Instigator / Pro
20
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#386

God Exists And Humans Depend On God To Live

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
2
4

After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

*Rules*

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.
--------

*Full Resolution*

God exists and humans depend on god to live.

Pro
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.

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.
--------

*Definitions*

god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god

superhuman - above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/superhuman

existence - something that exists.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/existence

exists - has objective reality or being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exist

humans - members of the Homo Sapiens species; human beings belonging to the genus Homo.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homo_sapiens

depend on - rely on.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/depend

live - remain alive.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/live
--------

May the better argument win!

-->
@MagicAintReal

Since each thought is contingent on the brain activities and neurotransmitter balance, types of thoughts exclusively associated with particular brain activity and particular neurotransmitters can be measured, and so you can accurately predict the types of thoughts someone is thinking by measuring the physical source from which the thought is an emergent construct.

This is not based on science. Sorry. You’re wrong. Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. Science at best says because of the brainwaves, this COULD BE a thougNice try. If you are so sure, perhaps you can point to the specific scientific research that proves this.

Well, are there any surfers that don't make footprints in the sand?
If it's the case that all surfers make footprints in the sand, then we could find a standard surfer footprint and more reasonably conclude the surfer's physical attributes from the series of footprints given the depth of each print, the incline there within, and the shape and size of the imprint from each part of the surfer's foot from their push-off while walking.

I could give you an estimate on height, weight, speed, gait, and overall body shape of the surfer that just walked or ran out to the ocean to surf from a standard of surfers' footprints and the measurement of the series of footprints in the sand.**

True. But you are not using science to provide attribute of the surfer. Science would be actually giving the physical dimensions on what you are observing about him. Taking weights, measuring height, providing observable features from the surfer itself. If you are basing your physical attributes on the footprint, you’re basically taking a guess (your best guess based on reasoning), not using science measure. You’re providing a theory that the object that made the footprint COULD BE a surfer, yay high, weighing x number of pounds etc. But it’s a theory, not a fact. Big difference.

-->
@Alec

Where does it say in the Bible that most people will burn in hell forever?

-->
@Alec

Well, god doesn't do that at all.
God gives you life sir.

I think God is evil because the bible says most people will burn in hell forever. No one deserves to burn in hell forever.

-->
@nmvarco

Um, ok , I'll bite, what did you say that turned out to be just like it?

-->
@MagicAintReal

Just like I said.

This debate is sponsored by Illuminati.

Have an illuminating debate as you realise the logo for Religion debates is Illuminati.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

when I said dopamine, I should have said glutamate, I'm not a fucking neurologist, but that was to be my point.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"

I have no reason to believe that there are things that exist that do not have physical existence UNLESS they are contingent on the physical.
I have no reason to believe anything NOT CONTINGENT on the physical exists.

"For example, you have the free will to stroll across the street, but you do not have the free will to jump to the moon, because...well, that is simply not possible"

Right our free will is not unbounded.

" Who's definition of closed system are you using-- is that your own? "

You're right, I meant isolated system. My bad.

"you said it is possible for something to last forever. Can you please provide an example and/or explain how you came to this conclusion?"

I'm just saying if the universe is an open system and is not ISOLATED (my bad again) it could theoretically burn on forever as long as there are multiple universes feeding the system.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic."

"Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.Describe for me in physical terms this thought."

Ok, so because the titanic is from the past and I know of it, it naturally must be in my memory, so to access the relevant facts associated with the titanic, I will need to activate my frontal lobe, and if my dopamine levels are where they need to be for me to accurately be able to communicate that memory from the frontal lobe to my language acquisition device, I can verbally indicate that I can recall images, books, and even movies I've seen that contain those relevant facts about the titanic.
This thought is a construct of the processes my brain and neurons go through with respects to that particular memory.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it?"

Since each thought is contingent on the brain activities and neurotransmitter balance, types of thoughts exclusively associated with particular brain activity and particular neurotransmitters can be measured, and so you can accurately predict the types of thoughts someone is thinking by measuring the physical source from which the thought is an emergent construct.

