CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I only need one sign from God, just one measly little old cotton picking sign, that's all I ask. All he has to do is deposit £100 million in a Swiss bank account in my name and I'd be a believer. I mean is that too much to ask? Hallelujah brother/sister, hallelujah, praise the Lord. All together now, we shall gather at the river, the beautiful beautiful river, ---
also .... ROMANS 1:18 .. for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness
1:19 .. because that which is known about God is evident within them .. for God made it evident to them
1:20 .. for since the creation of the world his invisible attributes .. his eternal power and divine nature .. have been clearly seen .. being understood through what has been made .. so that they are without excuse .... http://dadmansabode.com/b/06/060116.mp3 <
The doctors announced me dead, but I was in another place.
The scenery was vivid...colors bright...there was beautiful lush meadows of flowers and butterflies...mountains which peaks extended beyond what my vision could observe. There was a woman...one I have never seen in my life.
She gently grabbed my hands and said it's not your time yet...there was then a bright flash! And I returned to consciousness. I later found out that the woman I saw was the deceased grandma one of the doctors who was there when I was announced DOA.
This is proof of After Life. This...is proof of God!
2. Whatever exists is either possible or necessary.
3. If that something which exists is necessary, then there is a necessary existent.
4. Whatever is possible has a cause.
5. So if that something which exists is possible, then it has a cause.
6. The totality of possible things is either necessary in itself or possible in itself.
7. The totality cannot be necessary in itself since it exists only through the existence of its members.
8. So the totality of possible things is possible in itself.
9. So the totality of possible things has a cause.
10. This cause is either internal to the totality or external to it.
11. If it is internal to the totality, then it is either necessary or possible.
12. But it cannot in that case be necessary, because the totality is comprised of possible things.
13. And it also cannot in that case be possible, since as the cause of all possible things it would in that case be its own cause, which would make it necessary and not possible after all, which is a contradiction.
14. So the cause of the totality of possible things is not internal to that totality, but external to it.
15. But if it is outside the totality of possible things, then it is necessary.
Conclusion : So there is a necessary existent, and this necessary existent is what is referred to as God.
Either you refute argument premise by premise or you shut the fck up
God violates premise 4 since it doesn't have a cause. Therefore, God is not possible. God is also not necessary, therefore premise 2 is violated. Since premise 2 is violated, God does not exist.
Conclusion : So there is a necessary existent, and this necessary existent is what is referred to as God.
This violates a previous rule set by you. You said you aren't allowed to define anything by what it does. You said that it has to be defined by what it is. Your conclusion is invalid because you have defined God as whatever created the universe. This comes from ignorance of definitions.
The contingency argument proves that the singularity that started the universe wasn't natural. It does not prove a God.
The fact that we can argue at all is strong evidence for God. Argumentation relies on reason, which in turn relies on logical absolutes. Atheism can't account for logical absolutes, thus the impossibility of atheism is very strong evidence for the existence of God.
The fact that we can argue is strong evidence that evolution can lead to beings intelligent enough to speak. Logical absolutes are a concept created by intelligent humans, it is not from God. Knowing that a=a doesn't require a God.
"Logical absolutes are a concept created by intelligent humans," - so does that mean you believe prior to human existence there were no logical absolutes?
So non-intelligent beings, such as bacteria, can commit logical contradictions then? Could they be both bacteria and a plate of spaghetti (orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter), at the exact same time? If you say no, then you're refuting your own claim that "logic only exists in intelligent beings". If you say yes, well then that'll be very interesting indeed.
Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the ability to perceive the existence of logical absolutes, rather the actual existence of logical absolutes themselves.
"Logic is a system of reasoning. It is only about perceiving the absolutes."
And it's the existence of said absolutes that I'm talking about. Observing logical absolutes isn't the same as accounting for them. How do you account for these immaterial absolutes?
Logical absolutes are the rules in place that make logic work. If logical absolutes didn't exist you couldn't have logical contradictions, and logic would become meaningless.
