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.
There is no reason as to why there should be a god that does not fall apart under even light scrutiny, if anyone cares to present some i'd be happy to disprove them.
Given everything we've learnt about the origins of life and the workings of the universe, combined with the fact that there presently isn't a single piece of evidence for the existance of a god, I'd say definitely not.
Psst. There's not meant to be an apostrophe in the debate title.
what you said does not make sense ... the question makes perfect sense ( thanks for the correction on my grammatical error xaeon ) the question is simply do gods exist, do you believe them to yes or no state your reasoning. I do not believe that Gods exist due to no solid evidence there are prophets but hear say is not credible evidence so I say no.
Well, multiple gods are just as likely as a single god.
Actually I think it would make more sense, since there's a bunch of stuff, and the world seems a bit too unjust to be under the stewardship of one all powerful good being,
so in that sense, multiple gods vying for power would actually make more sense.
But if there were multiple gods,
wouldn't that make it even more likely for someone somewhere to have had some interaction with one of these?
No "gods" do not exist with the simple reasoning that there is no undeniable proof they do. So if there is no proof something exists it just does not exist.
There is no solid evidence of infinite outer space but is it totally agreed that it is true? Yes. What proof does anyone have that space is infinite? It just seems rite. Who knows it could be another Aristotle idea that will get thrown out when the technology is good enough to test the idea.
well it isn't exactly alike the question on that debate is does God exist meaning of the bible this could be any religion in the world not saying does area 51 exist instead were saying do aliens exist? that might be a good debate to =]
You guys all realize that like 75% of all the votes and what not have like nothing to do with the debate? =] not saying anything that has to do with you Pyg your are 1 of like 3 people actually debating the issue.
Let me ask all of you this: Does love exist? Show me—prove it. Does hate exist? Show me—prove it. Does honesty exist? Show me—prove it. Does wisdom exist? Show me—prove it. I want a photograph of these things. I want to see the DNA of these things. I want to be able to sense them with all five of my senses and be able to put them through the gamuts of "scientific" tests.
You see, what you would show me would be the RESULTS of these things. Someone hugging someone else with a smile on their face PROVES love, right? No. That is the result of someone's love. No, I want to see "love" itself. You see, you can't prove it—it is something inherent, intrinsic. But through love, by way of love, I can experience and see its truth and reality. That is what God is like. I have no photos of Him, no "scientific" proof, because you see He just IS—much like love, truth, intelligence, etc. It is BY Him and through Him, that I see everything else.
Yes, God exists. And Him, and only Him (the Godhead of the Holy Bible), and if you do your research (there are many books I studied that give you full descriptions of all the world religions, including their own "bibles") and you are interested in TRUTH, which should be the ultimate goal of all religion (if it is otherwise, to practice what your parents practiced or to "feel good" about yourself let's say, then you are practicing something else and more power to you, but have not, in fact, found TRUTH)—then you will ultimately fall into Christianity. You can't find any flaws in Him that draw you away from TRUTH—even the teachings that you don't like, or make you uncomfortable, or would like to disagree with—you can't help but empirically know you've discovered TRUTH.
Then, it becomes a matter of faith. It is ultimately up to us—now, will we believe His word? And follow and obey this truth? It's all up to us. But it saves you, I promise.
And I wrote this in another debate a few doors down and would like to add here: Do you really believe (note the word "believe"—the fact is, everyone has a "belief system" and worldview, including atheists and evolutionists) that an explosion of rocks created the mudskipper, Niagra Falls, the Himilayas, the orange tree, Michael Jordan, Aristotle, the giraffe, diamonds, the oak tree, the tarantula, wisdom, fear, the sunflower, Mother Theresa, Van Gogh, olives, man's conscience, the stars in the sky, and you? Now THAT'S a fantastical belief. Nah...
Just ask God. Ask HIM if He's real. Look all around you. Keep your heart and eyes and mind open. You'll see.... He'll show you. He IS.
Hahahah... That's your EVIDENCE???? I don't need PROOF of love or hate. I see it everywhere—I want to know who created the concept. And don't even try to tell me a bunch of "cells" did (they're not that smart!) Peace.
Humans created the concept of love. The physicality behind it though is regulated in the most part by serotonin, oxytocin, vasopressin and endogenous opioids (the body's natural equivalent of heroin).
Now, before you argue against what I've said (and I know you will, as your religious beliefs seem to make you unable to accept certain scientific concepts and theories), I'd encourage you to do some study in to what these chemicals are, how they each affect the brain and what role they have in producing the feeling of love.
I ask you to do this because I don't want to have to debate this subject with you whilst you hold huge misconceptions about genetics and biology, evident by sentences such as "And don't even try to tell me a bunch of "cells" did (they're not that smart!)"
Well, sure, individual cells aren't smart, but groups of them can be (I.E. your brain.) If you deny that, you deny that humans have intelligence and feelings etc.
EDIT: You said in your last post to show proof, and that's what I did.
No... You reported on endorphins which are produced when someone is excited. Sorry (big buzzer sound)—that is not love.
And you're being ridiculous and trying to go around logic by the back door, when you say that I would be denying that humans have intelligence and feelings if I don't acknowledge our brain, and that it's comprised of cells?????? What?????
Come on. You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and are too afraid to approach it from a much deeper, possibly more abstract, higher plane of thinking: wisdom. Not academia.
OH MY GOD YOU'RE RIGHT! I should go with my feelings instead of science!
Endorphins and such chemicals are PROOF that love happens, that's what I'm getting at. It's evidence of love and that love and happiness and sadness and anger happen in the brain.
