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.
Fiction. Jesus and Allah are both Lucifer. Read OT properly and observe who inspired the two most violent religions who have the other as their primary enemy.
You are wrong, all three of them are just fictional characters in the first place. Read the OT carefully and observe that it's all just a bunch of insane nonsense dreamed up by primitive nomadic tribesmen.
Revelation describes Marxism and warns us about Marxism 1800 years before its invention.
Oh God just shut up Bronto you irritating Nazi lowlife.
German communists, socialists and trade unionists were among the earliest domestic opponents of Nazism[50] and they were also among the first to be sent to concentration camps. Adolf Hitler claimed that communism was a Jewish ideology which the Nazis termed "Judeo-Bolshevism". Fear of communist agitation was used to justify the Enabling Act of 1933, the law which gave Hitler plenary powers. Hermann Göring later testified at the Nuremberg Trials that the Nazis' willingness to repress German communists prompted President Paul von Hindenburg and the German elite to cooperate with the Nazis.
There's no historical evidence of Jesus outside biblical texts. There's also no tangible evidence for God, and claims of His existence rely on the construct of faith.
There is a lot of evidence outside of Biblical texts.
A lot of what we currently know about early Christians from hundreds of years after the written gospel texts. Most supposed witnesses come from 2nd-5th century and are not contemporary. The only possible contemporary was Paul of Tarsus who claims in his texts that he achieved his witness through revelation, not actually being there.
Nope, sorry.
So how is "Computer Code Discovered In Superstring Equations" evidence of God?
Computer codes have to be created. They don't just appear. That would be magic. We don't believe in magic. Don't deny science. Don't stop progress.
Computer code found in equation is evidence of.... computer codes found in equations. Trying to ascribe a higher meaning to them is just arguing from ignorance.
Let's assume that somehow this codes must of been written by something. What would be the possible implications? God made them? Gods because maybe there's more than one? We are in a simulation? Extra-dimensional aliens made us? A simulation run on a computer run by extra-dimentional aliens?
You can ascribe any meaning because is the end we don't know what it all means. Speculation is not evidence of God.
Computer code found in equation is evidence of.... computer codes found in equations. Trying to ascribe a higher meaning to them is just arguing from ignorance.
Nope. They've tried to simulate the generation of error correcting code hundreds of trillions of times. It can't be done randomly.
Let's assume that somehow this codes must of been written by something. What would be the possible implications? God made them?
An intelligent mind made them.
Gods because maybe there's more than one?
Maybe there are. Doesn't help atheism much.
We are in a simulation? Extra-dimensional aliens made us? A simulation run on a computer run by extra-dimentional aliens?
May be. So your belief would be wrong, and I'd still be closer to correct than you.
You can ascribe any meaning because is the end we don't know what it all means. Speculation is not evidence of God
Nope. They've tried to simulate the generation of error correcting code hundreds of trillions of times. It can't be done randomly.
That's not how probability works. What where they simulating? Don't be afraid to get technical, I program in Java and Python and have knowledge of the topic.
May be. So your belief would be wrong, and I'd still be closer to correct than you.
You are missing the point. When we are ignorant about the implication of something, ANYTHING can be possible and it technically would be correct. I was being facetious to make the point that it doesn't matter what you pick, because all you are doing is speculating INSTEAD of providing evidence.
It's evidence of a creator of some kind.
No it is not. Scientist DON'T KNOW why those codes are there. It could mean that those codes are just an inherent part of nature randomly made when the multiverse collided. AGAIN you can speculate anything. All that is known is that those codes exist, nothing more and nothing less.
That's not how probability works. What where they simulating? Don't be afraid to get technical, I program in Java and Python and have knowledge of the topic.
The 1s and 0s never match the pattern of error correcting code no matter how many time they rearrange themselves.
A repetition code is a coding scheme that repeats the bits across a channel to achieve error-free communication. Given a stream of data to be transmitted, the data are divided into blocks of bits. Each block is transmitted some predetermined number of times. For example, to send the bit pattern 1011, the four-bit block can be repeated three times, thus producing 1011 1011 1011. However, if this twelve-bit pattern was received as "1010 1011 1011 where the first block is unlike the other two it can be determined that an error has occurred.
A repetition code is very inefficient, and can be susceptible to problems if the error occurs in exactly the same place for each group like 1010 1010 1010 in the previous example would be detected as correct. The advantage of repetition codes is that they are extremely simple, and are in fact used in some transmissions of numbers stations.
The 1s and 0s never match the pattern of error correcting code no matter how many time they rearrange themselves.
What algorithm are you using to error correct? If you are matching that means you already have the error-corrected code. Why are they rearranging themselves, are you sorting them?
For your explanation of "repeating code scheme across a channel", that's not a simulation. You are not simulating anything, if anything it's an algorithm that matches patterns. Also, what's producing the errors? Heck, what's producing the data streams? Is it just a random stream of numbers? What does that have to do with quantum equations? I have so many questions... Can you link an article from a reputable source that describes this in detail?