Yes I know - but you keep dodging the question: How does atheism account for logical absolutes? How could a worldview, in which only time, matter and energy allegedly exist, account for the existence of absolutes that are immaterial and unbreakable?
I answered very clearly. A 7 year old could understand the explanation.
How does atheism account for logical absolutes?
They are needed for logic to work. It is a part of the system known as logic.
How could a worldview, in which only time, matter and energy allegedly exist, account for the existence of absolutes that are immaterial and unbreakable?
Now you are talking about physical absolutes. Atheists do not believe that only time, matter, and energy exist. They also believe that the laws of physics exist. The time, matter, and energy work with whatever physical absolutes exist. The real question is how can you believe in absolutes and believe in a being that is allowed to change those absolutes?
No you didn't answer it at all - you simply presupposed the existence of what I'm asking you to account for. You're begging the question at hand, arguing in circles. Saying they're "needed", doesn't account for them.
I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine. If you need to call a 7 yr old, I'll grant you that lifeline.
you simply presupposed the existence of what I'm asking you to account for.
There is nothing that suggests anything created them.
You're begging the question at hand
Quite the contrary. You see absolutes, so you assume God. You are begging the question by claiming that those absolutes had to be created.
Saying they're "needed", doesn't account for them.
You confuse logical absolutes and physical absolutes.
I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine.
It is begging the question to assume that physical absolutes had to come from anything. Time, mass, and energy can't function without physical absolutes.
"You see absolutes, so you assume God. You are begging the question by claiming that those absolutes had to be created."
I never claimed absolutes were created by God, rather they're a reflection of His character. For anything to be an immaterial absolute (i.e. not physical), which the material universe must obey, certainly does point to God as it's source. I see no other logical (no pun intended) explanation.
"You confuse logical absolutes and physical absolutes."
No you brought up "physical absolutes", I didn't. I'm talking about logical absolutes (i.e. true is never false at the exact same time, 1 + 1 is always 2, 10 is always greater than 9, etc.). You're stalling by moving the goal posts in bringing up "physical absolutes", whatever those are. You're being asked to account for logical absolutes, or another way to put it is: What's the basis for these logical absolutes?
I never claimed absolutes were created by God, rather they're a reflection of His character.
That makes no sense.
For anything to be an immaterial absolute (i.e. not physical), which the material universe must obey, certainly does point to God as it's source.
This is the purest form of begging the question.
I see no other logical (no pun intended) explanation.
You don't even see a logical explanation.
No you brought up "physical absolutes", I didn't.
You did, you just don't realize it.
I'm talking about logical absolutes (i.e. true is never false at the exact same time, 1 + 1 is always 2, 10 is always greater than 9, etc.).
None of those have anything to do with time, matter, and energy.
You're stalling by moving the goal posts in bringing up "physical absolutes",
You moved the goalposts by bringing up time, matter, and energy. You want me to explain logical absolutes as well as the absolutes that work on time, matter, and energy.
You're being asked to account for logical absolutes, or another way to put it is: What's the basis for these logical absolutes?
Logic:reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Those strict principles of validity are known as logical absolutes. I account for it because it is in the definition.
Try to understand this - if there is a God, then He would necessarily have to be absolute, wouldn't He? He would also be intelligent, since He would be the Creator and greater than His creation. Thus His intelligence, or mind, would be absolute. That's the source of logical absolutes, the mind of God. Odd as it may sound to you, there's simply no other logical explanation capable of accounting for logical absolutes.
"You did, you just don't realize it."
Is my mentioning of time, matter and energy causing you this much confusion? Didn't you notice the italicized word "only" in my earlier question? I wasn't limiting my question/position to time, matter and energy - I was asking how atheism, which deals only with time, matter and energy, could account for something that's absolute and transcends time, matter and energy. Your citing the laws of physics doesn't help you at all here, since they too are completely dependent on logical absolutes (otherwise they wouldn't be laws at all).
"I account for it because it is in the definition."
