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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gods place of existence
what state does God exist in? is it only past, only present, only future, or a mix?
I belive he is existing in all moments in all time at the same time but always in a present state because he is infinite. everyting is present to God, even the past and the future
God exists in the subjective, imaginative realm only. God is a coping mechanism for all of the inadequacies of our evolved conscious mind - our inability to reconcile our self-awareness with our mortality, our need for meaning and purpose in a universe devoid of both, our discomfort with the unknown, etc.
That benefit strikes me as being contingent upon the assumption that the "real answer" has any actual value (particularly relative to the effort required to get it) beyond that which the need for closure creates. It seems to me that the need for closure creates the need for otherwise unnecessary sacrifice for an arguably unnecessary end.
If the "real answer" or other purported benefit is non-contingent upon the need for closure, then I would think the need for closure a non-unique drive towards that end.
The only objection I have with that is that you can't always know what will result from your efforts. We do get benefits from accidents, like Penicillin.
Forgive me, but your argument seems to be that I am incorrect because I could possibly be wrong without providing any rationale as to why that would be beyond reiterating that I could be wrong. I would take your objection a good deal more seriously if you could present either a rationale as to why the need for closure is generally beneficial or at least an example of when that specific need leads to a unique benefit.
Weren't you indicating that people do things that they know will have a positive outcome? I was wondering how accidental discoveries falls under that. People follow their instincts to find what they can discover and it leads to something they never expected. How does that relate to what you are talking about?
I... do not think that is what I was saying, particularly in this thread. I do not think "accidental discoveries" are especially pertinent with regards to chasing something I do not believe even necessarily exists (i.e. closure) beyond our subjective belief in it. I guess my question would be what possible accidental discovery of consequence you think has ever come out of chasing after closure that we would not have arrived at sooner or later anyways.
And I think that would be an especially difficult thing to demonstrate where God is concerned, since God is the ultimate non-answer conclusion. If you satisfy the need for closure with God you stop searching for closure (which is arguably what makes it an effective coping mechanism for that need).
I think everything would be discovered eventually. I see now that the drive that can be satisfied with the answer of God is not beneficial. I never meant to imply I thought you were wrong either.
It's obvious you're an atheist but the fact you are presenting something which itself looks quite imaginative.God does exist ,maybe you can't see him.You can't directly conclude someone's absence simply because you've not seen him;You might not have even seen your late great-grandmother but can you conclude 'she exists in the subjective,imaginative realm only'
I suspect my atheism is most marked by my disbelief in the existence of god.
By your rationale, we ought not to conclude that unicorns and leprechauns do not exist either. Yet we do so regularly and this is not considered either unreasonable or illogical.
Given our knowledge of procreation and the state of science at the time of our grandparents' conception, it is not at all an unfounded conclusion to draw that we did in fact have great-grandparents whose intercourse produced our grandparents. This is substantiated by logic, and also verifiable through genetic testing. The same absolutely cannot be said of god; there simply is no evidence whatsoever to suggest god exists.
While I do not think there is any burden of proof upon the negating party of an unfounded claim, I do nevertheless have a basis from which I draw my conclusions. It is as follows:
Science the identified the genetic constitution that determines ones disposition towards belief in god as well as the parts of the brain engaged in that process of imaginative belief. The implication of this is that we know that god in every human conception is ultimately a byproduct of the human imagination conditioned by the evolution of our species. Perhaps there is some "higher power" in the universe, but whatever it is would fall so outside the realm of our fractured, disparate, and inconsistent conception of god as to render calling it god frankly absurd.
The past no longer exists. The future does not yet exist. Time is not a series of snapshots, but the ever changing moment of now. God could only exist within what exists ------ the now.
all times here is grammatically correct for I'm not putting any time or age frame upon him,you can say 'now' but he exists now,existed before and will exist in the future just like WWE,you see
I think that depends on your school of thought and approach on the matter of "existence" and "now". I have heard of two different schools/models for approaching this subject. On one side it is theorized that the past is real, just like the present is, but we've moved past it. We are no longer there. We also believe that we cannot move back in time. The other theory is that the present exists and only things in the present exist. I mean this makes sense especially since you need energy to exist (I believe so at least) and the past doesn't seem to have energy. So one could say that the past doesn't exist. However, in the way you worded your argument you said "The past no longer exists" which leads me to think that at some point the past existed. Are you saying that the past doesn't exist at all or what?
i disagree. God is the alpha and omega, beginning and the end. Also he is an infinite being not bound by time thus not being past, present, or future, simply something beyond our comprehension but that also can be acknowledged
If you can come up with an answer to that question, then you are making up said answer (unless you have some proof, in which case, please provide) so I would say he exists in our minds.