A mind created that transmission. It couldn't happen randomly.
You missed the point... Again. Need to work on that reading comprehension. Well it could be my fault too, maybe I'm not explaining things well enough.
What you just did is something called technobabble, in which someone just uses tech words outside their context to mean essentially nothing, like: "God is the quantum entanglement of the human sinusoidal mind." Pretty but meaningless.
I asked for a reputable source for the information about your weird explanation and you give me two youtube videos that are unrelated. I took statistics and algorithms in college, but thanks for the videos. So let me ask you again... Is there any reputable source that describes in detail the simulation that proves those codes didn't occur by accident?
I asked for a reputable source for the information about your weird explanation and you give me two youtube videos that are unrelated. I took statistics and algorithms in college, but thanks for the videos. So let me ask you again... Is there any reputable source that describes in detail the simulation that proves those codes didn't occur by accident?
First, that has little to do with your explanation. Second, Dr. Gates makes the implication that the codes found in supersymmetry could imply we are living in a matrix-like world, there's no discussion of god. Third, supersymmetry is a very modern and incomplete theory in quantum physics, there's still the possibility another model could take over and with it the code equations found in them.
With that I'll leave you with this wonderful quote by Dr. Gates:
"I think the deepest message I take from science is that, as humans, we actually have to embrace our fallibility. We have to embrace what we are in terms of our ability to measure, our ability to know, and that by embracing uncertainty actually, because — I think a major difference in the way that scientists view the universe and perhaps non scientists is that science in my experience does not permit us the illusion of certainty. It does not allow us to say we can be certain, and that's one thing that causes very great difficulty in talking to the public."
First, that has little to do with your explanation. Second, Dr. Gates makes the implication that the codes found in supersymmetry could imply we are living in a matrix-like world, there's no discussion of god.
Matrixes have to be created. They don't appear from nowhere.
Third, supersymmetry is a very modern and incomplete theory in quantum physics, there's still the possibility another model could take over and with it the code equations found in them.
Speculation.
With that I'll leave you with this wonderful quote by Dr. Gates:
"I think the deepest message I take from science is that, as humans, we actually have to embrace our fallibility. We have to embrace what we are in terms of our ability to measure, our ability to know, and that by embracing uncertainty actually, because — I think a major difference in the way that scientists view the universe and perhaps non scientists is that science in my experience does not permit us the illusion of certainty. It does not allow us to say we can be certain, and that's one thing that causes very great difficulty in talking to the public."
Matrixes have to be created. They don't appear from nowhere.
You presume... Let's assume that's the case. That doesn't explain who or what created the matrix world, only that it exists.
Speculation.
It's not speculation, it a very big possibility because supersymmetric particles have yet to be found by particle colliders. String Theory is its biggest contender, and is gaining a lot of ground in quantum physics.
So God might be real.
"embracing uncertainty" means nothing can be known for certain, and there's a humbleness one must have to accept that. If you show me a convincing piece of evidence that demonstrates the existence of God... I'll believe; However, what you've shown me so far in this discussion is not it. You have a misguided grasp of what constitutes as evidence, with poorly made arguments, and a poor understanding of what you read or say. I'm a very patient man... so show me legitimate evidence for God's existence, and I promise you... I will change my mind. Can you say the same about your believes?
Matrixes have to be created. They don't appear from nowhere.
You presume... Let's assume that's the case. That doesn't explain who or what created the matrix world, only that it exists.
It doesn't matter the answer to who. It only matters that there is a who.
It's not speculation, it a very big possibility because supersymmetric particles have yet to be found by particle colliders. String Theory is its biggest contender, and is gaining a lot of ground in quantum physics.
You are predicting what they will find, even though they haven't found it.
"embracing uncertainty" means nothing can be known for certain, and there's a humbleness one must have to accept that
I accept that the idea of no creator as being uncertain.
If you show me a convincing piece of evidence that demonstrates the existence of God... I'll believe
Satanists believe in God, yet still reject God.
However, what you've shown me so far in this discussion is not it. You have a misguided grasp of what constitutes as evidence, with poorly made arguments, and a poor understanding of what you read or say. I'm a very patient man... so show me legitimate evidence for God's existence, and I promise you... I will change my mind. Can you say the same about your believes
It doesn't matter the answer to who. It only matters that there is a who.
I also said a "what". Also, a "who" can refer to more than one who.
You are predicting what they will find
No... I said it was a big possibility. I say that because the LHC was the best chance of finding the particles. After so many years, it hasn't found them. I'm not claiming certainty, just that so far it's not looking good for supersymmetry. My advice, keep an open mind.
I accept that the idea of no creator as being uncertain.
Everything has a degree of uncertainty. What matters is how we can test ideas to show if they are correct, and discard them when they are shown to be flawed.
Satanists believe in God, yet still reject God.
I'm not a satanist. You missed the entire point of that. You have a very poor comprehension skill.
Sure. Show me proof a creator doesn't exist.