Here's the logic with the brain & cells thing (sorry, it was worded poorly):
1) Well, sure, individual cells aren't smart.
This needs no explanation, and if you don't understand this bit, you're hopeless
2)but groups of them can be (I.E. your brain.)
Me saying that groups of cells can be intelligent (your brain)
3) If you deny that, you deny that humans have intelligence and feelings etc.
Me saying that if you deny that our brains are the place where our feelings and thoughts originate, you're saying that the brain is essentially useless.
You're telling me "Don't say a bunch of cells do it!" And you don't have any other reason for denying that cells do it other than you think that they're not smart. Well, if you're putting that limitation on me, if you're not letting me use basic biology and science, then you win, but if you'll actually let me present my points instead of ignoring them and saying "LALALALALALALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU'RE RIGHT!" then I'll continue.
Okay, again you've proven that the only way you can TRY to win an argument is by being juvenile (you're what? Between the ages of 15 and 25, right? Dollar to a donut says I'm right.) And juveniles love to be right and have a very difficult time listening. Especially if it's contradictory to what they want to believe in. This is evident with you—BECAUSE—IF YOU LISTENED, YOU WOULD NOTE THAT I'VE SAID (COUNTLESS TIMES NOW) THAT IF YOU WANT TO USE ARGUMENTS LIKE "feelings and thoughts originate from our brain" YOU MUST THEN CONTINUE THAT LINE OF REASONING TO THE VERYYYYY BEGINNING. Do you GET IT NOW? Where did the brain originate from? Oh that's right—abiogenesis. Where did that originate from? You all say there doesn't have to be an originator. I DISAGREE. BECAUSE—THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW YOUR OWN STREAMS OF LOGIC. READ MY EXCERPTS MORE CAREFULLY—YOU'RE JUMPING ALL OVER THE PLACE OUT OF PANIC! Chill.
Yep, I'm 17, good job, and believe me when I say I can listen (the whole bit about... you know... going from christian to atheist, switching from being pro-mccain to being pro-obama and now Pro-Ron Paul, etc).
You're not really making any sense... You're stating that emotions can't originate from the brain because of abiogenesis?
-At the same time use unrelated ad hominem attacks in your argument
If you can't see the irony in this, please take time now to reread your statement. It makes me smile, but at the same time feel sad for you (I mean come one, attacking someone for their age? That's not how you should be debating).
Anyway, let's get back to the subject at hand, what E223 is saying is that brains can think because the cells are interconnected. This is similar to how a computer "thinks." Electricity cannot preform tasks like solving math problems, on it's own. However when you put that electricity together within numerous tiny integrated circuits, you do just that. You get a machine that can follow instructions. The brain is similar in that a single cell is useless by itself, however when they come together our ability to think is generated.
As for abiogenesis, you clearly don't understand the theory. Let's break up the word to make it easier for you.
A-bio = not biological
genesis = beginning
It explains how life formed through non living matter. I posted a video on the subject in a different debate, and you responded to my argument so I'm assuming you have either watched it or can find it. It does a good job explaining the whole process. Never does it say there wasn't something before this. All abiogenesis says is that this is how life started. Non living matter still existed.
Finally, to stop you from guessing at my age (since that factor seems so important to you) I am 18. It says so right on my profile and I have never tried to hide the fact. In the eyes of the law I am an adult, and I hope that you will treat me that way and judge my argument for it's content and not on superficial criteria.
Wow. You guys really DON'T see your own hypocrisy?
"Using ad hominem attacks in my argument"—please—you mean like you do all the time? Let's see, you call people "_ucking stupid", "thick", "delusional", etcetera, etcetera... But when I point out obvious infantilism (unless of course you think screaming "LALALALALA, COVER MY EARS" intelligent debating??), that's wrong? Pointing out obvious facts like his immature behavior is wrong—but cussing, or trying to switch the subject all the time, or not being able to comprehend believers' points in the first place so you have to resort to being condescending to them is what you call mature, intelligent debating? I see...
You didn't have to tell me your age—I guessed it the first time you responded to one of my debates.
Best of luck to you both. I truly mean that. I don't like the way you think so highly of yourselves or the way you talk to people, but that's how you've chosen to live and conduct yourselves. I WILL pray for both of you. And for any offense I have caused, or things you haven't been able to understand, I do apologize and hope that you'll read with the goal of attaining truth and not arguing with people for the sake of arguing in the future. If you want people to take you guys seriously, then present your points intelligibly, be respectful of others, quit being condescending, and LISTEN.
Just respond to the argument. That's all I want. Instead of running away from the issues and saying we're being mean, just respond.
As I said in my earlier debates, I never called you thick. I never called you fucking stupid. So please, I am asking you to stick to the subject of the debate and respond to the arguments instead of continuing the ad hominem attacks.
otherwise how can all that exists possible have come into existence. somthing had to cause the big bang. somthing had to put the atom there to explode.
How can we define something that means so much or so little to so many different people?
The word God brings forth a whole host of experiences, ideas, emotions for each individual person. When I say God, do I mean the same thing that you do?
Unraveling the preconcieved ideas of who God IS or is NOT is the journey. Because whatever God is or isn't, how can we truly KNOW? God is by definition unknowable, a mystery, a conundrum, a paradox. How could something BE without being created? Why is there something instead of nothing? Does it make sense to try and figure out something we never will? Instead, why not focus on the things we should. Finding out who we really are, and being it. Maybe the closest we can get to God is to give up trying to figure it out and just live in the Mystery!
