God Exists And Humans Depend On God To Live
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote.
2. All votes *must* have thorough, serious reasons for voting and both debaters agree, by accepting this debate, to publicly ask the mods to remove those votes, after the debate, if the votes are not serious or thorough.
3. By accepting this debate, both debaters and the voters (and maybe one day I can say the moderators too) agree that any vote that is dishonest (defined below) about what occurred in the debate will be requested publicly by both debaters, after the debate, to be removed by the mods.
Dishonest votes include:
a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.
b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.
c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.
d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.
e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.
f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.
g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.
4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest (see above) or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.
5. Death23, ethang5, and any of their related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate because of the dishonesty section of the rules.
God exists and humans depend on god to live.
Has the BoP, 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to AFFIRM that god exists and humans depend on god to live; Pro should also refute Con.
Has 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to NEGATE that god exists and humans dpend on god to live; Con should also refute Pro.
god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
superhuman - above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have.
existence - something that exists.
exists - has objective reality or being.
humans - members of the Homo Sapiens species; human beings belonging to the genus Homo.
depend on - rely on.
live - remain alive.
May the better argument win!
Without a future, there is no fortune.
Without god, there is no human fortune.
A physical thing is composed of matter. Doesn’t matter if it’s a gas, liquid, solid or plasma—it is still composed of matter.
We arrive at this simple conclusion by observing the world around us and using our reasoning:
A physical thing can not create itself.
- That rock over there didn't create itself. Something else had to create it.
- That car over there didn’t will itself into being. Something had to create it.
- That building was created by something.
- The earth was created by something, it didn’t create itself.
We observe this fact, through science, about every physical thing around us. There is not a physical thing that we observe that is believed to have created itself.
One can ask these basic questions about every physical thing we observe— how did it come into existence? It could not have created itself, so WHAT created it?
As stated, when one asks this question repeatedly of everything, one ultimately arrives at the question “Well, what about matter itself?” (Reminds me of that Rocky & Bullwinkle quip, “Wassamatta U.!”). “What created matter?”
Well, when one asks the question “What created matter?”, it’s reasonable to use our experience about everything else we observe, via science, and draw the following conclusion “Matter could not have created itself because, as we witness around us, a physical thing can not create itself. It’s reasonable to deduce that this would apply to “matter” itself.”
Therefore, “matter” could not create itself. It’s reasonable to conclude that whatever created matter must be “im-material” (i.e. not composed of matter). In fact, what created the universe must exist OUTSIDE the universe (how would it be part of the universe and create the universe?).
The sun is a physical entity in this universe. It is composed of matter, as is other physical entities in this universe. As shown above, the “sun” could not have created itself. Nor could hydrogen.
While it is true God has power over nature, why is that? Is it because maybe God created nature?
- Did the sun create nature? No
- The Sun, though powerful, is still subject to the laws of physics as well as the theory of relativity. These physical laws/theories bind things within this universe. In other words, physical objects in this universe (me, you…the car…the surfer…and yes, the Sun) are bound by the laws of physics
Your origin of life on Earth is flawed. The sun may have simply just provided the right temperature/pressure for life to begin, that in no way can be translated into "The Sun created life". That would be like saying the oven "made the cake"-- it just simply provided the right environment. In addition, timply because science has replicated the building blocks of earth, this in no way proves that is HOW life originated on earth. I can construct an Atari video game in my garage….that doesn’t prove my way was the way the original video game was constructed.
Your theory on the formation and structure of the Earth is appealing. However, while it might explain the earth and it’s formation, it fails to explain the formation of other physical objects outside our solar system. Nor does it explain things that have non-physical existence, like thoughts, ideas, and concepts.
Just because we schedule our days/nights around the rotation of the earth to the sun, it the beginning it was done out of necessity. Now, with the advent of technology, it’s more of a convenience. In fact, many activities are independent of Night/Day (can I get three cheers for them finally installing lights at Wrigley Field??). I tend to schedule my work day around my Boss’ needs—I’m not about to start worshiping him as a God.
So wow you may follow the path of the ancient Egyptians and worship the Sun (Ra), one would question why? Through your power of reason and deduction, you should be able to deduce that something had to have created the sun, and thus, be more powerful than the sun.
"Allow me to lean on Aquinas, et al, a bit here."
"What created matter?...what created the universe must exist OUTSIDE the universe...the sun is a physical entity in this universe...the Sun, though powerful, is still subject to the laws of physics."
"While it is true God has power over nature, why is that?"
"Did the sun create nature?"
"Your origin of life on Earth is flawed."
"The sun may have simply just provided the right temperature/pressure for life to begin, that in no way can be translated into 'The Sun created life'. "
"Your theory on the formation and structure of the Earth...might explain the earth and it’s formation...it fails to explain the formation of other physical objects outside our solar system."
"we schedule our days/nights around the rotation of the earth to the sun"
"in fact, many activities are independent of Night/Day (can I get three cheers for them finally installing lights at Wrigley Field??)."