Ah classical burden of proof. So... let's say you and I are hanging out, when all the sudden I say to you: "I have a pet dragon in my garage". You respond with: "bull... dragons don't exists". Which then I reply: "Prove I don't have a pet dragon". It's not on you to prove that, it's on the person making the claim. You claim to have evidence for God, you need to be the one to provide that evidence. It's not one me to disprove the claim. My responsibility is to simply refute the evidence if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Now if this is your way of saying there's no evidence for the existence of God. I can't help you there, but at least we can agree on that.
That means it's you own personal opinion, not evidence.
There is no multiverse. You just referenced a theoretical idea.
You need to pay attention. I was being facetious. When we are ignorant about the world, anything is possible, even it it doesn't match reality.
Codes are created by minds
The codes humans make. We don't know why there are apparent codes in quantum equation, but that doesn't mean we can give it any interpretation. Especially one that ignores other possibilities. Like I said, this does not constitute evidence for God.
Even computers can't create these codes randomly, despite a quadzillion attempts.
That means it's you own personal opinion, not evidence.
My opinion is evidence.
There is no multiverse. You just referenced a theoretical idea.
You need to pay attention. I was being facetious. When we are ignorant about the world, anything is possible, even it it doesn't match reality.
Like God, Aliens, premodial ghost slime.
Codes are created by minds
The codes humans make. We don't know why there are apparent codes in quantum equation, but that doesn't mean we can give it any interpretation. Especially one that ignores other possibilities. Like I said, this does not constitute evidence for God.
Show me complex human codes without the humans.
Even computers can't create these codes randomly, despite a quadzillion attempts.
Then how are they testing them for accuracy?
I did the tests. Just let it happen. Stop resisting me, and let me enter your brain before it's too late.
But you play with your balls and your sister's surgically created nuts too much though
But you have a secret collection of Donald Trump's used ties and underpants and you surgically removed your own brain and replaced it with a rotten Mango.
The AI was created in and of itself. The designer in this case was itself designed. You are relying on a non-designed system (the universe) with the inability to program, that is, unless a designer designed the universe.
Even computers can't create these codes randomly, despite a quadzillion attempts.
You keep saying that but I have yet to see a source for your claim.
So create a system and get me some error correcting codes at random. I'll wait.
I did the tests. Just let it happen. Stop resisting me, and let me enter your brain before it's too late.
Wow there Bill Cosby, buy me a drink first.
You don't need a drink. You need penetrated with brain sauce.
Your argument here was to show you complex human codes without the humans, That's what I did.
You are relying on a non-designed system (the universe) with the inability to program
You are arguing from ignorance, you don't know that. The grand structure of the multiverse itself could of been the designer and be an excellent programmer, probably using x86 computer assembly.
So create a system and get me some error correcting codes at random. I'll wait.
Give me an academic source of how the problem is set up. You know the simulation that was ran a quazillion times with error correcting codes, and I might give it a try.
You need penetrated with brain sauce.
Not If I penetrate you first.
---
Please for the love of your error-correcting codes, put everything in one giant post. Stop breaking it apart into a million different responses.
A lot of what we currently know about early Christians from hundreds of years after the written gospel texts. Most supposed witnesses come from 2nd-5th century and are not contemporary. The only possible contemporary was Paul of Tarsus who claims in his texts that he achieved his witness through revelation, not actually being there.
You are ignoring the Urantians and the Urantia Book. Stop pretending that advanced alien beings don't exist. They told us everything.
i'm not against religion. if you have a belief, i will never ever ridicule you for that. however, i don't believe jesus lived as he was depicted in the bible. he may very well have been a real person, and honestly, i believe he was, but i doubt the "quotes" or the "eye-witness accounts" are accurate, considering there is no proof and nobody has ever witnessed anything like that since that time. sure, jesus and his miracles could have been a one-off, but why? it doesn't make sense. people got away with making things up in the past because there was no way to fact check like there is today. it was very, very easy to lie. all you had to do was write it down and sell it off as the truth and boom, you have a following. so, i think most, if not all, of the bible is fiction.
some people hurt others in the name of religion, but that's not what it is or what it's about. i also don't, and never will, support those people. i'm not religious at all, but at the same time, i can very clearly understand and see a need to believe in something, something that assures you everything will be okay. most religions have an idea of something after death, and the people who follow that religion and hold those beliefs think they will be granted paradise or be reborn to live their life again and that they will never truly be dead, which fills them with a sense of hope and comfort. i believe there is nothing after death, and that once you're dead, you're dead, and that though gives me comfort but some people can't deal with that and so they look for something to give them hope. hence religion.
and yeah, that didn't come out right, i meant i would never ridicule anyone for following a religion. and i won't poke fun at someone if the thing they believe is harmless, like unicorns, or god, exists. i won't just let someone go around hurting people because they think it's okay, however. so believe whatever you want about the earth, i couldn't care less, but genocide, that's another matter. pls don't kill anyone.