"If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand"

Well, are there any surfers that don't make footprints in the sand?

If it's the case that all surfers make footprints in the sand, then we could find a standard surfer footprint and more reasonably conclude the surfer's physical attributes from the series of footprints given the depth of each print, the incline there within, and the shape and size of the imprint from each part of the surfer's foot from their push-off while walking.

I could give you an estimate on height, weight, speed, gait, and overall body shape of the surfer that just walked or ran out to the ocean to surf from a standard of surfers' footprints and the measurement of the series of footprints in the sand.

"While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts."

Well, if you have hunger thoughts, sexual thoughts, or thoughts from anxiety, there's really not much other brain activity going on than the activity exclusively associated with each of those particularly carnal functions during those exclusive thoughts.

-->
@MagicAintReal

2. "Things either physically exist or exist contingent on the physical."

Sorry, you're not answering the question. Let me repeat the question. What I asked is "Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"

I'm not asking if there are things that exist that depend on other physical things. I know that-- we this all around us (You and I both depend, are contingent on, physical things like food and water).

What I want to know is, do YOU believe there things that exist that do not have physical existence?

4. Regarding free will, thanks for your input. Would you agree though that you do have the free will to do what is possible? For example, you have the free will to stroll across the street, but you do not have the free will to jump to the moon, because...well, that is simply not possible.

5. Closed systems

I'm sorry. Who's definition of closed system are you using-- is that your own? Everything I learned in Thermodynamics states that within a closed system, energy is indeed exchanged in/out of the system, but not matter. Whereas in an open system, matter as well as energy is exchanged in/out of the system. DO you wish to go with this definition, or would you rather stick to yours? I’m good either way, but I do question where your definition came from, since it goes counter to what I learned in my engineering science classes.

Nonetheless, related to “open” systems, you said it is possible for something to last forever. Can you please provide an example and/or explain how you came to this conclusion?

-->
@MagicAintReal

1. **No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.**
But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it? It's observing the activity of your brains/neurons. If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand and begin to describe the footprints. If you did, I would say "no no no, describe the surfer for me, not these markings in the sand. For all I know, these markings in the sand may not have even been caused by that surfer dude."
While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts.
I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. If you responded "well it's a 46,000 ton ship with 4 red and black smoke stacks." I'd say "no no no. You are describing for me the content of the picture. I want you to describe for me the picture itself, hopefully, you'd be able to say "Ohhhh, well...it's 4x6 inches....it's black and white.....it's less than a millimeter thick....it weighs very little, I don't know how much but we can measure it's weight if you'd like". Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.
Describe for me in physical terms this thought.

1. **No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.**

But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it? It's observing the activity of your brains/neurons. If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand and begin to describe the footprints. If you did, I would say "no no no, describe the surfer for me, not these markings in the sand. For all I know, these markings in the sand may not have even been caused by that surfer dude."

While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts.

I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. If you responded "well it's a 46,000 ton ship with 4 red and black smoke stacks." I'd say "no no no. You are describing for me the content of the picture. I want you to describe for me the picture itself, hopefully, you'd be able to say "Ohhhh, well...it's 4x6 inches....it's black and white.....it's less than a millimeter thick....it weighs very little, I don't know how much but we can measure it's weight if you'd like". Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.

Describe for me in physical terms this thought.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Yes, in this debate, god follows logic.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"1. How does science measure that which is contingent on the physical?"

Well, the ideas, thoughts, and constructs that we create are not physical, but could not exist without brains/neurons, so by measuring the physical, that which is contingent on the physical can also be measured.

" Isn't the contingent still physical"

No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.

"Or....are you implying that science measures (or can measure) that which is not physical?"

Science can measure brain activity, therefore indirectly thoughts.

"2. I'm curious-- why do you think that if God is to exist, it must be a physical being?"

See the debate unfold...

"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"

Things either physically exist or exist contingent on the physical.

"3. Why do you believe that this Thing (God) must follow the laws of physics?"

Watch the debate unfold.

"4. Unbounded Free Will--"

We are limited by physics, but within physics we may act freely, so it's not unbounded free will, I can't read your mind.