"Through your power of reason and deduction, you should be able to deduce that something had to have created the sun."
"While I could refute everything you write in defense of worshiping the Sun..."
"...there's no need to."
"The whole point is, if you can use logic and reasoning to show that some "thing" had to create the universe, the sun, etc, it stands to reason that worshiping the Sun is illogical when something much larger, much more powerful than the Sun is 'out there.'"
More than that, god does not have to be the creator of the universe.
Where did you get that idea Con?
"If you make the claim that people are dependent on the sun, then I would argue yes..."
"Yep, and my response is, there something much greater than the sun-- superhuman too."
"Sorry, I did not concede that God is a physical entity. When did I concede that?"
"The sun is a physical entity in this universe. It is composed of matter."-Con
"Curious, why don't you worship Earth?
So what if other things are worshiped for being superhuman?
Why does there have to be only one, again?
"Having one or two super-human abilities does not a God make. Sorry."
"I can name a whole host of things that a human can do that a sun can't do."
Even if humans have supersolar powers, it wouldn't negate that the sun, praise be unto hydrogen, has greater powers than humans rendering it superhuman.
"God exists and humans depend on god to live. That I believe."
"Sorry Magic Mike, you've done nothing to prove that the Sun is a God."
"You fail to understand the basic definitions, like "contingent". You stretch it to mean what you want. Nice playin with ya."
contingent on/upon - occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case.
"you think dreams/ideas/thoughts have a physical existence."
But while we're here, things that are contingent on the physical are physical themselves though they are not made of matter; they are contingent on matter, so are therefore physical.
"Likewise, you think the "God" simply means has some greater powers than a human"
"But i stand by my statement, having a few powers greater than a human does not a God make. Sorry. It doesn't work like that."
"What you haven't proven is this: the sun is a God. The sun is a god in your mind. I get that. "
The mere fact that I've repeated the damn phrase about hydrogen so many times proves that I praise and worship the great hydrogen ball, and this satisfies the resolution.
"Of course, as an atheist, I'm sure you believe Truth is subjective."
b) Even if I reject the god claim made by countless religions, I still believe there are objective truths.
"In case your curious, I've already won the debate."
Thanks for the concession Con.
Maybe I'll prove that your god isn't real in a different debate...it'll be fun to watch you squirm to try to demonstrate such a ridiculous god.
Hahahaha, Con looks funny when he squirms.
As a preface, head moderator bsh1 has already publicly confirmed that additional “rules” included in the debate description are not binding on debaters, voters or moderators. Only the actual rules of the site as called upon from the Code of Conduct are enforceable;
Pro, as instigator, makes the outrageous claim that the sun is god, the sun exists, the sun is an important element of the ecosystem upon which humans rely, thus, humans “depend on god to live!” Clearly, nobody denies that the sun exists or that our ecosystem relies on it, so this debate hinges on if Pro can angrily intimidate his opponent into accepting his claim that the sun is god… which didn’t go too well to say the least!
First, Con begins by stating that he will be paraphrasing famous theologian Thomas Aquinas (thus indirectly using a source) to demonstrate that the idea of a “god” is more complex and detailed than his opponent is trying to paint it. Instead, he points out that the sun is merely a physical object, not even a sentient object at that. To this end, he draws attention to serious philosophical flaws in Pro’s claims, such as his claim that the sun created life on earth, when all the sun actually did was produce light which was part of the ecosystem that sustains life, not the actual creator of life itself. Pro’s only real rebuttal was to angrily demand that his opponent strictly obey the definitions and “rules” he created for the debate (some of which didn’t even appear until after the debate started, meaning they weren’t even included in the actual description). Con easily rejects this and continues.
Next, Con demonstrates the flawed logic within the “definitions” Pro uses. Pro claims that the sun is “superhuman” because of the size and shape of the sun. Con points out that if the definition of “superhuman” is allowed to be as broad as any feature or trait that humans lack, then it would be all too easy to use that same logic to extend godhood to any object. For example, since an elephant is “stronger” than a man, this gives the elephant a “superhuman” trait according to Pro’s definition, and thus an elephant would be a “god” by such a definition. Con also points out that the earth itself shares many of the same traits which Pro attributed to the sun (size, shape, essential for life, etc), so why doesn’t Pro also worship the sun? Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this, other than to become increasingly angry and repeatedly demand that his opponent obey his special “rules” and definitions. Con once again refuted the idea that he was in any way obligated to obey these "rules" and definitions, particularly since Pro was clearly stretching the definitions to fit his own personal meaning, rather than the commonly accepted and intended meaning of the words.
The final nail in the coffin of Pro’s argument comes from Pro himself. After becoming increasingly hostile and visibly angry throughout the whole debate, Pro finally loses his temper in the final round and descends into one of the most childish insult frenzies I’ve ever seen that didn’t take place on a kindergarten playground. This obscene behavior is not only enough to cost him the conduct point for the debate, but if the best rebuttal he can think of in the final round is to launch childish ad hominem at his opponent, it rather solidly proves that he never had a real argument in the first place.
