be God. D2. Irrelevancies I never told my opponent they had a wrong definition of god. I only said my opponent "is taking a rather narrow-minded approach" to this debate. My opponent is really only considering a god which has the characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence. There are hundreds of other versions of god. They have not attempted to disprove any other who may not have these characteristics above. The resolution is "Be it resolved that no God exists" as in no conception of god can exist. There are other conceptions of god as I have pointed out. Their definition is not incorrect, we both agreed to it. I am not challenging the definition, the definition of god is: "Any figure worshiped would be considered a god. " Any worshipped figure is a god. I have not challenged this at all. I have merely pointed out other figures worshipped. a) Deism "Deism teaches the universe is the product of an omnipotent creator but, this creator neither intervenes in human affairs nor suspends the laws of the universe. In deism, god designed the universe but, then stepped back to let it run (also known as clockwork theory). Deists also believe this is all man can know about God and any other doctrines are irrelevant. God has all the power in the world but, chooses not to intervene in humanity. Even with my opponents objections the deist God can still exist as it is not omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. " (2) Their only argument against deism is "it is scientifically and technically called the Universe". But, deists do not believe god is the universe. They merrily believed god created the universe and does not interfere with his own creation. My opponent has not disproven the deist conception of god. b) Pantheism My opponent objects to pantheism the same way they object to deism. That the universe "is scientifically and technically called the Universe" but, pantheists do not object to this point. Rather they believe the Universe and god are one in the same. (The Universe is god, god is the Universe. ) The fact the Universe is scientifically called the Universe is irrelevant. Something can have two names. c) Zoroastrianism In this religion there is a clearly spelled out good and evil. "Ahura Mazda is all that is good" while "Angra Mainyu is all that is evil". Neither are omnipotent only having the power to vanquish the other side and they are in an eternal struggle. " Ahura Mazda created the world to be good but, Angra Mainyu corrupted the world and created evil". They are on two completely opposite sides of the "god evil spectrum". The goodness and evil in each are relative to each other. My opponent has not disproven these god's at all. d) Panentheism My opponent has not even objected to this belief system. Panentheism is a completely DIFFERENT belief system than pantheism. While similar they have a striking difference which my opponent completely overlooked. e) Christianity Omnipotence—My opponent misconstrues my argument. God could solve the problems of the world but, chooses not to because God gave man free will. God did not help Noah, God merely told Noah a flood was coming and told Noah to build an ark, Noah could have freely chosen to not build this ark and God would have done nothing. And why is all power bad power? Omnipresence—I read your argument, several times in fact. It just made no sense. By definition, the Christian God is everywhere. You cannot argue that he is nowhere. God is singular. Persons are plural. PEOPLE are everywhere but, not a singular PERSON. Omniscience—I do not understand how I am uncalm towards atheists. I am merely stating the Christian doctrine on God and free-will. God created man, gave them the tools they needed to make a "good" decision. Sent His son to save man. God allows humans to freely choose their own fate for themselves. God did not create the mess. Man created the mess. Omnibenevolence—By definition the Christian God is good. By definition, angels have free will. Angels freely choose whether to be good or bad. God allowed man to freely choose whether to be good or bad. God allowed angels to choose whether to be good or bad. D3. Different religions There is one correct answer. In each religion, god has differences. So, to use my opponents test analogy, it would be like taking a test in which all the answers are slightly different. They are distinguishable from one another. And there is one correct answer. You can choose one. Whether it is the correct or incorrect version is to be seen. You cite Judaism to say God says killing is correct, but, you can also cite the Ten Commandments which say killing is wrong. The Ten Commandments are the basis of most morality. Therefore, killing is wrong according to Judaism. Killing in the name of God does not make killing right. My opponent has failed to disprove god in fact, conceding that to him god does exist, man. 1. . http://people.bu.edu... 2. Round 2 of this debate