Instigator / Pro
Points: 13

All those coincidences are just God

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
crossed
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
2 weeks do not take if you want short debate
Round 1
Published:
Thanks for taking. Sorry for the wait

Silver if you wear it. Helps regulate body heat.

Lets say my body is at 120 degrees i am hot. this is an unsafe level.But a safe level is around 90 degrees. So i put on a silver ring and it precisely dials my body heat to around  90 degrees.

Lets say the opposite is true. my body heat is around 65 degrees. safe body heat is around 90 degrees. i put on a silver or gold ring and it precisely  dials my Body heat to around 90 degrees


Is it just a coincidence that silver or gold precisely  dial your body heat to the exact levels you need


Silver also helps with internal heat regulation and circulation. Many have reported improvements in energy levels and balance in moods after wearing silver, as its natural properties may offset outside electrical disturbances, improve circulation and overall body temperature balance, and help maintain cleanliness and immunity.


lets say my body is not producing enough Melatonin the sleepy chemicals. But let's say i am only producing 45 mg when i need at least 100. I eat a magic herb and it boost my melotonin levels to around 100. It precisely dialed the amount of hormone's my body needs to produce.


let's say the opposite is true. lets say my body is producing to much melotonin at around 500 mg. safe amounts is around 100. So i take a herb and it decreases my melotonin levels to around 100. The herb precisely dialed my body to around 100. the exact amount i needed



Is it just a coincidence that these plants precisely  dial your hormone levels to exactly amount that you need. I thought only God could precisely dial stuff


Blood pressure
Lets say my blood pressure is to high. i eat a plant and the plant precisely dials my blood pressure to safe levels.

Is it not a coincidence that this herb precisely dialed my blood pressure to the exact amount i need it.




I do not believe that it is just a coincidence that these regulate stuff like hormones and give you the exact amount you need. God must have done it.
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Published:
they are not just god, but god itself will have to then be a coincidence if they are.
Round 3
Published:
they are not just god, but god itself will have to then be a coincidence if they are.
"humans and the millions of creatures on the planet just came out of nothing what a coincidence."


your talking about the counter argument to my argument which is.

"An all powerful being just randomly came out of nothing what a coincidence."


I do not think any of these are what happened so both of them examples are not a coincidence to me because it did not happen.I do not think all the millions of animals and humans just popped into existence by nothing without a cause like god.Or do i believe that An almighty god came into existence by nothing.Both are equally absurd.Luckily i do not believe either one happened.The bible says god has existed forever.This makes no sense because how could something exist forever.But it solves the how did an all powerful being popped into existence by thin air.The answer is it did not.He existed forever.But it replaces it with another problem how can something exist forever.Which i do not know.I do not have all the information needed to know how this is done.



Evolutionist believe that dogs cats lions dragons dinosaurs bird humans magically popped into existence by nothing.I believe the same thing.Except i take the magical part very literally.Magic is the only way all of the creature of life dogs cats dragons dinosaurs humans can just appear out of nowhere.If magic does not happen none of the stuff stated before would be possible.



Disclaimer
I know big bang people have changed there believe to nothing to space collapsing on itself.But it is still the same thing.You would be arguing technicality.It same thing.I know that you might say would not god have to magically come into existence.Which is no the bible says he existed forever.Which works but makes no sense how that is possible.But if we assume he created life it would make sense that it does not makes sense.


Published:
If your logic is that God made everything that appears to be a coincidence, happen by planning and that we are to assume that's true just because it can be... It follows that God itself must be assumed to be a coincidental thing with a God behind it.

