Biblically God created water and darkness.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Con conceded the debate with this very admission, "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."
There seems to be a misunderstanding with the resolution because using scientific retorts do not count as supporting your side. The description was very clear about, "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."
So Pro wins, by being the only side to provide a verse that proves God created water and darkness. Con needed a biblical verse to counteract this.
Con shows that biblically Darkness predates everything. Pro questions if darkness really exists; which is a very weird kritik against his own resolution being able to be affirmed. Whereas pro's case that God created the darkness in the time of Isiah, was called into question for figurative wording he used around the same passages and more verifiable parts of it not being affirmed.
Strangely, con is also able to win on water. His forklift example to show that moving things is distinct from creating them, leaves us with just statements about how God moved water without necessarily having first created it.
Conduct I'll call a wash (no pun intended). Pro dropped the final two rounds, but con broke the intended debate structure.
Pro literally quoted the Bible saying that God created all things. All things includes darkness.
I have no idea what Con was saying, Con even admitted God created light and that therefore God didnt create the darkness but the resolution says 'biblically', not scientifically or otherwise.
Pro was correct, the debate was then over.
I would support removing this debate for being a truism.
**************************************************
>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.