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.
My belief is that religion is here to give some people a sense of security, and in many cases, a sense of meaning. It's also a way to escape choice, by following a book or whatever to just tell them what is right or wrong. Religion-ism has always seemed like a cowardice and or a nonintellectual way to live life. I've not found a good standpoint to believing in something like god myself, but I do think that it's important to exist for some people...
Sense of meaning? how about we dont know what happens to us after we die so lets enjoy this life to the fullest? how about that for meaning? there is no reason to believe in god for meaning the fact that we have a life is meaning enough its just that people are taught to believe in god when they are children that is why they can not see that living life to the fullest is meaning.
Look up the ontological, teleological, transcendental, and cosmological arguments. There are more arguments than these but these are the ones off the top of my head. If you do not understand them, then ask me and I will try to explain them.
Why don't go through them to support your claims. Here I will help you. Explain the transcendental argument please. I have only skimmed the surface of it.
Since logic is the process of the mind and logically absolutes exist, then it follows that an absolute mind that is transcendent of the universe and time must have created it.
I agree with that form of logic, but I do not see this as a firm reason due to the current advancements in technological sciences with astronomy. One could say that the Cyclic Model is much more reliable due to your argument only existing as a probable start of the universe. Hard evidence with always quell probability.
The universe is not the basis for logic, since logic is the process of the mind: it is abstract, not natural. Remember, if logic is based in the universe, then if the universe were no longer real, then so too would logic. If logic were no longer real, with the universe being not real, then it follows that the universe would be real and not real at the same time.
Remember, if logic is based in the universe, then if the universe were no longer real, then so too would logic.
Yes. Our logic is based upon this universe and any knowledge we obtain about our universe will help support our logic.
The universe is not the basis for logic, since logic is the process of the mind: it is abstract, not natural
It is inherent to a being with a complex mind and can perform simple cognitive thought processes such as 2 + 2. That is simple logic and it is inherent for human's to have this. You are not giving a reason as to why I should follow a God that only has a probability of existing and creating the universe over hard evidence.
If logic were no longer real, with the universe being not real, then it follows that the universe would be real and not real at the same time.
That is illogical. If logic is not real then the universe is intact and shall continue. If humans never existed, which means logic must disappear, then the universe shall always exist. If something is deemed as non existing it can only be referred to as that because it was compared to something within existence. Four sided triangles do not exist. How do I know? I know what does exist, a triangle, and a square or rectangle. This means that if you are to say logic doesn't exist what comparative shall you use to grant it's non-existence?
I'm not sure that you are understanding the argument. Since, logic is the process of the mind, and people come to different conclusions about the same things, then it follows that logic cannot be based in human logic (they would contradict themselves). If the universe were to disappear, logic would still be intact, since they are simple ideas, such as A cannot equal not A. And if logic were no longer to exist, then anything that is would not be and be at the same time, since there would be nothing to retain the formula of A cannot not A. Therefore, since logic is transcendent of nature, the universe and humans, then it follows that a transcendent mind that is absolute and eternal must have authored it.
As I supposed, you are applying a pre-biased supposition to the argument. This argument is establish whether that assumption is correct or not. The argument still follows necessarily and deductively.
If the universe were to disappear, logic would still be intact, since they are simple ideas, such as A cannot equal not A. And if logic were no longer to exist, then anything that is would not be and be at the same time, since there would be nothing to retain the formula of A cannot not A.
Highly illogical and incorrect. If the universe does not exist logic cannot exist for there is no conparative knowledge present. If logic does not exist a mind of an inherent tendency to hold logic doesn't exist. The universe will still exist. If knowledge doesn't exists then an organism capable of holding it doesn't exist. The universe still exists. If the universe does not exist knowledge cannot exist. What knowledge can you obtain for nothing? Nothing. You cannot even understand the concept of nothing since nothing exists. If one says "Nothing is here" their knowledge will compare it to something of existence. This is why your argument is illogical and incorrect.
Therefore, since logic is transcendent of nature, the universe and humans, then it follows that a transcendent mind that is absolute and eternal must have authored it.
Highly illogical and incorrect. If the universe does not exist logic cannot exist for there is no conparative knowledge present. If logic does not exist a mind of an inherent tendency to hold logic doesn't exist. The universe will still exist. If knowledge doesn't exists then an organism capable of holding it doesn't exist. The universe still exists. If the universe does not exist knowledge cannot exist. What knowledge can you obtain for nothing? Nothing. You cannot even understand the concept of nothing since nothing exists. If one says "Nothing is here" their knowledge will compare it to something of existence. This is why your argument is illogical and incorrect.
This is the assumption I was saying you had. You are assuming that the only living things are natural.
