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 would get a couple of my fake accounts to become Jehovah's Witnesses and a couple more to become Mormons, then I would have them knock on your door until you either went insane or converted to one of those ;)
First you totes have to find one that matches your personal beliefs and which one seems more believable. Study it. See if a prayer or a ritual changes something for your life. Then you can dive deeper into it.
Well let's assume you already know I'm committed. In another scenario with another person i said, all of you are having a religion convention, and I'm a participant at this convention. in entering this debate, I have just arrived at your stall and am seeking new guidance. That's my commitment.
Well if youre committed then the arguments for the necessity if a divine creatir will make sense to you. I would walk you through Genesis and explain why we live in the world we do and then explain the role and purpose of Jesus Christ, and then have you attend a nice church to see if you fit in well.
I'm only committed as far as being willing to come hear you all out. I will still hold my skepticism. That same skepticism that does not believe a word written in the bible.
It just needs time. for example proteins are not alive but they can make another stuff, not intentionally, it just happens as a result of matter and physical/chemical laws...
They don't do so willingly, no protein or amino acid has any clue what is it doing or where it is but by moving, changing the affects other proteins or particles. It is like magnets, they do not pick to what they stuck to, it simply hapend...
We are results of those combinations. I assume that you are home schooled by your cult leader, because even if you would went to school in Nigeria you would have some backing in biology and chemistry.
Do you even understand what my argument is? This is not cultish in any way. It's just common sense. I'm not even part of a religion.
Everything is connected. Einstein agreed with this. Degrasse agrees with this. Beethoven agreed with this. Emerson agreed with this. Whitman agreed with this. Wilde agreed with this. Thoreau agreed with this. Debussy agreed with this. Watts agreed with this.
All you have to do is sit down and think about it instead of throwing some scientific arguments at me that do not do anything in your favor. Science is not disproving "God".
No religion is entirely correct. You have one notion of God, it seems... And that is the God of the Bible. The Bible was written by men, so it will obviously be flawed.
Right. Bring them in with love and keep them in with fear. You're apparently only aware of the contents within Abrahamic religions though. I believe that there are certain truths within most religions and it is starting to become clear that religion and science are going to eventually come to a meeting point.
I don't believe that a religion is necessary and about 90% of the time, someone who has died and comes back says the same thing.
So, one of the most ignorant things you can do is call me ignorant because you disagree with my beliefs. A few days ago I was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism (look at my debates if you don't believe me). Then something happened that changed my entire outlook. No need to try to put someone down because they see the world differently.
There was a time when God was considered to be just knowledge. The explanation for everything. It was not religious, for it was all they knew. Over time, different beliefs arose. That separated people into different religions.
There was a time when God was considered to be just knowledge. That's bullshit, if you look on history of religions the old ones got the most brutal gods and very very specific ones mixed with animals demanding bloody sacrifices if you didn't killed enough babies storm happen...
the old ones got the most brutal gods and very very specific ones mixed with animals demanding bloody sacrifices if you didn't killed enough babies storm happen...
How does that disprove my argument? Did I say that they believed God was all-loving? No. They simply believed that everything was God, or rather, gods. They believed that there was an intelligent being behind everything. Wind, rain, clouds, etc.
Yes, people thought that storm is result of magic, flood caused by daemons, illnes was curse... Gods (most religions were polytheistic) did specific things, they were invisible rulers, not any "knowledge behind things" invisible warlords.
Intelligence is needed only if you want to create something specific in specific time from specific material.
Are we not specific? Or complex? I'd say most things on Earth, if not all, are complex and specific. We need specific conditions for life, we have to survive in specpfic temperatures relative to the universe, etc. I'd say that fits your definition.
I wouldn't say infinite since that isn't possible in this type of realm. One must be transendent and above all in order to be quantified as infinite. Our possible outcomes are limited to very specific constraints. We cannot live in just any conditions.
Why there should be a creator? we are one of many possible combination, creator would be needed only if we are intended. There are no signs of it. so...
How do you know that we aren't intentionally present? We have already established that intelligence can create the unintelligent, thus the unitelligent cannot create intelligence since it has no intention, and cannot have any intention whatsoever. The intention of our creation may never be known and the creator may remain a mystery.
How do you know that we aren't intentionally present?
We live in galaxy with 200 000 000 000 stars in cluster of 300 000 000 000 galaxies each one of them has in least 200 000 000 000 they own stars... kind of inefficient "design". Especially wne our only planet is covered from 3/4 with poisoned water..
We have already established that intelligence can create the unintelligent
We don't know that "unintelligent" can't lead to "intelligent"
We don't know that "unintelligent" can't lead to "intelligent"
Name something that is unintelligent and produces an intelligence.
