Instigator / Pro
2
1492
rating
335
debates
40.9%
won
Topic
#4109
Biblically God created water and darkness.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
The burden of proof is on both sides. Pro must prove with Bible chapter and verse(s) that God created water, that God created darkness. The con side must prove with Bible book , chapter and verse(s) that God did not create water and darkness.
Both sides must be able to show and explain from the scripture their case. I make the statement "God created water and darkness" and I shall prove my statement with Bible and likewise to the opposing position.
The first round is only allowed for the Pro side to explain from the scripture that God created water and darkness.
The second round is only allowed for the con side to explain from the scripture that God did not create water and darkness. No rebuttals or counter points are allowed.
These first two rounds only serve as opening statements.
The third round are for questions only. Just questions only from both sides to the other . The Pro side will ask the other side questions regarding the scriptures and the case they're bringing . The con side can only ask questions in the third round like cross examination to expose flaws, inconsistencies regarding the first round statements.
The 4th round will only contain answers for the questions from the third round.
The fifth round will summarize with conclusions from each side with any applicable feedback overall from everything discussed.
Any questions on the setup, the topic, please leave a comment.
Round 1
Getting the book Isaiah 44:24,
"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"
Now from John 1:1-3,
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
We have a witness from John and Isaiah, God made all things.
I'll continue on to show the creation portfolio, water particularly.
Getting Revelation 14,
"6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
Psalms 95,
"3 For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
4 In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also.
5 The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land."
Moving on to the darkness as this is straightforward.
Going back to Isaiah chapter 45 now.
"5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness"
That's really as cut and dry as that but a little bit more I love this.
Genesis 1
"4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
I'll stop here. This doesn't warrant much explanation. These passages really establish everything. Although I have a hunch about a question the opposing side will raise.
I'll wait until the third round.
0. BoP
Con wins if Con shows that either Water wasn't created by God, or Darkness was not created by God, which ie enough given the "and" in the topic statement.
1. Water
Look at the following example.
My grandparents made my parents, my parents made me, and I crafted a chair using my hammer. I claim that my grandparents made this chair.
That isn't true. "My grandparents made the chair" is false simultaneously as "My grandparents made my parents, who made me" and "I made this chair" are true. The property of creation is not compatible with inheritance.
Translate this structure to God and creation:
God made the universe, which then forms water through forces external to God directly.
If this is true, then God did not create water, even though God's influence resulted in the creation of Water. And unless God is within the present universe as a meta-law of nature, being omnipresent, then God did not partake in the creation of water, the act itself, directly.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1)
"Now" suggests that the second sentence did not take place simultaneously as God created Earth, but after. This also implies that water could have come about due to external mechanisms. Genesis 1 did not say anything, at all, directly about that "God created water", leaving the possibility.
Keep in mind, Christianity attempts to explain reality, so laws of physics and chemistry shall still apply. We ought to consider God to be a being capable of material manipulating in a high level, not to deny science. If the universe was initially filled with nothing other than Hydrogen, the protons can still collide to form oxygen and water, therefore the creation of water does not directly require God. "Earth" could well have been made according to a very grandiose and precise design of placing fundamental particles such as fermions and bosons, in which these particles collide to form chemical elements, including H and O, which forms H2O, indirectly from God, which still disproves the topic.
And yes, God is not the laws of the universe, nor is God the universe itself according to the Bible scriptures.
The Bible’s answer God is able to see everything and to act anywhere he chooses. (Proverbs 15:3; Hebrews 4:13) However, the Bible does not teach that God is omnipresent—that is, present everywhere, in all things. Instead, it shows that he is a person and that he resides in a dwelling place. God’s form: God is a spirit person.
If God is outside of the universe, and water could have come about indirectly, it is not proven that God directly created water.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
These paragraphs show God MOVING water, rather than forming it. If this makes God "create water", then forklift operators made everything they carried, which is absurd.