This is the assumption I was saying you had. You are assuming that the only living things are natural.
If you assumed my words then you can defeat them. However you cannot even do that. I never said living things were natural, but the are inherent to a universe if life is able to exist. Before the earth existed the universe existed which means that knowledge did not exist since it is inherent to humans and beings cabable of holding it. Your statement has been disproven. It is illogical.
Before the earth existed the universe existed which means that knowledge did not exist since it is inherent to humans and beings cabable of holding it.
And could God not have this? This is the point.... you have been begging the question the entire time. If you are willing to stop assuming the point and actually address the argument, then i will continue; however, until then I will no longer respond to you.
That argument was pointless. Sure there could be a better explanation for how the universe came to be; however, that does not deny that logic, which is not bound by the universe, and God could exist.
You are not understanding the argument, which leads away from your false dichotomy to a third point: (3) I am smarter than you and you don't realize it.
That argument was pointless. Sure there could be a better explanation for how the universe came to be; however, that does not deny that logic, which is not bound by the universe, and God could exist.
So you tell me my argument was "pointless", but you accept the fact that God remains a possibility and hard evidence trumps probability. Seems as if my argument had a point. It struck it's target in the center.
You are not understanding the argument, which leads away from your false dichotomy to a third point: (3) I am smarter than you and you don't realize it.
Now we wish to play childish games of who has a higher intellect? How despicable. I have already trumped your "logic" of the universe with my logic. I have set the premise that God is a possibility, but hard evidence makes this much more unlikely. I have set my argument upon a land that you cannot conquer.If you wish to restore your intellect by showing me a much more "well thought out" argument then do so.
So you tell me my argument was "pointless", but you accept the fact that God remains a possibility and hard evidence trumps probability. Seems as if my argument had a point. It struck it's target in the center.
No, your argument was a red herring. It doesn't matter if there is a naturalistic explanation for how the universe came to be, since the argument that I referring to is about that which is abstract, not natural. I told you that right after you posted it, I told you multiple times, and now I am telling you again: logic is not bound in the natural. Math is a subset of logic and is not bound in the natural either. Start using logic, please; stop using red herrings; stop being illogical and pay attention to the argument at hand. You have in no way rebutted the argument. If you do not understand it, then fine, we can move to another one, which I shall do in the next comment, since you apparently do not understand the argument...
Now we wish to play childish games of who has a higher intellect? How despicable. I have already trumped your "logic" of the universe with my logic. I have set the premise that God is a possibility, but hard evidence makes this much more unlikely. I have set my argument upon a land that you cannot conquer.If you wish to restore your intellect by showing me a much more "well thought out" argument then do so.
You do realize that saying that God is a possibility but not real is a logical absurdity, correct?
You do realize that saying that God is a possibility but not real is a logical absurdity, correct?
Quote me. Where did I say "God is not real?".
No, your argument was a red herring.
Red Herring: Red herring is an English-language idiom that refers to a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue.
No logical fallacy was presented. I quelled your argument with simple logic, but you are too headstrong to realize that.
It doesn't matter if there is a naturalistic explanation for how the universe came to be, since the argument that I referring to is about that which is abstract, not natural.
Your argument was theoretical. It also was illogical. I showed you how illogical it was. You don't even understand your own argument. You took so much time in strengthening your rhetoric, but your diction dropped. Poor word choice allowed me to invade and destroy your argument. My argument is no red herring. No logical fallacy was presented. In fact you don't even understand what I even wanted to get at do you?
logic is not bound in the natural
Logic is confined to knowledge. Knowledge is always going to be inherent to the origin of its whereabouts.
Start using logic, please; stop using red herrings; stop being illogical and pay attention to the argument at hand.
Start using.....more logic? Was the logic given, that defeated your argument, not enough?
Stop using....red herrings? Sure. Seems like you are down to your last resort.
Stop being illogical? Never was.
I payed your arguments enough attention. You apparently cannot argue at the level I can.
You have in no way rebutted the argument. If you do not understand it, then fine, we can move to another one, which I shall do in the next comment, since you apparently do not understand the argument...
I will just stop debating with you. You cannot give me any well grounded logic. I rebutted. I conquered. I vanquished. You cannot even understand your own argument. I am done. There is no need to respond to this.
Those are all worthless. They all say in some form or another that because you have defined God to exist He exists, that's a terrible reason to believe anything.
We know more than nothing. That is not a reason to believe in a probable God. Saying "We don't know shit" is false and illogical. That can never be used as a legitimate reason. Is that your only argument?
A lack of knowledge is not a reason to believe in the possibility of something because it does not make that thing more probabilistically true. Rather, it is a reason not to absolutely disbelieve in a possibility but to probabilistically disbelieve in it.