We live in galaxy with 200 000 000 000 stars in cluster of 300 000 000 000 galaxies each one of them has in least 200 000 000 000 they own stars... kind of inefficient "design". Especially wne our only planet is covered from 3/4 with poisoned water..
Yet we live. Its a specific an efficient system design for only the most essential forms of life. Also 3/4 of the water isn't "poisoned". It's just salty.
"Name something that is unintelligent and produces an intelligence"
stars? a huge reactors created created entirely by gravity, "dumb" force that just makes stuff run into each other.
"Yet we live. Its a specific an efficient system design for only the most essential forms of life. Also 3/4 of the water isn't "poisoned". It's just salty."
As I said before specific does not equals to intended. We are very inefficient and falling apart (ageing), what about cancer does it feels like intended design?
stars? a huge reactors created created entirely by gravity, "dumb" force that just makes stuff run into each other.
What do stars produce that is intelligent? What does gravity produce that is intelligent?
As I said before specific does not equals to intended. We are very inefficient and falling apart (ageing), what about cancer does it feels like intended design?
Yes, cancer is a logical consequence of evolutionary behavior. Also, you are being to stray from my points. We are efficient. Our system of life is intricate. I am aware that specificity does not logically beg intention, but they can be related to the universe. We are specific, and nothing unintelligent can create intelligence, therefore an intelligence created other intelligence in a specific manner so that intention can only be known to the original intelligence.
All planets do not create life. Life is a simple consequence of intelligent design.
Which requires even more intelligent designer which would need even even more intelligent designer... infinite line of more and more intelligent designers a.k.a logical fallacy/fail.
Your logic is a fail. You are saying that everything intelligent requires creator... which can only result in infinite line of creators or you are breaking your own logic. Nothing between.
Every time you try and insult me, I gain more confidence that you are unconfident.
You are saying that everything intelligent requires creator... which can only result in infinite line of creators or you are breaking your own logic. Nothing between.
Not if there was an intelligence that always existed.
Infinity is not beyond logic. There are different types of infinity, to which are you referring?
So you point is that intelligent things have to come from intelligence ... is God retarded? ... I assume not, so he needs even bigger intelligence to come from...
Infinity is beyond logical comprehension. No number can come close to quantifying it.
So you point is that intelligent things have to come from intelligence ... is God retarded? ... I assume not, so he needs even bigger intelligence to come from...
I didn't say "God" did I? I said a deity. If this deity is omniscient then it superseeds logic.
Your only argument for creation is that intelligent things needs creator and you have said that is possible for intelligent thing exit without creator. When I pointed out your fallacy your reply was "they are magical creatures beyond our understanding"
It does not matter if they are finite or not. your logic says
Your only argument for creation is that intelligent things needs creator*
Incorrect, but close. My argument is that only intelligence can create intelligence.
When I pointed out your fallacy your reply was "they are magical creatures beyond our understanding"
Oh, so I made my statement an absolute? When did I do such a thing? I totes don't remember that. I said if a deity created everything then it created logic and is above logic and cannot be bound by logic. That is all I said in accordance to logic.
Now, a being that is intellegent doesn't need a creator if it's the infinite and eternal and is required to exist and defines existence and non existence. If this creator is outside of space-time it cannot be born, created, or end, thus infinite and since infinity cannot be fathomed or quantified and only exists as a concept one cannot fathom a deity of such measure.
You have stated that everything intelligent originated in intelligence, that is a fallacy. By adding magical creature outside of it, to make it work you are actually breaking it..
" if a deity created everything then it created logic" standard creatards' "god did it"
You have stated that everything intelligent originated in intelligence, that is a fallacy. By adding magical creature outside of it, to make it work you are actually breaking it..
No, I said only intelligence can create intelligence. Never said everything.
" if a deity created everything then it created logic" standard creatards' "god did it"
Deity means gods, based on Deus = god also Deus = Zeus...
"No, I said only intelligence can create intelligence. Never said everything"
You have said multiple times that intelligence can come >>>only<<<
from intelligence, which is a fallacy that you tried to "fix" by adding (according to your system) illogical lala land as some sort of shady, magical exception.
Deity means gods, based on Deus = god also Deus = Zeus...
Yes, it just means any divine being.
You have said multiple times that intelligence can come >>>only<<< from intelligence, which is a fallacy that you tried to "fix" by adding (according to your system) illogical lala land as some sort of shady, magical exception.
I did say that. Also my logiv is consistent. Whats wrog with saying a deity can be above logic if the deity created it?
I did say that. Also my logiv is consistent. Whats wrog with saying a deity can be above logic if the deity created it? It is the kind of argument like me saying that my pet rat farted out your deity/god (means exactly the same) which then created universe...
Man created the iPhone. Man has power over the iPhone. The iPhone cannot overcome man. Therefore the iPhone cannot purely define man. Incomparable. You cannot compare universe that you know pretty much nothing about witth well described thing that you >>KNOW<<< where and how it came from.