PRO: 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
Making the "sea" does not mean exactly "making water". This is supported by Genesis 1:2:
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Water, at the earliest stage of earth, was chaos and random within Earth. Later, God reshaped where water should be, which requires the creation of nothing new physically. You may call the formation of a valley "creation", but that does not make water "created" by just moving it. See Genesis 1:10.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
2. Darkness
: the quality or state of being dark: such asa: the total or near total absence of light
The state of darkness exists before God did anything, since all the requirements for "darkness" is an absence of light. By scriptures, Light was solely created by God, directly stated clearly.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
There was no light before this action, there was darkness. Darkness does not need God to create. Also, God only created light as we see here, but God separated light from darkness, implying that darkness was not something necessarily created by God.
PRO: 7 I form the light, and create darkness
This is from a passage in which God attempts to communicate with people.
“This is what the Lord says to his anointed,to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold ofto subdue nations before himand to strip kings of their armor,to open doors before himso that gates will not be shut: (Isaiah 45)
This is basically anecdotal evidence, mixing in persuasive linguistic tricks to make it sound rhythmic. For example:
I will break down gates of bronzeand cut through bars of iron.
Did God actually do so?
I will give you hidden treasures,riches stored in secret places,
Did God do this too? Literally? Possibly not.
What "darkness" is is either absolute or relative lack of lighting, and a reduction of the sum of photons satisfy "darkness". Photons can be absorbed, turning the quantum of energy within the photon into something else, by machines made by humans, which are indirect products of God, not direct.
Absolute darkness exists before God created any light.
In conclusion:
- Absolute darkness exists without God creating it
- Relative darkness can be created by humans, which are indirect, not direct, products of God
- Pro has shown no instance of God directly inducing darkness
- Keep in mind, unless photons are being absorbed, the level of aggregate lighting within the realm of existence is constant.
- Water could have been indirectly resulted from God, which is different from God creating water.
- The topic is proven to be false, vote CON.
Round 2
I'm getting quite a bit of "could be's" and "possibilities" and "suggestions" but is it your point that because Genesis 1 doesn't specify God created water, therefore God did not create water?
Looks like I'm beginning to see a contradiction with emphasizing a position that God did not create water but indirectly created it but wouldn't that mean God is still the creator of it?
The scripture says "let us make man" which is mankind but God clearly specifically made Adam but the scripture still credits the creation of man to God, isn't that correct?
When God said in Isaiah 45 that God created darkness, did it not really mean what was written?
If darkness existed before God created, does darkness have a beginning or was it always was?
Is darkness a thing ,meaning is it real, physical in reality?
Isn't it a moot point of mentioning that Genesis doesn't state God created darkness when Isaiah did?
Is this a cherry picking or you weren't aware of Isaiah before you read Genesis?
It appears that criticisms are made that can be read as counter statements, are you able to strictly just ask questions without making a conclusive summary?
Are you able to strictly give answers without making a conclusive summary?
I understand things are habitual but are you able to conform to the structure of this debate?
Are you able to hold and retain your conclusions to the 5th round only ?
Do you believe God has to comply with the natural laws and physics of nature as we understand them?
If God does not have to comply, why introduce these standards as an argument?
Is it possible for you to actually only use the scripture to back up your position?
Do you understand this topic is not a scientific topic?
1. Regarding the Debate Structure
The first round is only allowed for the Pro side to explain from the scripture that God created water and darkness.The second round is only allowed for the con side to explain from the scripture that God did not create water and darkness. No rebuttals or counter points are allowed.
In the first round, Pro can only argue for the Pro position, which means:
- Pro conceding actually LOSES conduct
- Con can do whatever Con wants due to no specification
In the second round:
- Con can only argue for the Con position(which the condition is still active)
- No counter points and rebuttal points are allowed for either party
These first two rounds only serve as opening statements.
I believe for Pro asking questions left and right in the 2nd round, that is not a strong "opening statement". Just questioning the approach.
Per the rules, since I am not allowed to create counterarguments in the 2nd round and I believe my case still has not been breached as of yet, extend.
Extension
- Indirect cause of existence is not creation, and it is possible for God to create something else that later becomes water within the creation of the world, such as Hydrogen atoms, which is NOT "creating" water.
- No excerpt in the scripture deliberately says that God "did" create water.
- The scripture still attempts to explain nature, so we should inspect them as if they do explain reality. This debate can be "Scientific".
- Absolute darkness existed before God created light, meaning that darkness was not created "by" God.
- Unless there is evidence that God manually drained a closed area of photons, God did not create even relative darkness.