Logic as we understand it can't prove or disprove the existence of a god. Logic as we understand it can not prove how the big bang started. It always contradicts itself when we try.. So it's safe to assume that we were created within a different realm of logic.
If we try to use logic as we comprehend it then there's no way to prove or disprove that there is a god.
Logic as we understand it can not prove how the big bang started.
How is that? Logic surfaces within the bounds of knowledge. If we gain more knowledge of the origin of a big bang we can logically explain how it started.
It always contradicts itself when we try.. So it's safe to assume that we were created within a different realm of logic.
It is safe to say that it is a possibility. It is not safe to say that it is an absolute.
If we try to use logic as we comprehend it then there's no way to prove or disprove that there is a god.
With the logic we have now we can certainly disprove some deities.
I said it's irrelevant because there is nothing that can completely absolutely prove that there is no god period. You saying that it can disprove some deities is irrelevant to my post and to this topic. some not all
I said it's irrelevant because there is nothing that can completely absolutely prove that there is no god period.
Yet we can.
You saying that it can disprove some deities is irrelevant to my post and to this topic. some not all
Which is what my point was
You never said "all". Never. Therefore my post is relevant. The God of the bible cannot exist in the way he is presented unless you change his traits. With logic this is possible. This means two things:
1) The Holy Bible is a lie.
2) God (the Christian God) cannot exist.
We logically can prove this. My argument still stands. Are you going to attempt to argue against it or not?
Name another God that is referred in this manner as just "God". The Christian God is mentioned in the bible as "God". When someone says "Do you believe in God?" Are they talking about Horus? Anubis? Osiris? Zeus? Odin? Thor? Venus? Gaia? Shiva? No. They are talking about the god known as "God". The bible mentions him as "God". My wording is correct and properly used. You are just avoiding me now. Even societies take on this is that when someone says "God" Christianity is relevant. Either refute my previous post or do not post at all.
Just avoiding you? No. I was arguing about a completely different view. If you want to debate about the existence of the christian god then point it out in either the topic title or in the description. Because yes I believe in God. But the God how Christians portray it is not my god.
Depends. "God" is God's inherent title. Athena is a name. She is a goddess, or a god if we argue definition, but she is called Athena. God, especially when capitalized pushes towards the Christian God.
Simple. He is the creator. I keep in mind that he is all things, the good and the bad, every bit of energy in the universe. When I meditate my focus is on god and his loving light(the good). I accept this light and allow it to overcome any darkness(the bad) forming in or that have been clouding my thoughts from things happening in my life. Doing this allows me to clear my mind so i can focus on what I want to accomplish in life and stay happy.
It's basically the concept i use to keep bad thoughts out of my mind. I realize that the processes going on through deep meditation can be explained with science. But I look to this God as a point of reference and believe and hope that this loving being is real.
He is the creator. I keep in mind that he is all things, the good and the bad, every bit of energy in the universe.
How do you know? Are you saying God is the universe? He created himself?
When I meditate my focus is on god and his loving light(the good). I accept this light and allow it to overcome any darkness(the bad) forming in or that have been clouding my thoughts from things happening in my life. Doing this allows me to clear my mind so i can focus on what I want to accomplish in life and stay happy.
How do you know that this isn't just your brain's way of coping with anxiety?
It's basically the concept i use to keep bad thoughts out of my mind. I realize that the processes going on through deep meditation can be explained with science. But I look to this God as a point of reference and believe and hope that this loving being is real.
You align yourself with a probable deity instead of hard evidence? That is new.
I don't know that''s why it's a belief. Facts are not needed to say that I believe in something because if there were facts there would be no point in believing since it would then be definite.
"How do you know that this isn't just your brain's way of coping with anxiety?"
Part of the next statement states that that may be the case.
"It's basically the concept i use to keep bad thoughts out of my mind. I realize that the processes going on through deep meditation can be explained with science. But I look to this God as a point of reference and believe and hope that this loving being is real."
While absolute proof is lacking for both sides, there is probable ground to disbelieve in a god or gods whereas there is no such probable ground to substantiate a belief in a god or gods.
That we have not perfected our understanding of the universe does not discredit logic, but leaves room for possibility. Given what we do know logically and based on proof, we can conclude that such a possibility for the existence of god(s) is more likely untrue. For instance, there is research indicating a biological origin of faith (and thus religion, and thus god). There are also plentiful sociological explanations for the presence of religion.
