CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Enman572

Reward Points:15
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
98%
Arguments:9
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
9 most recent arguments.
Enman572(15) Clarified
1 point

Sorry for the long wait; what I meant was that a while someone may claim to be a gay person, it is not because their bodies are oriented in a way that makes them distinguishable from a straight person and that therefore being gay would be an orientation of the mind rather than the body.

1 point

Thanks for giving me time to think and respond; I haven't been on in a while.

I am writing this minutes after reading your response to my arguments in attempt to make up for the time you've had to wait for a reply so I hope my haste doesn't reflect in the quality of my arguments; if I have time I'll try to come up with a more thought-out response.

In your first paragraph, you disputed what I wrote about the lack of natural explanation of the universe's existence proving God's existence. I liked your point about science being the process of discovering the origins of our universe; however, the fact of the matter is, as you suspect, we may never fully understand it. There are many concepts in science that humans barely begin to understand. Take bonds, for example. While at fist glance one may think that it is simple to attach two items, at the molecular level there are invisible forces that, as much as we can measure, analyze, and harness them, we simply don't understand. Why do protons and electrons attract? While I know that the science of Quantum Physics is centered around this sort of question, will we ever be able to understand electromagnetism the way we understand why a sticky note stays on the wall? Somehow I doubt it. Assuming this one example is enough, I will move on, although if you want more examples there are plenty.

Once we realize that we will likely never find physical explanations for happenings in the physical universe, we must understand that there is something beyond physical at work. This is the part that seems to be turning many people off so I'll try to explain as I best could. Forget about the word God for a second. At this point, we are sitting in a physical world, that, when thought about, makes no sense. "How did it start?" is the question we must attempt to answer. At this point I'd like to throw in some Talmudic logic (I'm Jewish by the way): a question proves the answer. An explanation can be proven by lack of viable alternatives. This question proves that there is a force outside of the physical that envelops it, and that force would be a spiritual being; in other words, God. The key here is to realize that according to this answer, God is not a physical being that can be sensed by our bodies, rather He exists in a a different dimension ungoverned by physical limitation. The way I like to think of it is that God "imagines" us; not imagine in the literal sense of the word but that we are to God as a thought would be to us(. The last sentence is not a proven theology, rather a possibility as to what a being outside of the physical realm would be like).

With this answer I'd like to respond to your point about Newton's First Law. Newton's laws are laws of physics and would only affect physical beings; in a nonphysical realm there would be no such constraints. I know that this may not feel like a satisfying answer, but seeing as that entire point of what I have written so far is essentially that whatever created the physical world is neither within it nor constrained by its laws, there is no issue. (Again, you must keep in mind that the question proves the answer.)

I have more to write but I am out of time at the moment; I will try to continue as soon as possible.

1 point

Who do you know that is born in places, such as Saudi Arabia, where being gay is both socially and legally unaccepted, that is gay and persecuted for it?

2 points

You are right that people don't consciously choose to be gay or straight, however you cannot deny that each one is created with the ability to act like the other.

5 points

First off, thanks for your openess to discussion.

As you acknowledged, most of my arguments were based on the fact that there are certain phenomena, such as the world that we live in, that seem inexplicable without the existence of God. That said, I don't believe I touched on anything about specific religions in my arguments; that is something I can discuss but at the same time the issue at hand is God's existence, which I believe, is more basic and pressing than religion itself. I would also like to keep this discussion as far away from religion as possible so as to lay a foundation for the arguments for and against each religion.

In regards to what you wrote about the universe being eternal, I would like to bring in the following two scientific theories about our universe's status. According to one theory, the universe comes into being, expands, implodes on itself, and starts from the beginning. This cycle would fit in with your point. According to the other theory, the universe has one starting point and has since that beginning been expanding, never to stop. Until recently scientists believed that either option was viable but scientific developments in the past 50 or so years seem to be leaning towards the constantly expanding theory. According to this, the world must have had a beginning. As to where God comes from, if He is eternal, He technically would not have come from anything.

As per your other point, I would like to bring in a concept that I believe ties in to both of your points and that is the idea that that we exist in a "physical" dimension and God exists in a "spiritual" dimension. According to this idea, the physical dimension is an existence within that of the spiritual dimension; a figment of God's imagination is the easiest way for me to describe it, although this is not such an accurate description. If such is the case a) God obviously knows and feels everything within the both physical and spiritual universes and b) Since time is relative it would only exist in our, physical, dimension, whereas in the spiritual dimension time would not exist in the first place. While I cannot directly prove this, I believe that this is a sensible way of explaining the concept of the God that exists in my other arguments that can address a few of the problems you bring up.