- Therefore, the topic is not yet proven. Vote CON.
Round 3
My apologies I got mixed up with the first two turns as the first two rounds. I should of made this a 4 round session.
Anyways we can carry on as scheduled like a professional when you fumble, carry it on smooth and professional.
I'm getting quite a bit of "could be's" and "possibilities" and "suggestions" but is it your point that because Genesis 1 doesn't specify God created water, therefore God did not create water?
Looks like I'm beginning to see a contradiction with emphasizing a position that God did not create water but indirectly created it but wouldn't that mean God is still the creator of it?
The scripture says "let us make man" which is mankind but God clearly specifically made Adam but the scripture still credits the creation of man to God, isn't that correct?
When God said in Isaiah 45 that God created darkness, did it not really mean what was written?
If darkness existed before God created, does darkness have a beginning or was it always was?
Is darkness a thing ,meaning is it real, physical in reality?
Isn't it a moot point of mentioning that Genesis doesn't state God created darkness when Isaiah did?
Is this a cherry picking or you weren't aware of Isaiah before you read Genesis?
It appears that criticisms are made that can be read as counter statements, are you able to strictly just ask questions without making a conclusive summary?
Are you able to strictly give answers without making a conclusive summary?
I understand things are habitual but are you able to conform to the structure of this debate?
Are you able to hold and retain your conclusions to the 5th round only ?
Do you believe God has to comply with the natural laws and physics of nature as we understand them?
If God does not have to comply, why introduce these standards as an argument?
Is it possible for you to actually only use the scripture to back up your position?
Do you understand this topic is not a scientific topic?
ROUND 3
This sentence is not a question, for two good reasons.
- Because R3, although the inclusion of questions regarding the topic and the arguments is required, can also include else.
- This debate has a character limit of 30,000, which is basically too abundant for me to use it up easily.
Regarding what I can do in R3
The description section, regarding R3, states:
The third round are for questions only. Just questions only from both sides to the other . The Pro side will ask the other side questions regarding the scriptures and the case they're bringing . The con side can only ask questions in the third round like cross examination to expose flaws, inconsistencies regarding the first round statements.
The first sentence within the excerpt cited here is of the structure (noun) + "be" + "for" + (noun). Structurally, this sentence is no different from "America was made for democracy" or "This killer robot was for vanquishing." Of course, despite the US being constructed in the vision of a democratic and free society, America could, in all seriousness, turn totalitarian at once today. And yes, althought a killer robot was for destruction, its maneuverability can simply made to serve beer at a coffee table, which is not killing but which said machine is obviously capable of doing after physical installation and inhibition of programs.
Pro never outlined "You are only allowed to ask questions" but merely "The third round was for questions", meaning that Pro just imported a debate structure from somewhere I don't know and just wrote so because the third round is the place where questions usually get asked, and NOT because doing anything other than inquiry in the 3rd round is sinful and will get you punished in hell. Also, no restrictions on rebuttals, unlike the 2rd round description:
The second round is only allowed for the con side to explain from the scripture that God did not create water and darkness. No rebuttals or counter points are allowed.
So, the message of what I am getting is that Pro could have disabled any non-inquiry actions in the 3rd round before the debate even started with a hard rule(such as "Neither Pro nor Con can do anything other than asking in round 3" or "Pro and Con can only ask questions in the 3rd round"), but did not.
On a side note, This:
The con side can only ask questions in the third round like cross examination to expose flaws, inconsistencies regarding the first round statements.
May seem like a hard rule to limit everything in this round to only questions. However, no, all it does is to limit the question format to that resembling cross examination, meaning the only hard rule imposed upon this round is to prohibit "informal" questioning regarding the topic and the arguments themselves, with examples including yet not limited to "What did you eat for lunch today", which is not based on any part of the pre-made cases.
: the examination of a witness who has already testified in order to check or discredit the witness's testimony, knowledge, or credibility
So all questions asked need to address something that is already there.
This is furthered by Pro's first few sentences in R3:
My apologies I got mixed up with the first two turns as the first two rounds. I should of made this a 4 round session.Anyways we can carry on as scheduled like a professional when you fumble, carry it on smooth and professional.