"5. What do you mean by an "open system" and a "closed system"?"

Closed systems are not being fed energy...like the sun.
The sun will eventually burn out because it's a closed system.
The earth is an open system, because it's being fed energy from the sun.
If the universe were being fed energy from other universes, then it'd be an open system.
If not, the universe is a closed system.

-->
@MagicAintReal

By the way, you didn't really answer question #3. You responded by saying "It's an existence that follows the laws of physics. It can do everything within its nature of physics."

I wasn't talking about physics, I was talking about logic. The question wasn't about physics, it was about logic. I'll repeat the question (and so that you are not distracted by words, I'll won't use the word "someone"):

When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as a being that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle?"

-->
@MagicAintReal

Awesome. Thanks for your responses.

1. How does science measure that which is contingent on the physical? Isn't the contingent still physical, so while science is measuring that which is contingent on the physical, isn't it still measuring the physical? Or....are you implying that science measures (or can measure) that which is not physical?

2. I'm curious-- why do you think that if God is to exist, it must be a physical being? Or if you don't believe in God, is it your believe that others (theists) believe God to be a physical being? This actually prompts a sub-question: Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?

3. Good point. it doesn't have to be "someone". Let's just call it "Thing", so as not to be distracted by terms. Why do you believe that this Thing (God) must follow the laws of physics?

4. Unbounded Free Will-- what exactly do you mean by that? My idea of Free Will is the ability to do that which is indeed possible, and logical, to do. In other words, I don't believe the argument someone may have such as "I wan to jump to the moon, but I can't....see, I don't have free will! So free will doesn't exist!". Is that your understanding of Free Will? Better yet, just explain what you mean by "unbounded free will", and perhaps it's complement "bounded free will."

5. What do you mean by an "open system" and a "closed system"? Can you explain what a closed system is and what an open system is, in your opinion? Perhaps giving examples of each would be great, too.

To answer your question, and it's a good one, yes-- I believe it's possible for something to have a beginning AND last forever (this prompts other questions, but I will save those for later).

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"1. Do you believe that science measures/observes only the physical-- i.e. those things that have physical attributes?"

I believe that science measures the physical and that which is contingent on the physical.
Thoughts are not physical but contingent on neurons/brains which are physical.

"2. When you speak of "God", are you speaking of an entity/being that has a physical existence (i.e. physical attributes that can observed via the scientific method)?"

You got it buddy...I'm what you might call a science guy, check my tattoo avatar.

"3.. When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as someone that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle?"

Why does it have to be someone?
It's an existence that follows the laws of physics.
It can do everything within its nature of physics.

"4. Do you believe in Free Will?"

Yes, but it's not unbounded will.

"I'm simply asking, do you believe in free will-- i.e. do you have the ability to choose what you think, say, do, type (even on a debate website)?"

Yeah, I think there's enough evidence to show that we have some kind of free will.

"One last question, I promise...well, for now, anyway:"

Uh huh.

"5. Do you believe that physical/material things can last indefinitely (i.e. forever)?"

In a closed system no, in an open system yes.

"Please keep in mind the distinction between "very long time" and "forever."

Yeah, to me if you outlast the heat death of the universe, then you can say you lasted forever.

"Forever means without end-- no beginning, no end."

Ehhh.
Couldn't something have a beginning, but then last FOREVER?

This is great. Someone who enjoys harassing one debater because they are in such envy of them, posts another comment to a debate they wish they'd thought of.

This is great. Someone who enjoys losing debates because they want to convince their opponent and only that, takes on someone dedicated to sadistically troll the opponent semantically.

Both are going to troll one another to Hell and back.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Just answer the questions. They are actually quite simple questions, just answer yes or no.

Honestly, there are somethings I just don't care about:

1. Who I'm debating. It's irrelevant. I'm here to debate and argue my position. I'll ask questions to better understand the oppositions point of view, and I will try to keep these are "yes / no' questions, but may deviate.
2. Votes. Again, it's irrelevant. I'm not here to win favor or see how many votes I get. I'm just here to debate.
3. I don't care what Joe, Jill Jane or whoever thinks . When I'm in a debate, what matters is what the opposition thinks.
4. Punctuation or grammar. It's a distraction. If the only thing the opposition can argue is that I misspelled a word or left off a comma or left out an apostrophe, then that's a distraction.