This infinite regression annihilates your theory at the core.

coincidence
noun

UK
 

 
/kəʊˈɪn.sɪ.dəns/
 
US
 

 
/koʊˈɪn.sɪ.dəns/

coincidence noun (SAME TIME)
an occasion when two or more similar things happen at the same timeespecially in a way that is unlikely and surprising:
You chose exactly the same wallpaper as us - what a coincidence!
Is it just a coincidence that the wife of the man who ran the competition won first prize?
series of strange/amazing coincidences


An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member, where each element leads to or generates the next in some sense.[1] An infinite regress argument is an argument that makes appeal to an infinite regress. Usually such arguments take the form of objections to a theory, with the fact that the theory implies an infinite regress being taken to be objectionable.
Added:
god does not throw dice with the universe - albert einstien
#4
Added:
what does that even mean?
#3
Added:
--> @oromagi
I think I finally figured out how to counter it. See posts 34 through 36...
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2644/god-precisly-set-asteroids?page=2&post_number=39
#2
Added:
that's concision- pretty much sums up the crossed philosophy in a single sentence
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments - Pro delivered a fleshed out argument, which essentially boiled down to identifying nifty interactions between nature and the human body and attributing said interaction to god. Although the basic structure of the argument is sound, in that a claim is made and points are given to support it, the substance of the argument is poor, in my opinion. Pro has a long way to go to convince me that silver regulates our body temperature because god wanted silver to regulate our body temperature (or that god's hand is behind any of the other phenomenon mentioned). In order to convince me of this, Pro would 1) need to explain why it is unlikely that some elements of nature have convenient reactions with our bodies, and 2) need to explain why it is likely an all-powerful supernatural entity would care if some elements of nature have convenient reactions with our bodies. In absence of these explanations, I am unconvinced.
Arguments - Con probably has a great seed of an argument here, but he puts in no effort to make it grow. Attempting to turn Pro's logic against Pro is a smart move, and it's quite possible I could have been convinced. But without putting in the legwork of explaining why god's existence should be considered analogous to Pro's proposed coincidences, and without fleshing out the implications of the supposed infinite regress loop (I don't think providing a definition of infinite regress is sufficient on this front, although it's a start), I cannot award arguments to Con.
Sources - I was not impressed with either side's sources. As far as I can tell, some of Pro's claims went unsupported by the sources he provided, and some of the sources he provided made claims that should have been sourced, but were not. See the Cure Joy pages for an example of the latter. Con dumped two sources in his last round, but they were just definitions. These were helpful but not game-changing.
S&G - I was very tempted to award S&G to Con, as Pro's writing is quite poor. However, it did not seem entirely fair to compare the two, as Pro wrote many words, while Con wrote very few. In a way, Con provided too small a sample size for me to feel comfortable awarding Con S&G. That, and I did note a few minor writing errors in Con's limited text.
Conduct - Since Con forfeited Round 1 and put in little effort Round 2, points go to Pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro opened his argument by exploring several scientific phenomena the ability of silver to help regulate body temperature, and the ability of certain plants to help regulate the body’s hormones and blood pleasure.
Con forfeited round 1.
Pro presented an interesting video on how science falls utterly short of explaining abiogenesis.
Con then claimed that God must also be a coincidence.
Pro then explains how evolution runs into the same dilemma when trying to explain the uncaused cause.
Con continues to support his position that God is a coincidence.
Arguments:
Pro: I would have liked to see Pro explain the purpose of his arguments more. From what I gathered the sources presented in the first two rounds were intended to point toward intelligent design. Since Pro failed to provide explanations as to the significance of his sources his argument fell a little flat.
Con: Assuming Con’s claim that God is the product of coincidence, I still fail to see how this is supposed to counter Pro’s argument that all coincidences we observe are actually designed by God. Simply put, Con seems to be making an argument that does not address the topic of the debate.
Sources: Pro provided good citations of decent sources supporting his position. For Con, I don’t see how defining coincidence and infinite regress is supposed to counter Pro’s argument that all perceived coincidences are actually designed by God. Therefore, I must vote for Pro who provided all relevant sources.
Grammar: I noticed several grammatical mistakes by Pro. For example in the second round Pro used ‘them’ where sentence structure called for ‘those’. Grammar goes to Con.
Conduct: Since Con forfeited round 1, the best conduct goes to Pro.