These are not questions. So if Pro made "only questions" a strict rule, Pro would have violated himself.
Actual Arguments
In this section, questions responding to questions made by Pro R3 should be allowed as that is still "examination of previous testimony or information", especially since rebuttals are in no way prohibited, not even implied here.
Trick
Adding "Isn't that right?" or "doesn't it?" after a statement removes no meaning it originally have but essentially makes it a genuine question besides conveying what the equivalent statement does, doesn't it? Run-on sentences could also eliminate any sentences ending with a full stop, isn't that right?
I'm getting quite a bit of "could be's" and "possibilities" and "suggestions" but is it your point that because Genesis 1 doesn't specify God created water, therefore God did not create water?
All the verses both Pro and Con cited on the issue of creation of water never stated God "created water", only that God induced the distribution of water to resemble more the current situation, isn't that right?
Keep in mind, the Scriptures still attempts to explain reality. Therefore, if the Christian word could align with reality for anything, we should take that representation as true as long as nothing can represent the case better.
All I have done was to neutralize this argument, as there is no evidence nor counterevidence for God creating water itself, nullifying Pro's case, bringing it back to the middle ground. We have no evidence on whether God created water molecules as water molecules or let water molecules form from smaller and more fundamental molecules such as fermions. In this case, we can say neither.
Looks like I'm beginning to see a contradiction with emphasizing a position that God did not create water but indirectly created it but wouldn't that mean God is still the creator of it?
No, that would mean my grandparents made everything that I made, even after they died. Cite myself:
Translate this structure to God and creation:God made the universe, which then forms water through forces external to God directly.If this is true, then God did not create water, even though God's influence resulted in the creation of Water. And unless God is within the present universe as a meta-law of nature, being omnipresent, then God did not partake in the creation of water, the act itself, directly.
The scripture says "let us make man" which is mankind but God clearly specifically made Adam but the scripture still credits the creation of man to God, isn't that correct?
Because "man" is vague or abstract as a concept, and God initiated mankind according to the Bible, isn't that right? Nobody would credit the formation of Soviet Union to God. I would say that it is true that God created fundamental particles if the Bible is true, however, is that the topic?
When God said in Isaiah 45 that God created darkness, did it not really mean what was written?
That was a direct quote from "God" in which God is "directly speaking". Direct communication can fall flat to figurative speech and persuasive linguistic tricks to convince people to do stuff, which that excerpt is doing. Pro has brought no evidence that God really did cut open metal doors and bars for them, so we have yet to debunk the guess that this excerpt uses figurative linguistic tricks.
Is darkness a thing ,meaning is it real, physical in reality?
No, it is a state of being, like poverty or war or peacefulness. Can you bring me any artifact and tell me that is "poverty" or "war"? No. You can say that that thing exhibits poverty(for example, a well-worn shirt) and another thing is a product of war(for example, the remnants of a bomb shell).
That state of being came before God even created light, for very obvious reasons.
Is this a cherry picking or you weren't aware of Isaiah before you read Genesis?
What do you think cherry picking is other than choosing the best cases one is available, which I clearly did?
It appears that criticisms are made that can be read as counter statements, are you able to strictly just ask questions without making a conclusive summary?
Yes, but I don't want to. "asking questions without concluding" was never a part of the rules anywhere.
Are you able to hold and retain your conclusions to the 5th round only ?
Why do I need to do so, when a conclusion for every round about what is within the round is of the norm within the site?
Is it possible for you to actually only use the scripture to back up your position?
Why do I need to do so, when I can use things that support the scripture even though they aren't the scriptures themselves? How about explanations on scriptures, such as Christian sites?
Do you understand this topic is not a scientific topic?
No. If we need to violate science in this debate, it would be written in the descriptions so we do know. On that the Bible aims to explain reality, the debate should aim to accept anything in which the Bible can be interpreted to agree with the scientific consensus, isn't that right?
CONCLUSIONS(R3)
- I can do things other than asking questions here.
- I asked questions.
- God cannot be proven to have created water.
- Darkness is a state of being before God created anything(due to there not being light) and God did not create it.
- "God did not create 'water and darkness'" is therefore proven correct due to God could not possibly have created darkness even if we take the Bible as reasonably coherent.
