- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
"Proving that one thing exists then expecting another thing to exist because it shares traits with the first, or has been redefined to be the same, doesn't prove that second thing to exist."
Oh wait, I see the flaw in this argument... I never did prove that the universe exists. kthx brb.
"You're not proving god's existence, you're just describing the universe and then tacking "god" onto it."
I was merely proposing a different perspective by comparing the supposed characteristics of God with the only thing that we can attribute these characteristics to, the realm in which things exist.
My argument was more like "God == X, Y, Z == Existence"
"You start by defining god, and then proving that it exists. You don't describe something else in terms you associate with god and expect that something to become god."
The Bible is a book written in only so many words. It cannot or may not have been designed to explain to it's readers in great scientific detail, what God is. The point of the Bible is not to probe God. God isn't something to be poked at with a stick and measured. If you don't believe, which is all it takes, then ignore it. No one is forcing you to change, in fact, if there is a God it is allowing you to live your life the way you see it.
"Yet there is still suffering."
I think good and bad are on the same scale, and that is the scale of quality. If good can exist, which I think it does, so will bad. You pay for your good with bad, and visa versa. So, yes. There is still suffering. I was saying that if we exist, God allows you to suffer and endures it with you, because it's important to know suffering to know virtue.
Interesting. I have some questions though.
According to the Bible, can one have faith in God but not man, and be right in the eyes of God?
Assuming you have faith in God, you believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins... and you love all people, wicked or not, as family. The only difference is you do not seek instruction or help from other people because they can or maybe corrupt in their understandings.
I love rain.
I live in a place where in summer there are no clouds in the sky, only dirt, and the temperature reaches over 110F during the summer. So, personally, I love the rain. Fresh smelling, crisp, cool air, water, what is there not to love?
Ask me in a year though, I'm moving to Portland Oregon in a month... my opinion may change, but I doubt it.
This is what I'm saying. The only possible outcomes to this question are...
A) The operation is invalid
B) The second of two operands are invalid
C) The only valid operand is the difference of no operand
So, it's either the question if flawed and cannot give a positive answer (unless you can have to valid operands), the second operand is invalid, meaning the operation is invalid (as already stated), or the only difference found in the operation is the difference of X and nothing... which is X.
Again, my point is that you cannot distinguish because the operands are incompatible, the operation on the operands is incompatible, and even if you were to carry out the operation, or force it (which invalidates the results) you get only "natural disaster" by itself. You cannot distinguish the difference between the two.
To make the the operation valid you assume God. Once you do this though you should get the same result as before, "NO". X and Y in this case are equal and so there is no difference assuming Y is valid. An act of nature is an act of god, or an act of god through nature is still an act of nature, through god.
Unless you are so delusional that you believe there is some way to actually distinguish without a doubt, the difference, you will always get "NO". Like, if you believe right before a natural disaster, god comes down from where ever, as a unnatural thing, and says "I AM GOD AND I WILL PERSONALLY MAKE A DISASTER HERE THAT MAY LOOK LIKE A NATURAL DISASTER, BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE I AM CAUSING THE DISASTER AND I AM UNNATURAL AND SO IT THE NATURAL THAT I'M ABOUT TO USE AGAINST THINGS, IT WILL ALSO BE UNNATURAL TEMPORARILY!!! HAHAHAHAH". That's the only way you could get a "YES" from this question.
That's what I explained to him(her?)... anyone who stays @ #1 for a that long will be attacked... just like Kukla and yourself...
I guess if you're with your kids all the time and still posting to CD it's possible to have a life and be #1.
Maybe it's just that CD is incredibly slow?
I've been here too much in the past week or so, I think I need to get a life.
Terminator though is here when I'm not, and he's here when I am... so he definitely needs to get a life.
AND the leaderboard shows it. Whoever is on that leaderboard needs to get a life IMO. It doesn't really mean anything except that you're here all the time saying more shit than anyone else, constantly, for at least a week.
Terminator is #1 on that list haha, above Joe!