Arguments and conduct both go to Con.
1.) conduct: RFD for conduct in comments , and was deemed sufficient.
2.) arguments. This RFD is updated - removing all information provided for feedback as follows:
The definitions pro uses throughout are defined —IN HIS OPENING ROUND—, and cannot possibly be considered agreed to. At no point can I consider any of the definitions pro presented in the CONTENT OF HIS DEBATE to be automatically assumed to be true.
As a result I cannot and will not consider pro to have successfully defined and won his position by unilateral fiat in this case - the definitions used are clearly defined in pros CONTENT and subject to challenge.
Additionally - the CoC clearly states that I must not consider debate comments or other votes in the RFD (which I don’t), but even in the comments there is no example where con accepts the definitions, so I must as a voter assume that the newly presented definitions that pro uses HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED.
Everything PRO said, and argued in every round concerning the sun being god is accepted as unrefuted and true in every single argument he produced based on his definitions - predicated on those definitions being correct and accurate.
However, as explained - challenging these definitions is relevant and valid.
Cons primary argument, used throughout is that pro is using his definitions incorrectly, that he is stretching definitions, and that doing so has absurd results: this is his primary argument used throughout. The standout example of this, where con points out that the way pro is using his definitions is so absurd, it could be used to show that elephants or the earth are god, con points out throughout that this clearly isn’t what the definition —shared in Pros opening round — are intended to mean, and clearly explains that pro is stretching the definitions to suit his case - rather than those definitions being correct.
Given cons knockout argument that pro is misusing his R1 posted definitions: pro must show that he is using the definitions correctly, and that the definitions he uses - as worded and as used - are correct as per cons objections
Pro singly and solely rejects all of cons argument out of hand either by saying that the definition is accepted and can’t be challenged or by simply repeating the definition that pro is challenging.
As a rebuttal I find this WHOLLY insufficient as an argument and result in any rational voter having to view pro as completely dropping cons primary contention and effective kritik - and thus surrenders the entire contention he is making. As he offers no other argument - pro must be considered to have failed to meet the essential burden of proof he agrees to.
Pros only other argument - that con conceded, is not sufficient in my view. I don’t consider that cons statement supporting God, is a statement of personal belief, not a specific or implicit concession. To be a concession, con needs to accept or acknowledge pro has met the specific contention of the debate - which con falls far short of. And is thus not accepted.
Con's arguments were, at bottom, a rejection of Pro's definitions. And rejecting Pro's definitions violates the terms of the debate.
"The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote."
Some of Con's arguments (paraphrased; forgive me):
"The sun, being made of matter, could not have created itself. Or life on Earth."
- Pro's definition of God says nothing about creation, so in the context of this debate, being a creator is not a necessary component of godhood.
"The sun is not God and cannot logically be called God."
- The sun actually does meet Pro's definition of God as worded.
"Pro has not proven the sun is God."
- I do believe he doesn't have to. It's not what the debate is about. He just has to make sure the sun meets his provided definition of a god. And it does. From there, all he has to prove is a) the sun exists and b) humans depend on the sun to live. I don't feel that Con really met Pro on either of those points. He spent most of his time arguing that the sun is not God, mostly by trying to bring his own definitions and outside presuppositions into the debate.
So I award arguments to Pro.
Pro's sources -- Oxford Dictionaries, Wikipedia, theplanets.org, Universe Today, National Academy of Sciences, etc -- were sufficient to back up Pro's definition of "god" and to back up the solar properties Pro argued fulfilled said definition of "god" (superhuman, power over nature, power over human life). Weighed against Con's sources in support of his argument, which were nil, I award sources to Pro.
Conduct a tie. Neither side was exactly genteel. Yes, this is another debate from Mag employing sneaky wording and very selective definitions, but on the other hand I feel like this should be fairly clear to anyone who reads the debate description thoroughly. It's all laid out there. Plus other members give warnings. But people still accept the debates without seeming to understand that they will have to compete while handcuffed. I am not without some sympathy. It seems the only real way to escape defeat is to not accept the debate.
Observation 1: This debate pro needs to prove 2 things: God exists, and that humans depend on Him to live. Pro does not have to argue which God is real, just that a God exists and depends on him to live.
Observation 2: By accepting the debate, one necessarily accepts the rules and definitions provided. If one does not agree with those rules or definitions, they need to work that out prior to accepting the debate.
Pro's main argument was that the sun meets his definition of God and humans depend on the sun to live, ergo God exists. Con's main rebuttal was that the sun is a created object and thus is not God. However even if we grant that, con makes a huge blunder by arguing that God exists, only it is not the sun:
"Yep, and my response is, there something much greater than the sun-- superhuman too - more deserving of worship than the Sun. In fact, the sun depends on IT for it's existence."
Con needs to show that God does not exist OR that humans do not depend on Him to live. He fails to meet this burden. By arguing that the sun is not God but God is God, he concedes the resolution.