- Vote CON.
Round 4
The debate is over .
The opposing side still has not asked any questions surrounding my opening statements. Their answers to my questions was only to be for round 4.
That's answers only. No feedback , no rebuttals.
Let's just squash this . I'll redo this topic.
Rebuttals
The 4th round was meant for, and exclusive to rebuttals. No questions are necessary.
The debate is over .
Wrong, there is the 5th round.
The opposing side still has not asked any questions surrounding my opening statements.
Wrong, I can give several examples where I did ask questions.
Can you bring me any artifact and tell me that is "poverty" or "war"?Because "man" is vague or abstract as a concept, and God initiated mankind according to the Bible, isn't that right?I would say that it is true that God created fundamental particles if the Bible is true, however, is that the topic?All the verses both Pro and Con cited on the issue of creation of water never stated God "created water", only that God induced the distribution of water to resemble more the current situation, isn't that right?
These questions concern the opening arguments Pro gave since R1. Although they quote R3 material, it was due to that the views have not changed for these three rounds. For example, Pro still thinks that the Isaiah verse really justified that God "created" darkness in R3, even though the statement was thrown as early as in R1.
Their answers to my questions was only to be for round 4.
Says the person, in round 4, dropping every single of my points. The fact Pro failed to do any rebuttal here also reinforces the fact that in R3, I am not "literally forced to" only ask questions and nothing else. I just needed to ask at least 1 question and can still write other stuff, in which rebuttals, although specified to be required for R4, was not ruled out of possible actions in R3. Actually, by responding to every sentence Con wrote in R4(including actual rebuttals by answering, which Pro required both parties to include in R4 while also being a null set for Pro), I followed the rules.
That's answers only. No feedback , no rebuttals.
Somehow, answering questions do not count as feedback or rebuttals.
Let's just squash this . I'll redo this topic.
If this is a message for concession, I will gladly accept.
Conclusions
Extend all arguments as Pro failed to address them in the round where Pro clearly should have responded to them.
Round 5
The debate is over .
We'll try this again, it's alright.
Round 5
The debate is over .We'll try this again, it's alright.
Pro still has not offered any actual rebuttals to my points since round 3. In this case, I will consider them dropped by Pro. Extend. The conclusions stay the same as is back in round 2.
Conclusion
- Indirect cause of existence is not creation, and it is possible for God to create something else that later becomes water within the creation of the world, such as Hydrogen atoms, which is NOT "creating" water.
- No excerpt in the scripture deliberately says that God "did" create water.
- The scripture still attempts to explain nature, so we should inspect them as if they do explain reality. This debate can be "Scientific".
- Absolute darkness existed before God created light, meaning that darkness was not created "by" God.
- Unless there is evidence that God manually drained a closed area of photons, God did not create even relative darkness.
- Pro brought up none from the scriptures.
- Therefore, the topic is not yet proven. Vote CON.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
ah, you misunderstood the language. i see.
he created the sea AND fountains of waters. it was worded in that way because of what was gonna happen.
but it doesnt negate the truth that God created water himself.
To me the angel in revolution was disputed quite well with the whole shaping thing. If you dig a watering hole, have you created the water or just moved it around?
Your choice. If you are truly against the standards, then just start an open discussion of them. Seems like a reasonable place to begin.
heh, you are hilarious whiteflame. name 2 people who would support ANY of my ideas.
lol
You're welcome to discuss them publicly at any time. If you have MEEP ideas, I suggest you refine them into a set of standards that you believe are workable and shop them around to other people on the site, see if they're getting the kind of support that could lead to passing a MEEP.
its not so much your enforcement of standards im ranting against, but the standards themselves. i dont suppose there is a method to change those until a next meep update is there?
…I’m at a loss. I’ve explained this now twice, and yet your response is that I’m somehow denying the integrity of debates? I’m saying that the voting standards aren’t built to ensure that all votes are “good” - they’re a checklist of things voters have to do in order to ensure that their votes don’t get removed by moderation. We aren’t here to determine whether a vote is good or require that voters exhaustively cover arguments made in the debate. That’s always been the case because that has always been the standards we’ve employed. I’m not sure what decision was the basis for removing your vote in the past and, once again, I am neither Ramshutu nor David.