Certainly I cannot prove that your meditative experience did not occur for you, however that is hardly the point. While you can have such an experience and may consequentially believe in god as a consequence, you cannot prove that that experience is divine but rather only believe it. What you experienced likely has a bio-neurological cause and explanation, and such experiences have actually been traced to a particular part of the brain. My earlier post posited that such experiences have a probable evolutionary and social function. My conclusion is more probabilistically true than yours because it is grounded in empirical analysis and tangible research, rather than your view which is a consequence of an arbitrary interpretation of the experience as being divine.
There really isnt. It makes people not live their life to the fullest. Who is to say there is an afterlife? God was an idea created by a human to put the guilty conscious into people when they act against that human (who created 'god') deemed wrong. yeah sure theres the 'hope' aspect but you have to see that 'hope' that something will make everything better ruins society, people not studying for tests but 'praying' to god <-- what a waste of time. If all of society was like this then we would be in ruins. People say the idea of god unites humans ... um no the only idea that unites humans is that we are here on this earth and have the instinct to survive. Sorry if this offends anyone just my two cents.
There is absolutely no reason to believe in god. There's no proof of his existence, nor any evidence for it nor any necessity for his existence. The only reason i can fathom is that people struggling or people with weak minds might need god and religion to fall back on for support. It can be comforting sure but has absolutely no affect on ones life literally.
This is what I am arguing with the user named Lolzors93. He said that it is possible that God created the universe. I said I agree, but that is only a possibility and possibility doesn't trump hard logic. Then he rambles on without logic. This user must not know everything he claims to know.
He said that it is possible that God created the universe.
This makes it clear to me that you did not understand the argument. I was not referring to the universe; I was referring to logic.
I straight up said that the argument was as follows: "Since logic is the process of the mind and logically absolutes exist, then it follows that an absolute mind that is transcendent of the universe and time must have created it."
I never argued the creation of the universe. I argued the creation of logic.
I made it clear in one of my first comments by saying this: "Since logic is the process of the mind and logically absolutes exist, then it follows that an absolute mind that is transcendent of the universe and time must have created it."
Bingo. You got the usual schpiel nothing new. Do yourself a favor and don't bother with him anymore. You get word tricks and rambling in circles with him and you never get anywhere in any direction. He has no clue what logic is nor how evidence is employed in a situation.
You get word tricks and rambling in circles with him and you never get anywhere in any direction. He has no clue what logic is nor how evidence is employed in a situation.
This is true. I cannot see how he argues with such deceptive manipulation and word play.
Strictly speaking, no. A reason implies a valid, rational explanation which the belief in any god or gods cannot produce. Faith, religion, and god are byproducts of the evolution of the human brain and there is no reason to view them as anything more or less than that. As the human conscious has developed and the sense of self emerged, there have been far more questions than answers and religiosity presented itself as biological and social adaptation. As with most adaptations, there are direct benefits and secondary consequences. With the continued developments of human consciousness and society religion will become a less advantageous characteristic.
As a side-note, I think it is important to consider that religious belief is not a mental weakness, but rather another way of being that is not really a matter of individual choice at all. I think it is also important to acknowledge that not all of religions contributions have been negative.
The belief in God has caused many wars, terror attacks and has held back scientific advance for years. Also people have used belief in God as a way to exploit others and gain power and wealth.
In my opinion the belief in a creator God (or Gods) is a delusion that distracts us from making progress and realising that we need to to work for ourselves to attain gods and not to expect a mystical to do the work for us.
There is no way of proving that a God exists or not, that is reason enough to believe or not to believe, myself I believe that there is some higher power, some call it God, some call it the Great Spirit or whatever, I choose to believe there is something. It has nothing to do with being weak minded its just what I believe.
Actually we can. If the God has contradictory qualities, like the God in the Holy Bible then we can logical say that specifc God doesn't exist, unless the bible lies.
The bible is just an old book written by men which is allegedly the word of God, it may have been originally but has been translated so many times mistakes are bound to have happened so I don't believe it is any more, I think the bible is now more of a guide book to life, a real life hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, it throws up more questions than it answers but to me that's the essence of it, don't just follow blindly ask questions until you have the answers to life the universe and everything that is the path to enlightenment, its a long path and not many of us will figure it out but it'll be fun trying if we choose to accept the challenge
I understand you viewpoint and I thank you for that input. However my point is that if modern day Christians worship a contradicting God I should be able to say the Bible has an error in it. Instead they claim the book is perfect. I can agree with your interpretation of the bible.
I agree with you and find myself debating endlessly with Christians who refuse to accept that the bible may be flawed, as I said we cannot prove that a God exists so we cannot prove that it is right to be a believer or a non believer, so both stances are equally valid. I think that people who refuse to question their beliefs are afraid that they may be proven wrong so choose blind faith instead, I don't think that if a God exists he/she/it will be impressed with that, why else were we given free will if not to question what is put before us