C'mon beefcake. Are you honestly suggesting the universe obeys the laws of logic because it read the same definition that you did? A much more honest answer from you would be that you simply don't know the basis for logical absolutes. I'd accept that, but not this. You account for logical absolutes ("strict principles of validity") by simply looking at the definition of the word logic. That's about as circular as it gets.
then He would necessarily have to be absolute, wouldn't He?
No, not really.
He would also be intelligent, since He would be the Creator and greater than His creation.
The creator doesn't really have to be greater than his creation.
That's the source of logical absolutes, the mind of God.
You are discussing physical absolutes. Physical:noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter. Logical absolutes are not part of the absolutes you are discussing.
Odd as it may sound to you, there's simply no other logical explanation capable of accounting for logical absolutes.
It isn't odd to me. You haven't actually provided a logical explanation. You begged the question. That's not logical. We need absolutes otherwise the universe wouldn't do anything. The universe without absolutes is void of action. Let's rework your claim. Let's beg the question the other way. If there is no God something has to act on the matter in the universe. If the actions of the universe are based on absolutes the universe can continue on existing. If the universe is based on non absolutes, it will rip itself apart with random actions. The only way that the matter in the universe can exist is with absolutes; with or without God. So. the presence of absolutes does not show anything for God.
Is my mentioning of time, matter and energy causing you this much confusion?
Of course. I am always confused when someone changes the subject. I get even more confused when that person doesn't even know what they are talking about when they change the subject.
Didn't you notice the italicized word "only" in my earlier question?
That doesn't help your case.
I wasn't limiting my question/position to time, matter and energy - I was asking how atheism, which deals only with time, matter and energy, could account for something that's absolute and transcends time, matter and energy.
Do you remember my response? I told you that Atheist don't believe what you say they believe. Atheists believe in an absence of God, not an absence of absolutes. Absolutes do not transcend time, matter, and energy. They work with time, matter, and energy. Absolutes are part of the same package.
Your citing the laws of physics doesn't help you at all here, since they too are completely dependent on logical absolutes (otherwise they wouldn't be laws at all).
They don't rely on logical absolutes at all. You make no sense. Logical absolutes rely on physical absolutes. If we didn't have physical absolutes, our logical observations couldn't be based on absolutes.
Are you honestly suggesting the universe obeys the laws of logic because it read the same definition that you did?
The universe does not obey the laws of logic.
A much more honest answer from you would be that you simply don't know the basis for logical absolutes.
You don't know what logical absolutes are. You could give the honest answer and say that you don't know what logical absolutes are.
I'd accept that, but not this.
Most people who believe in God have a hard time accepting the truth. You aren't alone at least.
You account for logical absolutes ("strict principles of validity") by simply looking at the definition of the word logic. That's about as circular as it gets.
My claim is that logic was invented by humans. If you invent a system everything in that system circularly proves the other things in the system. The logical absolutes are what logic is. You can't separate logic and logical absolutes.
You don't know the meaning of "begging the question". The statement "if God is true, then this, else that" is not circular reasoning. It's logical "if/then" reasoning and we use it all the time in programming.
You also don't understand the meaning of the word God. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant to understanding the concept of a Creator/God. If God need not be absolute, than nothing could be absolute since random forces of nature don't create absolutes (but instead rely on pre-existing absolutes).
"You are discussing physical absolutes.
No and I gave you examples already of what it is that I'm discussing (true is not false at the same time, etc.). If you're going to keep overlooking that then there's no point in continuing.
"They don't rely on logical absolutes at all. You make no sense. Logical absolutes rely on physical absolutes."
What physical absolute does the law of non-contradiction rely upon?
Your claim that logic was invented by humans has already been covered. I'm talking about logical absolutes themselves, not the perception of them.
You don't know the meaning of "begging the question".
No, apparently you don't.
The statement "if God is true, then this, else that" is not circular reasoning
I know. It is the part where you say "look this happened, therefore God". In programming it is really if (God || !God) then this, else that. You took something that would be true regardless.
You also don't understand the meaning of the word God.
