All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
I've frequently heard many christians argue that the reason that evil exists is because of free will. God must give us the choice to do evil, for this is what preserves free will. The ability to choose good or evil.
So my question is: Is there free will in heaven?
If yes, then evil should be possible there. And unless God somehow changes our nature, why wouldn't we continue doing "minor" sins here and there? Just as we do on earth.
If no, does the deprivation of free will bother you at all?
I bring this up, because it appears as if SunialPani has 17 accounts solely for the purpose of downvoting the arguments of others. All the accounts listed downvote only people who disagree with SunialPani. Not only that, but all of their arguments have the same pathetic grammar as SunialPani.
I give you, suspected SunialPani accounts:
1. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/theusauk
2. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/thenile
3. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/theamazon
4. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/archemedes2
5. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/theearth100
6. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/anieethebest
7. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/SickleCell
8. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/NehRanEar
9. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/Israel_1900 (This one is definitely SunialPani. Check the argument for proof)
10. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/Manuel
11. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/MichaelIBT
12. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/Harsen
13. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/Pinku
14. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/prunethevine
15. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/moinaancy
16. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/lotrust
17. http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/mormon
So I have discovered 17 accounts SunialPani has almost certainly created over the course of the past 1 hour and 30 minutes.
An argument I encountered on youtube with a creationist, asserts that because matter can neither be created nor destroyed, something other than the matter must have created the matter.
He asserts that what created the matter and by extension the universe, is "The Creator". He then argues that a metaphysical creator be excluded from a first cause, since the laws that govern this universe do not apply to the metaphysical.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think that global warming is real? If so, do you believe it is man made or that it is natural or independent of man?
I put "other" for people who think it is a conspiracy in the scientific community, or something else of that nature.
Statement: You cannot apply the limitations of the physical universe (laws of physics, logic, etc) to the metaphysical (God/Creator).
True or false?
What would your response be if a creationist/theist told you that?
I recently spoke with someone who said that the current unemployment rate by the u.s. bureau of labor statistics is wrong, because after a certain amount of time some people "drop off the radar" and the bureau stops counting people who havent had a job for x amount of time.
this whole time i thought that unemployment was measured by the raw number of eligible but unemployed americans. is it true that the government stops counting certain people who havent had a job for x amount of time? sources if possible, please.
My understanding of Obama's tax policy is that he wants to lower taxes and give tax cuts to the poor/middle class, while raising taxes for the rich.
Romnye wants to cut taxes for the rich, and raise taxes on the middle and lower classes (to pay for the rich tax cuts), so that the rich can create jobs. Is my understanding correct? Or would someone like to correct it for me?
i just got done registering to vote, and i recommended that my brother register to vote as well. he tells me that he is unsatisfied with all candidates and that the appropriate thing to do is not vote.
he says that he will be disappointed with whoever he votes for, so there is no point in voting.
is this position even defendable? or is it completely retarded and idiotic? i think its the latter...
I came across a believer in God who stated that naturalism is all false, and that it is self contradicting. He referred me to this website: http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm
He pointed out that the author of that post is the same author from TalkOrigins. I could not figure out a way to verify this, because anyone can type in a fake name. The crux of this argument appears to be the following statement: The physical determination of thought under naturalism of course includes the thought "Naturalism is true". Therefore, when making the claim, the naturalist has no free choice but is at the mercy of the circuits in his/her brain to judge on the question.
Basically that because our brains are made through naturalistic means, that they are inherently biased to believe that naturalism is true, therefore we cannot trust our brains. At least, that's what it looks like. Or did I misinterpret it?
I encounter religious people frequently telling me that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it is to believe in god. (Or believe a religion/be a theist)
I have my own reasons for disagreeing, but I'm interested in everyone else's reasons for which position takes more faith, if any.
I am considering it (once again). I'd do it for the money, experience, and ability to travel, and i guess for our freedom...:P
If you are in the military or have been, let me know your experience and what branch.
If you are not in the military, tell me which branch you recommend and why.
Also, list pros and cons as well.
Personally, I think it's possible to objectively define morality, as I have already shown in a previous debate.
I am interested in hearing if there is a better alternative to my position.
In response to something GeneralLee wrote, I wrote the statement "Having sex with multiple partners, so long as they are consenting adults, violates NO ONES rights."
He then responded with the following: "Wow, that was a bold statement. I do not think you fully understand how much that destroys a women. Because you are a heartless guy, you have no clue what sex does to women.
When women have sex with a guy, they bond with him. This bond is extremely strong, like super glue. When the heartless douche has his fill of sex and breaks up with here, he basically destroys her. So much so, I think it is a crime against women and should be outlawed."
He says that women should not be allowed to have multiple sex partners because it will destroy the woman, therefore it is a crime against women and should be outlawed. Do you agree or disagree with this position?
I've only been on this site for a month actively, i made my account sometime before that.
I'm curious though how this site used to be in the past several years since it was created. Like did it used to be a lot busier with a lot more users?
Or is right now the busiest its ever been with the largest amount of active users? Or is the community really small compare to how big it used to be in the past?
Which theory do you think best explains how all of existence started? (if the word "started" is applicable)
Do you think M Theory explains things the best? Or perhaps The Big Bang theory? Or is it something else entirely?
Dr (lol) William Lane Craig seems to be the proponent for this argument. Here are the premises:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.Now what follows logically from these three premises?
From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
What are the flaws in this argument, if any?
Does anyone think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are correct? I'm talking about the one where people say that the United States staged the whole thing, and detonated bombs within the twin towers. And that there was also some kind of painted thermite in the building that aided in the collapse of the towers that melted the steel that was holding the building up, and that some Ph.D chemist found traces of this thermite residue in the debris after 9/11.
Are these conspiracy theories totally off the wall, ridiculous nonsense that shouldn't even be considered? (No)
Or should these conspiracy theories be looked at more closely? (Yes/Maybe)
I got this from youtube user TheoreticalBullshit. His page: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheoreticalBullshit
Video I got this from (Be warned: it's 30 minutes long) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk&feature=plcp
In it he states:
An act is morally good if it promotes happiness, well being, or health; or if it minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering, or if it does both.
An act is morally wrong if it diminishes happiness, well being, or health; or causes unnecessary harm or suffering, or if it does both.
I can't seem to think of a situation in which the definitions he proposed would break down. Can you?
Theists typically state that God, or the Bible is the law on morality. Which side do you think makes more sense?
↓ Show Details