So, answer the questions.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

You know you're arguing against god, right?

I meant see the debate as it unfolds...lol

-->
@MagicAintReal

Um, I re-read what you wrote in the debate-- I do not see your answers there. Please tell me you're not already starting this debate off with a false statement....it's too soon. lol.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

My answer to all of your questions is the same...see the debate.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I humbly accept your challenge. I do have a few questions though, because it's not evident from your "definitions". These are all just simple yes/no questions-- no need to point me to other people, other articles or websites, or bring up other arguments not related to the question. Just a simple "yes" or "no" will do.

1. Do you believe that science measures/observes only the physical-- i.e. those things that have physical attributes?

2. When you speak of "God", are you speaking of an entity/being that has a physical existence (i.e. physical attributes that can observed via the scientific method)?

3.. When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as someone that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle? Again, just another simple yes/no response.

4. Do you believe in Free Will? Again, a simple yes/no response. I'm not asking you if both Man's Free-Will and God's Omni-Benevolence can co-exist. I'm simply asking, do you believe in free will-- i.e. do you have the ability to choose what you think, say, do, type (even on a debate website)?

One last question, I promise...well, for now, anyway:

5. Do you believe that physical/material things can last indefinitely (i.e. forever)? Please keep in mind the distinction between "very long time" and "forever". Forever means without end-- no beginning, no end. always was and always will be. People often confuse the two. Hell, I often do....I tell people "Tim Duncan played for the Spurs forever". But what I mean is, he played for them for a really long time.

I look forward to your responses.

For the record, I'm not here to garner votes, etc. So I really don't care about votes, how people vote, etc. I basically fast-forwarded to your definition section....lol.... I'm here cuz I love a good debate.

Come all ye unfaithful...and debate against god.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

You should definitely take the debate

If you've ever wondered what jealousy looks like in text form...

"We must expose this semantics abuser every debate he makes so even when we die his kind of pseudo-debater don't get the winrate and rating that proper debaters earn and deserve."

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Thank fully I saved you from it.

We must expose this semantics abuser every debate he makes so even when we die his kind of pseudo-debater don't get the winrate and rating that proper debaters earn and deserve.

I'd really like to accept this but I don't feel like risking wasting four rounds arguing over semantics

B to the U to the M to the P, come on atheists!
You need god!

Antithetically bumping, all to see.

Spamming bumps, all to know.

Harasser, all to know.

Abuser, all to say.

It's time to get bumpin' bumpin'

-->
@nmvarco

He's right.
If you care about keeping this site high quality, just post your suggestions about the site here.
Maybe we should have a voter's union, or maybe there should be stronger moderation...whatever it is, put your suggestion here.

DON'T BUMP THIS DEBATE IF YOU CARE ABOUT KEEPING THIS SITE HIGH QUALITY.

You will see, you've got me all wrong.

And people call me the delusional narcissist of the site.

Keep bumping the debate by making up crap about my record.
I had over 30 debates, not forfeited, voted on by legit voters, whtieflame mostly, that I won without "moving goalposts"
I'm just a good debater, give props son.

-->
@nmvarco

Petition to ignore inferior opinions

-MagicAintReal

There isn't a single debate that wasn't a full forfeit where you didn't solely win by goalpost moving.

-->
@RationalMadman
@David
@Wylted
@drafterman

Petition to delete this debate

-nmvarco

-->
@nmvarco

Ugh.
You guys are so hellbent on thinking that all of my debates are counter intuitive, but I have tons of debates that are not like that.
This debate is as it seems, there is nothing fallacious that I'd be arguing, take the debate and see.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Well why else would you debate such a fallacious thing like this if not for rating?

Sounds like you're just jealous tbh.

People who can't debate for shit so they debate something totally different to what the enemy thinks the resolution is by abusively disguising semantics