It is a highly contested word.
If God need not be absolute, than nothing could be absolute since random forces of nature don't create absolutes (but instead rely on pre-existing absolutes).
The Bible proves that a non absolute God can exist.
No
Wrong. I even gave you the definition to help you.
I gave you examples already of what it is that I'm discussing (true is not false at the same time, etc.).
Again, the universe does not act on that premise.
If you're going to keep overlooking that then there's no point in continuing.
I will continue to overlook aspects of logic that are not a part of the universe.
What physical absolute does the law of non-contradiction rely upon?
Damn near all of them. You can't create a logical law of non contradiction if the universe is constantly changing. Because physical absolutes exist we can conclude that things can't contradict each other.
Your claim that logic was invented by humans has already been covered.
I know. I covered it very well, and you still don't understand at all.
I'm talking about logical absolutes themselves, not the perception of them.
Assuming your variable (God) was boolean, then your code said: if(true OR false) then {} else {} but that's illogical because it suggests you believe there's a third option possible, when actually there's not. That renders your code pointless since it will always be stuck in the then-statement. Rather than testing for truth, which all if-else statements are supposed to do, your code ignores it.
You still haven't provided proof to your claim that the Bible says God isn't absolute. All you've given is your opinion. It's your opinion that He doesn't act in an absolute manner. Can you prove it though? Maybe with a verse or two?
Your statement is not the universe, we can agree on that, but if you're bound by the laws of logic, then why not the universe? Do you think the universe is some singular, outside entity that gets special privileges? Not quite. The universe is instead the sum of all of us little entities, which are clearly bound by the laws of logic.
Ok, apparently the code example was too much for you. Here is the scenario for the universe: if(God) then absolutes else absolutes. There are absolutes either way. That makes your if statement worthless.
The Bibles says killing is bad and kill for God. It says Jews are blessed and Jews are cursed. There are several examples. That is for a different debate though.
Your statement is not the universe, we can agree on that
Apparently we can't.
but if you're bound by the laws of logic, then why not the universe?
My thoughts are not physical.
Do you think the universe is some singular, outside entity that gets special privileges?
The universe and are physical actions must follow physical absolutes, not logical absolutes.
The universe is instead the sum of all of us little entities, which are clearly bound by the laws of logic.
You keep saying this, but I have shown that to be false by definition. The universe is bound by physical laws, not logical.
If the universe didn't follow absolutes it would rip itself apart. If one day molecules come together, then the next day they don't you don't have the matter of the universe doing anything.
So then the universe rips itself apart - so what? Why is the universe compelled to follow these absolutes in the first place? If everything is the product of random chance, cosmic evolution etc, then why should absolutes exist at all.
It is only peculiar because you live to strawman your opposition. The universe works according to rules. Random chance would not produce a viable universe.
The formation of "rules" (as you now call them) does not comport with an atheistic worldview. Absolutes, physical or logical, have no basis in atheism.
There is nothing about atheism that makes your statement true. Absolutes are not God. Atheists do not believe in God. Atheists believe in things that are not God. You are just plain wrong.
There's nothing about atheism that makes anything true. Logical absolutes require an absolute authority, otherwise they're not absolutes, but the natural, material world of atheism lacks that authority.
That is a really dumb response. Accurate statements about atheism will be true.
The authority for logical absolutes is humans. We invented logic and we are the authority over it. The universe doesn't follow logical absolutes since logical absolutes only apply to thoughts.
Your confused - I didn't mean truth statements couldn't be made about atheism, I meant atheism cannot account for truth itself.
Humans most certainly did not "invent" logic. We're extremely illogical and as such could never be the authors of the laws of logic. The authority doesn't rest with us, because if it did, then these laws of logic wouldn't be laws at all. I could then contradict myself whenever I wanted and you wouldn't be able to call me on it.
Your confused - I didn't mean truth statements couldn't be made about atheism, I meant atheism cannot account for truth itself.
I am not confused at all. You are making silly comments and they make no sense.
Humans most certainly did not "invent" logic.