Your intelligence only from intelligence felt apart ... so you used "god did it" ...that is like arguing with some medieval priest.
Stating that intelligence can come only from intelligence ...because you don't know how else it could happen... is not an argument "pro for" it is just an exercise of ignorance.
According to your logic your god/deity needs to intelligence from intelligence to be truth to exist. Therefore you need to have a conclusive proof of it.
So you have to construct a proper argument that will very well support your hypothesis.
You cannot compare universe that you know pretty much nothing about witth well described thing that you >>KNOW<<< where and how it came from.
I didn't. I compared my argument on God superseding something he created. In what sense did I mention the universe when I was specifically talking about logic?
Your intelligence only from intelligence felt apart ... so you used "god did it" ...that is like arguing with some medieval priest.
I never said God did anything. I never claimed a God, or any deity, has done anything.
According to your logic your god/deity needs to intelligence from intelligence to be truth to exist.
You need to learn how to type, because this is totes poor grammar. I have no idea what you're talking about.
So you have to construct a proper argument that will very well support your hypothesis.
Okay, here is my claim:
If a deity created logic then it logically is above logic. If two infinities cannot co-exist the creator must logically be the infinity since it cannot be created or end. If logic is bound by the constraint of this universe then logic cannot be used to fathom such a deity since the deity is above logic.
If a deity created logic then it logically is above logic You cannot be above logic. You are logical or illogical.
If two infinities cannot co-exist the creator must logically be the infinity since it cannot be created or end.
You can have multiple different infinities.There is no reason why creator would have to be infinite.
If logic is bound by the constraint of this universe then logic cannot be used to fathom such a deity since the deity is above logic.
Again, not above logic but illogical which in this context means non-existent/does not exist.
Universe by definition is a collection of everything that exist, has existed or will exist. Therefore everything that is/was outside the universe does not exist.
I never said God did anything. I never claimed a God, or any deity, has done anything. Yes you did and you will do it again...
You cannot be above logic. You are logical or illogical.
You can be above logic if you its creator or possess qualities that logic alone cannot comprehend.
You can have multiple different infinities.There is no reason why creator would have to be infinite.
If the creator is outside of spacetime he can only be infinite and not limited.
Again, not above logic but illogical which in this context means non-existent/does not exist. Universe by definition is a collection of everything that exist, has existed or will exist. Therefore everything that is/was outside the universe does not exist.
False, for if it exists beyond the known universe it cannot follow universal logic since all its attributes are infinetely above any univeraal comprehension.
Yes you did and you will do it again...
Now you are wasting my time. Im totes done here, you cant argue normally.
You can be above logic if you its creator or possess qualities that logic alone cannot comprehend
No, you cannot! You are logical or illogical. That's the point and definition of logic.
If the creator is outside of spacetime he can only be infinite and not limited.
No, he was farted out by my pet rat. Which is equally valid as your pseudo-logic.
False, for if it exists beyond the known universe it cannot follow universal logic since all its attributes are infinetely above any univeraal comprehension.
It feels like talking to a retard.
THERE IS NO ABOVE LOGIC
you are not arguing, just repeating god does not need to be logical because he is magical...
Logic is a set of rules. You comply or you do not, there is not above it. It is like: you can have apple in your left hand or right hand and you pick Imaginary and Mythical infinitely large and invisible hand outside the universe.
It sounds retarded, because it is.
Nope. A god can be logical, just like God.
No, god originates in stone age poetry, which makes him as "logical" as smurfs.
You really need to be more specific, I have a very nice IQ thank you very much, I mean that doesn't say much, but its enough for me.
By nice you mean nice rounded two digits, am I right?
Simple stating god is above logic means exactly same as saying god is magical...
...invisible magic man that farted out universe ...
No, it doesn't. Salt takes away the H2O necessary for functioning. Drinking salty water just makes you more dehydrated. It's not poisonous since you can drink it and live normally.
Both salt and water our essential to our body, but consuming ocean water is obviously bad. Our bodies do contain saltwater though, as is clear from our tears and sweat.
Well these questions are good, but if you seek to convince me to join a religion by telling me we were created, I have to say it's failing. It's making me feel like you have all the answers, but nothing their specifically for me. That is to say, if I want to join a religion, I don't want to be horded in with the masses, I want to know I'm unique.
Ah, I guessed I erred since I'm already in the lack there of category. I found it difficult to argue from the perspective of a religious person. or rather, i should say, I'm biased since I'm already in the category i believe to be most logical. How about trying to convert me to pantheism?
That's kind of what I'm trying to do. Pantheism would fall into the category of "lack there of", unless you wanted to join a pantheistic religion like Taoism.
I wouldn't ever try to make you commited to a religion. I don't think commitment like that is particularly healthy. But I would ask if your goal in life is to be happy. If that were the case I would try to inspire you to take a look at Buddhism.