"The nature of God, according to myself, is to not exist. For to create existance, one must first not exist to out rule contradiction. This is to say that God is actually the manifestation of existence from nonexistence. And to define nonexistence, one would say it is without or beyond the limits of space or time. Is that not God?"
I think you're on the right track here, but God doesn't have to either exist of not exist. The definition of exist is to be. Can something be that isn't in space time and that isn't measurable in any way? I don't know.
"The existence of a god is an unfounded and undesireable belief. Religion has hitherto brought forth war and greed. We are better off without a god. Further, a god should not be your means of a moral compass, your own mind should be fully capable of discerning right from wrong."
Now this is what I don't understand. The existence of God is unfounded and undesirable. The existence of god assumes God actually exists, in which case you wouldn't have a say in how it's founded or how desirable a truth it is. You mean to say "the believe in the existence of God".
Religion has brought about a lot of wicked things because it is a human construct. Even Jesus said that the churches of his time were corrupt and be proclaimed to be the son of God. So, the belief in God didn't directly cause said trouble. It was the religious organizations that founded themselves on the belief in God. To say that we are better off not believing in God because of what religion has done, is to say that we're better off without cars because of NASCAR accidents.
The Bible states that man is flawed, corrupt and imperfect. It would be best to stick with the word of the Bible as your moral compass but most importantly make your own decisions. Don't have people telling you what to believe because you don't really learn the value of right judgement. You don't know why right is right and wrong is wrong. You won't know good from bad and bad from good. You won't know God and God won't know you.
So in a sense I think you're right on, you say last that we are all fully capable of making right decisions, and I believe this too. Religious organizations are convincing people that we need help to serve God when this just isn't true.
This is what I'm saying. Distinguishing is an operation that requires two valid operands. One of the operands is invalid, therefor you cannot complete the operation. The answer is "No" in any case (unless you are religious, and even then they can't unless they're deluded (or want to prove otherwise)).
Why so disputed?
This is very interesting, only because the public school board doesn't think it's important to teach in California...
I believe we should, ultimately, accept Mexican immigrants and legalize them. This sounds simple, maybe, but it is really a very complex thing to consider. There are a lot of particulars that could make or break the idea, and I've just sat here for maybe 30 minutes thinking about the implications of every tiny thought that's went through my mind... but I believe that the best thing to do would be to legalize the immigrants that are here, now, but deport Mexicans that have a criminal history here which is hard to tell when they're not citizens, and deport drug abusers.
It would help everyone involved, I think, because Mexican immigrants would have the freedom to move out into job sectors that they aren't allowed as illegals. This would cause them to seek higher education, to push out of the barrios that they are stuck in, and would give them rights as employees that they currently need. Getting people out of the barrios will be more difficult than just legalizing them, it's going to take a lot more, but Mexicans are hard working people, good people, they really are. Even despite the fact that they aren't recognized by the state, have no protection in the united states, and are so looked down upon by resident population of America.
So I say we legalize them for the good of the Americans that are and are not currently recognized by the state.
That, or you can all get the f*ck off of my property. I am over 50% real "Native American".
You say that's not what you mean but in this context that is what you are saying.
I'll use this as an example...
To an atheist, agnostic, etc...
You are given two components of an operation. X and Y
Where X is valid and Y is invalid
Compare X to Y
The difference is moot, there is nothing to compare.
To a religious person...
You are given two components of an operation. X and Y
Where both X and Y are valid
Compare X and Y
The difference may or may not be quantifiable either way, but it's valid.
Even if you don't accept my argument, not all religious people believe natural disasters are caused by God's will. Some believe (I'm speaking for a born again theologian) that God doesn't interfere with human affairs. He doesn't condemn people on earth, he doesn't help people on earth, he doesn't guide people, nothing, he doesn't even listen to your prayers. This is a highly religious Christian and he wouldn't say that natural disasters are caused by god... BUT he does believe in end-times prophecies, so he may or may not believe that any given event is related to the end-times.
This is McDonald's plan...