They did. It is a thought construct that can only be spread through language. Humans are the only ones who could have done it.
We're extremely illogical and as such could never be the authors of the laws of logic.
It is ridiculous to claim that the only beings that use logic are illogical.
The authority doesn't rest with us, because if it did, then these laws of logic wouldn't be laws at all.
Humans are highly known for making laws. Humans are the only things known to have ever created laws of any kind.
I could then contradict myself whenever I wanted and you wouldn't be able to call me on it.
You are not all humans. You by yourself do not have any power to change what is logical. Humans invented government and criminal laws. That doesn't mean you can claim something doesn't break the law.
My comments are silly? Would you say they're illogical? That shouldn't be a problem - since you believe humans are the absolute authority on logic, I'll just suspend the laws of logic for a moment. How many humans does it take to change a law of logic btw? Does it have to be a super majority?
Humans are the only ones to have created laws of any kind? Which human created the laws of physics? Not identified them, but actually created them?
Yes. You made a statement about atheism. I told you it was false. You then said that atheism can't know anything about truth. I then pointed out that we were talking about atheism and not what atheism thinks. You then said that we can know truths about atheism. You are just being silly.
Would you say they're illogical?
No, not really.
That shouldn't be a problem - since you believe humans are the absolute authority on logic, I'll just suspend the laws of logic for a moment.
You have been suspending the laws of logic the whole time I have talked to you.
How many humans does it take to change a law of logic btw? Does it have to be a super majority?
Just someone like Plato or Socrates.
Humans are the only ones to have created laws of any kind? Which human created the laws of physics? Not identified them, but actually created them?
Reread what I wrote. Humans are the only thing known to have created laws. We don't know what created every law.
metus vulputate eu scelerisque felis imperdiet proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus nisl tincidunt eget nullam non nisi est sit amet facilisis magna etiam tempor orci eu lobortis elementum nibh tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui nunc
Fools will demand proof that Hell is a real place of eternal torment for sinners, and the only way they will believe it is real is that they will find themselves in the fire of Hell unable to escape....then they will cry out to God and He won't answer, they will curse Him and nothing will change.
There are very strong arguments of God's existence, and of Biblical accuracy, and credibility.
I have found that what atheist want as proof is their defense for denial. God won't appease them because if you give them every reason to consider at least an investigation, then their choice is they really don't want to know, no matter what you show them.
Best you can do is give them every argument to their objections and hopefully the light goes on.
I also know that as atheism grows, as Jesus says the last days love will wax cold. Light and Salt, without light it's dark, without salt foods loose flavor an in some foods salt keep foods from rotting.
Below is a short video clip I'd recommend. And this goes into a posting from an atheist that shows the downside of atheism.
And we can see why Jesus said this last days sign would be present. And it is very present, it's even blindly present.
People don't recognize it in themselves, and they barely recognize it in others.
So as we switch the Jews scream "Release Barabas!" And "Crucify Jesus" today we see massive identity in darkness that identify and takes over society, and families, the rights of others to live and believe, as they scream intolerance, they define and personify intolerance. No one matters but self, and the darkness that affirms them as ok.
Any light that shines anywhere near them in their darkness is met with hate and intolerance. So we then hear "eliminate religion" "no signs of religious culture aloud, but we can erect a statue to Buddha, or Plato, anyone but Jesus.
Religion, the voice of light is silenced. Religious freedom confined to behind closed doors. Sound like tolerance?
Jesus said they will hate you, just like they hated me. Light shows darkness, and they scream just for light believing their darkness is sin. They HATE any eyes looking their way that have any light in them, and if they could they would pluck them out, never to look at them again.
Isn't it amazing how unreasonable and intolerance has grown to become. It's not enough for people of light to be tolerant. It's not enough till they put it out! Until they release your own children from your families values and moral standards. Why?
Because darkness hates light because in light nothing is hidden or masked, you see things as they are, and people prefer deception so light doesn't expose the darkness they dwell in.