About "the book that was written a mere 2000 years ago," (which, I assume, is referring to the New Testament,) keep in mind that the Old Testament dates back to the revelation at sinai in approximately 1312 BCE and, if claims are true, has been in some form of existence for an eternity. As per scientific evidence showing that the world is billions of years old, could God not have created this planet with different isotopes of carbon at different levels, thus making it appear that the levels are arranged the way they are due to their age? If this is so, the world could have been created a "mere" 5775 years ago (I chose that number for a reason, by the way) and Bible could accurately describe that creation.

Lastly, your argument about risk has two main problems:

a) If God and religion do not exist, nothing you do matters in the long run, and therefore anything that might make the world a better place under the auspices of religion is pointless. One might as well become a selfish hedonist.

b) While having a false sense of purpose may also in the long run be pointless, at least there's a chance that it is not false. (I am writing this in respone to your paragraph beginning "Well imagine...," but I don't get the feeling that I understood what you were writing. If this is a good response fine; if not try to clarify that paragraph further.)

I know I have not yet proven any definite connection between God and religious texts and have tried to keep away from religion in this debate yet have used religious ideas in this argument; I will attempt to have a go at that if you feel there's still a problem.

4 points

In reality, you are right about prayer; God, being omnipotent, has no real need for prayer in regard to decision-making. However, there are a few things to keep in mind about prayer and religion before jumping to conclusions:

Prayer is telling God what you want (as I mentioned before God's omnipotency allows him to know what we need and what is good for us); prayer is a way of demonstrating our belief in not just God's existence but in the fact that he has the power to do what we want and need. For example, if one is sick and prays to God, they are not begging God to heal them; rather they are accepting the fact that if it is best for them to be healed they will be healed and if it is not to be than it is because that is what is best for them. The result is that the patient becomes more accepting of God's power; a "side effect" is that he becomes more worthy of living.(I do have more to write on this subject and will try to pick this up again soon.)

In regards to gays, please answer the following question for me: Men and women can be differentiated between due to certain phyiscal characteristics that they have. If you would like to look at it through a racism perspective, so can blacks and whites. There is one group of people that claim to have characteristics that make them different but have no biological, herditary, or physical features that set them apart. What about a person makes them gay?

2 points

How do you use the information you gave to disprove God's existence?

1 point

Although I support your side of the argument, I believe that most of what you wrote does more to undermine our position than support it. Firstly, "faith" and "belief" are synonoyms, so your second and third sentences contain some warped logic. Secondly, whether God exists is a fact and facts are not opinion related.

Ironically, though, your mention of a movie, which was what originally what turned me off from your arguments, turned out to be, after I saw a synopsis of it, the one thing you mentioned that I do support. Although the movie doesnt quite seem to prove God's existence, it definitely puts the dispute into perspective.

8 points

If God doesn't exist, where did we come from? The classic comparison is to a watch in a desert; it obviously didn't just appear there. Just by probability, there is only a 1 in 10 to the 39,950th power chance that, even after billions of years, a single bacterium would evolve on its own, let alone a complex organism such as a human being. Even with this statistic, there is no explanation as to how the world could have begun without including a God factor, due to the fact that, to quote Newton, "an object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by a force." (I don't believe these are his exact words, but the point remains; it is impossible by the laws of nature for the world to have come into being without some sort of triggering force, and without God there is no place for such a force to exist.) As per all the questions that are of the genre, "If God exists, why does he do...?" There is one sweeping answer that may not be so convincing, may not be easy to accept, and may require a study of religion to comprehensively understand, and that is that who on earth are you, a human being, to question what God does? God is omnipotent and therefore knows exactly what to do, when to do it, and why to do it, while until the end of his life a human can live in denial of basic facts.

One more point, possibly the most important, although this is irrelevant to the debate, is that there is absolutely no risk in believing in God, and there are even benefits inherent to being religious, while there is ne obvious risk to denying God's existence. The idea is to look at the other side: If you are religious and God really doesn't exist then, although you may live a life with a false purpose, it makes no difference to you it because is no more false than any of the other purposes people believe they have; if, however, you deny God's existence and are wrong, you will likely lead a very empty life and be in deep trouble after you die.

There is a lot more to write on this subject and I would love to continue, but I do not have the capacity to anticipate all of the points that can be made against my position. I will therefore try as best as I could to respond to all those who disagree with me. I also must advise anyone that wants to see a clear work on this subject to read Lawrence Kelemen's "Permission to Believe"; this book responds to many of the doubts that people have about God and religion.

Last but not least, to all those who reply to my "thesis", guess which denomination of which religion I belong to.

Enman572 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here