1) Build fast-food empire
2) Tune for maximum profit
3) Train army of loyal customers
4) Cause health problems
5) Buy up every other fast food joint in the world
4) Slip everyone not eating at McDonald's their death sentence
5) Become the only food supplier in the world
6) Get incorporated into the One World Government
7) Global Government Food Stamps now buy McDonald's food
8) People become unhealthy, must work from home, only eat McDonald's
9) Cow Shortage, no one can raise the cattle because of their health
10) Declare a state of emergency through the McDonald's Party of Earth, assume position of authority on crisis
11) Declare marshal law
11.5) Build state-of the art self-sustaining automated compounds and factories to take over the production of cows via complex machines that are built by the people of the world from their homes.
12) Begin collecting the bodies of the dead (Human) and building over the property they leave behind.
13) End meat shortage [Use human bodies in place of cow, watch profit margin explode]
14) From their homes, the people of the world will not realize the human population falling rapidly
15) Package the second to last human as a McRib, send to last human.
16) Robots and cows inherit the earth.
The one about thought processes would be interesting but you put "Yes chemicals" and "No Im in control" as the sides. I think that they're caused by chemicals and a bunch of other things, and you can be in control of your chemicals or thought processes... so I don't really want to get into it.
The one about fear and respect, it's situational. Then, the one about which name is more descriptive, I don't see a purpose it debating this.
You're saying that if someone doesn't accept the belief in God that they can tell the difference between an event caused by god, and one not caused by god...
If you don't believe in god there should be no difference because you don't accept the second, supposed, cause of the disaster. The question would immediately become invalid.
The only people that should be able to tell the difference are religious people or people of faith. The two supposed causes can be valid, one caused by nature, and one caused by god.
Can people distinguish between an unnatural event and a natural event? No. An event in nature cannot be unnatural.
Can people distinguish between a natural event and a natural event? No, there is no difference.
Funny, this topic assumes a God that can act in the realm of the 'natural', and then assumes God isn't natural.
The only gun that anyone needs on any game is the AK47, or any variant of it. The AK47 is Russian.
Russia would beat the shit out of all of us by themselves. France would drown in their tears, America would go bankrupt and burn, Germany would flee in their V'Dubs and spin out thanks to their "German engineered" ass-heavy chassis's, England would talk a bunch of shit with crumpets in their mouths, suffocate, and then disappear under a vibrant flash of white light... and then Russia would have a party for a day and carry on trying to implement true socialism.
If this were allowed, elephants and a whole lot of other animals would all the sudden start dying off "naturally" at an increased frequency. People will find loopholes in the laws and exploit them until there is no other choice but to make it illegal all together.
It shouldn't be allowed, but people shouldn't find so much value in ivory, whale fins, buffalo skin, etc, either. It's not acceptable to rob the graves of people, why should it be more acceptable to do it to animals?
Assuming the government is owned by the people where the majority rules (and assuming the government is fully functional), the government always has the power of more than half of the people backing it. So basically if the people consists of 1,000 citizens, the government is at least 501 of those citizens. 501>499
The government exists to have the power and to express the power of the majority over the minority. Very important too, is that all 1000 citizens would have their faith invested in the government and their faith invested in the idea that more people know better than less people (haha), or they can leave the government. But still, in a majority rule where half the citizens bail out of the government the government would have at least the power of 251 citizens over 249... effectively the government would have the power of 500 citizens though, because of the faith invested by both the majority and the minority.
The people is the sum of all citizens in any case. If all citizens were to agree about everything and all citizens were equal there would be no government and this question would be invalid.
Be more specific about the type of government please, that would help.
Word == Tool
Vocabulary == Set of tools
Grammar == Skill with tool set
An expression on paper (or by mouth) is formed first in the mind and in the language that it will be exporting the structure in. If the mind is using a small vocabulary and isn't skillful in applying words, how can you trust the final structure? The people with no knowledge of tools or skills might also have no knowledge of structures.
Who would buy a house designed and built by a man with only the knowledge of screws and duct tape, but the artistic?