This is a short clip that explains the atheist. Give it a few minutes, the letter from the atheist is both shocking yet sadly accurate and believable.
Hey, let me ask you this: A nihilist walks into a porno store with a pothead. The pothead says, hey man, check out these whores. The nihilist says "they ain't nothing if they can't keep themselves out of Hell." Then they went and smoked weed in the dumpster out back and had an orgy.
Probably, but maybe not. I usually don't bother reading your responses when you ban me from responding to them. And you still stink at asking questions.
No, my statement was never about me Cuaroc; however, thank you for finding that contextual spelling mistake. Wouldn't have caught if you hadn't thrown my own statement back at me.
The word "prove" or "proof" is the kicker here. This is not a word scientists nor philosophers use lightly or really, hardly ever. That is because in many instances, science especially, we are using inductive reasoning where proof is never complete.
Pretty sure it has been said innumerable times but, if someone wants proof of something they should become a mathematician. In maths there you have proofs, not in philosophy or science.
Absolute proof that God exists or not will never happen but the augment that if you cannot disprove God then he must exist is illogical as much as it is annoying
Perhaps further questions such as where is God,
what is he made of,
who created him
How old is he
Does he control atoms ? Could be asked of the "believers"
If you insist you will have no absolute proof that God is God, you won't have it. You will have absolute proof that your existence as a sinner is justified by the fire of Hell....but you won't understand it that way. You will always argue against it even though you can't get out of it, you'll never accept it as being forever and for real.
The fact that you exist outside of the fire of Hell in no way proves you can un-exist or exist outside of Hell in death. God has the right to finalize your death at any moment, and He has the right to keep you in Hell forever because you have turned away from and against Him and He loves you so He will give you want you want, to be separate from Him who has the right to rule over you. It baffles me why people want to fight against God other than they love their sin all the way to Hell and somehow they think it's worth it.
What right have you to pontificate about religion you go on as if you have the final say that only you can understand what God wants or who he will punish, you don't know me or how I live my life according to you I'm a sinner and will burn in hell because I refuse to worship your God even if I was to spend my life helping my fellow man I will still burn in hell but not the clergyman who abuses children he's guaranteed a seat in heaven ,
you really need some help as you are totally deluded
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" I know theists have heard the famous quote, but we say this for a reason, because we want evidence for your claim. If you use arguments like the fine tuned argument, remember this could be used for any theistic and deistic God, so what evidence that you have that is so compelling that it makes your God stand out from the crowd, once you meet my criteria, then we'll talk
There are, but they aren't supported by reality. If fossils didn't exist or older fossils appeared on a higher rock layer. If different animals had completely different DNA molecules, that would also indicate that God was the answer.
Totally agree you cannot support an entire belief on one book written years after an event by many contributors with stories taken from other fables and then say this is evidence of a higher power therefore God exists
If different animals had completely different DNA molecules, that would also indicate that God was the answer.
You believe that if this were true then you would believe in God? I suspect, like most atheists, you would go back the argument of "there are things in science yet to be discovered".
I would have believed in God 100 years ago. If there are new roadblocks to scientific discovery then there is more likely to be a God. As it stands now, every scientific discovery makes things better understood. If every new animal found led to more unexplained questions it would make sense for there to be a God.
Since other debtors cannot prove what they are saying, I will. Remember when God parted the red sea, all the Egyptians with their chariots drowned and all of them died, divers found gold chariot wheels in the red sea, right at the bottom of the sea.. See? Proof, search it yourself
You really shouldn't have had me look it up myself. There are many fake news sources. You have been fooled by one of them. So, since you can't prove what you are saying, will you change your opinion?
There are arguments, the "strength" of which can only be measured by the strength of the "belief" in that argument. There is far more solid evidence that "The Book" is at least as much imaginative as factual .... at least.
Fools will demand proof that Hell is a real place of eternal torment for sinners, and the only way they will believe it is real is that they will find themselves in the fire of Hell unable to escape....then they will cry out to God and He won't answer, they will curse Him and nothing will change.