I’m also not sure why you’re suddenly asserting that I don’t know how scripture works, either, since I haven’t given my opinion on this debate. I’m not telling you that Barney made the right call here.
so the integrity of debates dont matter anymore? i can just vote anyway i want as long as its analyzed to sufficently in my voting comment? nonsense.
i say nonsense, because i did the same thing when i was starting out and david took it down.
pro didnt lose either of those points, his burden of proof was that God made water and darkness. and he met that.
honestly, im starting to believe you, barney and ramshutu dont know how to do scripture debates. There has to be another standard for debating facts within the framework of a book assuming the book is true and irrefutable. ramshutu especially couldnt settle with that idea.
I’m saying that he covered enough of the debate sufficiently to have his vote stand. You can call it a bad vote if you want, but the standards don’t require what you’re demanding of him.
I’m also saying that, since he says that Pro losing either the darkness or water points would be sufficient to award Con the point (the topic certainly seems to require it), his justification for either one would justify the point allocation from his perspective, i.e. if there are errors in his analysis of one of those issues, it still doesn’t change what the vote would be.
the whole reason i brought it up was because it was a bad vote and i thought it could be removed. i wasnt aware that you couldnt do that anymore.
now, if barney was somehow able to kritik the debate via scripture (ie, mall didnt put in revelation 14:7 and he had to inductive reqson genesis 1) then i could understand that. but its a bad vote, i get you cant remove it, fine. but dont try to justify it to me, im not an idiot.
so you allow it because he is half right? is that what you are saying?
water is literally half the debate context.
he cannot award a point to con just because he doesnt read. lol
I'll make this informal since it's not a decision that would change anything at this point either way.
The vote is sufficient. Your issue is that Barney didn't recognize a verse given by Pro in the debate, though I'll note that it's not a requirement for the voter to exhaustively cover all arguments made in the debate. He just had to show that he read it, analyzed specific arguments presented by both sides, and came to a decision as a result. That might have been reason to question his decision, though I'll note that Barney also provides reasons why he believes Con is winning on Darkness as well, and clearly states that that would be sufficient for him to award the debate to Con. So even if he's completely inaccurate in his depiction of the water debate, that wouldn't affect the decision as a whole.
i wasnt talking about genesis 1. look at revelation 14
For starters, Genesis 1 was leveraged with inductive logic to show them existing without God having necessarily created them.
that sucks. i wish i was avalible yesterday.
Also, to be clear, since the debate is over, any decision I make will not result in removal of the vote. I can no longer do that.
Well, I’m not David or Ramshutu, but I’ll give it a look and post a comment with a decision later.
would you mind evaluating barneys vote? i question his reasoning the debate. pro very clearly gives a verse how God created water. Yet barney gives con a vote because he claimed God only moved water.
i know for sure ramshutu wouldnt tolerate that vote, nor david.
i question your vote. how did you side with con when scripture says God created water, and you agree with the guy who says God moved it.
if you look up what the work darkness is in scripture, it tells you what it is, no guess work, no philosophical musings about darkness being nothing.
(nothing, as an object and concept, does not exist except in the heads of ignorant people who are unable to describe what nothing is. thus, proving they cant imagine nothing, nor prove it)
according to scripture God made all things, light and darkness. it seemed like con couldnt grasp that idea.
or people forgot what darkness is, close your eyes and think about it.
this debate is based on biblical narrative, anyone trying to use anything other than scripture to invalidate scripture not only is debating dishonestly, but lacks the intelligence to think within a framework.
Whatever way it goes, this debate would benefit from a tie breaker vote.
"God created light and that therefore God didnt create the darkness"
"Therefore"
I am sorry, but "God created light" and "God didn't create darkness" are two statements with no necessary connections.
Not quite, but yes.
Darkness is a state of being instead of an object, because darkness is an absence of something. Still, God "can" create darkness if suddenly he wanted to retract the photons he made. It is as theoretically possible as God creating poverty, war, hopelessness among people if God is equally and coherently omnipotent.
"Hopefully not spoiling Con's argument, but darkness doesn't exist."
Is irrelevant. Con has to use scripture to prove his case.
Hopefully not spoiling Con's argument, but darkness doesn't exist.