I guess I would have to be honest from the start out and say that there's many parts to Buddhism. There's the core of Buddhist teachings, the four noble truths and the eightfold path, and there a rich metaphysics about things such as karma, the ultimate nature of reality, and so on. I think westerners who are tired of superstition will tend to underplay the importance of the metaphysics in the understanding of the four noble truths. It's possible though, to undergo a succesful meditation practice inspired by the four noble truths without forming any beliefs about the metaphysical overtones.
I take it you would be more interested in the cold, analytical core of Buddhism. This core is a method with the sole aim of guiding people towards liberation of all suffering. Think of that, no suffering at all, pure un-inhibited, un-forced happiness. As TheEccentric likes to point out, you don't need to have faith in this core. The Dharma works in the face of systematic skepticism; you can test whether it works for you, so you don't have to put faith in it.
This method has been celebrated for litterary thousands of years. Practicioners have been killed in silent protest against regimes trying to outlaw Buddhism, because they truly believe that the practice is worth dying for. I personally use Buddhism as nothing but a perspective that I use myself to guide me through life. I don't see how anything more than that could be required. This perspective has been incredibly useful for me and allowed me to understand things I didn't really do before. I am starting to realize the extent to which we depend on each, the depths of our day-to-day confusion and how essential compassion and gentleness is for a happy life.
This might sound like it's taken straight out of a sketchy drama movie. I could babble on for hours about how useful this religion can be, and that probably wouldn't make the problem any better. So if you are still interested, I would encourage you to bracket your prejudices for a moment and try to see if anything in the Buddha dharma seems useful to you. If it seems useful, then it's probably good to investigate it more thoroughly right?
I'd say that's a pretty damn good attempt at reaching out with your religion. My curiosity is piqued and I'm fascinated with Buddhism. This debate is purely hypothetical but if I were actually open to converting, I think Buddhism would be a step in the right direction.
That's not the question. I could be looking for satanism, a religion not known for it's good morals. What the hypothetical is asking for is what you would do to convince someone of your religious stance.
I wouldn't try and convert you because religion is a personal journey, I would answer any questions you had explain my religion to you and what it means to me invite you to my place of worship so you could see for yourself what it was all about and meet some of the other people involved and then it would be up to you to make up your own mind. That was if I followed an organised religion myself
Well if you didn't know that, if I were a perfect stranger walking into a religion (or lack) convention and you didn't know me, you just knew i was open to a religion, what would you do, say or, show me to convince me that yours is the best?
If I were inclined to do something like this, I'd start by introducing you to happy individuals who are members (or aren't), as well as individuals that the church (or secular organizations for comparison, I suppose) has helped through localized food runs, outreach programs, etc.
My line of thinking is that your belief isn't going to change from any kind of rational discussion- the cases of that happening are extremely rare. Rather, I'd try my best to demonstrate the religion (or lack thereof) has had a positive affect on the lives of others in the community in varying ways. I figure you need to at least have an interest and an open mind before hearing me out on the matter, after all, otherwise I'm wasting my breath. Ha, me worried about wasting my breath- could you imagine?
It depends on the context of the situation. If I couldn't talk much, and had to go, then I would tell you to read the Book of John. Though the Book of John is not chronological, and presents many philosophical questions, the purpose of it is "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). Because of this, I would also tell you to read the Book of Romans, since it answers many of the questions that arise in the former book.
If I had time, and could sit down and discuss things with you, then I would walk you through John, and answer some of the questions you had while on the way.
The thing is, if you were trying to evangelize me, telling me to read a book would be a very poor attempt. This isn't a stab at you, your religion, or your method, it's just a statement declaring that telling me to read would not convince me that that religion is right for me. If you could tell me how it could be good for me you'd have a better chance.
You can not convert me, but you can do God's work to lead to the right path.
Only God can show you that Christianity is right for you. Reading the Book of John is not a tool to convince you by the world; it is an attempt to let the Holy Spirit move within you.
Everyone knocks on Christianity, and for the most part I don't blame them. If all I had growing up were Bible thumping, in your face, hard charging, condemning people who said you were going to hell unless you believed for no apparent reason other than Jesus loves you and He doesn't want you to go to Hell. I would have honestly said to hell with you and f!@# that. However, the fact is, I don't have a religion to offer you and I have no desire to convert you. As a Follower of Christ I believe who Jesus was, what He has done for me and my desire to mold my life off the example he set and has called us to live. I can give you my personal life's story, I can tell you my personal experiences and I can tell you about the real life relationship I have with a someone who gave His life for me (and you). I am not perfect nor will I ever be. I would not even stoop to say that I call myself a good man. I am someone who loves the truth and loves to share it, in the end I hope you find it! Peace and blessings to you!