If you are talking about the Biblical God, then if he was real I think he would have to exist in the present. He makes actions based on things that are going on and does not know the outcome of things.
If you are talking about a being that simply created at the universe (of which there is no evidence of existence, unless you have something to show me) then how could we know? We would assume it existed when the universe began, which was…? Since there have been no signals to us that his existence has continued, we could make up an answer, but as I said earlier, that would make whatever God is simply a construct of human imagination. Which it very well may be.
what state does God exist in? is it only past, only present, only future, or a mix?
God exists in an ethereal state. Outside of the universe and unbound by universal constraints. He exists outside of time, so placing him within any timeline or time frame is out of question. It is accepted that he exists in all areas of time. Past, present, and future. The beginning and the end.
I belive he is existing in all moments in all time at the same time but always in a present state because he is infinite. everyting is present to God, even the past and the future
He is the beginning and the end. The creator of the universe. The transition of time has no effect on him considering him is the enabler of that transition.
You can say that all you want, but how can you show that you aren't just making stuff up right now? What you're saying could just as easily come from the mythology of a children's fantasy book as it could the Bible. How do you know this is so?
I cannot. That is the boundary between my faith and your take on reality. I solemnly abide by my beliefs and I am willing to put faith in them. I wouldn't call the bible a "children's" book. It's rather more for adult audiences than children.
Of course you can have faith, but blind faith is foolish. Why is your belief any different from a child who believes Harry Potter is real? I get that you believe what you believe, but I'm curious why. If it's just because that's what you were taught, then you are not thinking for yourself. If it's something that you found for yourself, there must be a reason. I'm just curious as to what that is, because as of yet I have not been presented with a legitimate reason why the words of the Bible have more validity than something like a children's book (or, if you'd rather, a teen dystopian. Or an adult thriller xD)
Of course you can have faith, but blind faith is foolish.
I'll respect your opinion.
Why is your belief any different from a child who believes Harry Potter is real?
I'm not sure how this is relevant to the topic anymore, but I never claimed it was different.
I get that you believe what you believe, but I'm curious why. If it's just because that's what you were taught, then you are not thinking for yourself. If it's something that you found for yourself, there must be a reason.
Yes, there was a reason, however that isn't for me to discuss on a public debate forum.
I'm just curious as to what that is, because as of yet I have not been presented with a legitimate reason why the words of the Bible have more validity than something like a children's book (or, if you'd rather, a teen dystopian. Or an adult thriller xD)
I don't see what's funny at all. I think plenty of people that have religious beliefs have reasons to put their faith in a particular religion. Why is it that you require an answer?
Why do you disagree with what I said? (Just curious don't mean to be attacking here.) I said that blind faith is foolish. What is the benefit of believing something without have a reason to believe it?
I'm not sure how this is relevant to the topic anymore, but I never claimed it was different.
I'm deviating from the original topic a bit, sorry , just something I am invested to and find interesting.
Yes, there was a reason, however that isn't for me to discuss on a public debate forum.
Ok, keep your reasons to yourself and I don't want to disrespect you and your reasons, which are obviously very important to me, but as a non-believer, it all seems very outlandish to me.
I understand that religion is a comfort, and can help people through many struggles in life. But things like God and religion don't feel like the right solution to me. You have to be a good person to get into heaven, instead of because it's the right things to do? Why is religion necessary to get this comfort when you can easily take comfort in being a part of a human community and the goodness that humans on Earth do have? These aren't necessarily questions for you, and don't feel obligated to answer them I don't want to make you share something you don't want to and your reasons are, I'm sure, viable, I just don't see it.
I don't see what's funny at all. I think plenty of people that have religious beliefs have reasons to put their faith in a particular religion. Why is it that you require an answer?
This is sheer curiosity. Or maybe, some sort of incredulousness, I guess. People find religion for themselves, but then many use it to back up beliefs that can be hurtful to others, such as homosexuals, women, and so on. However, they then claim their work is reverent, and is about a being that is ever-present. When people are making these claims and life choices based on evidence-less blind faith, I just don't see the cause. So if there's a reason to justify why things like the Bible can be defended as a reason for discrimination, I am very curious to hear what it is.
Why do you disagree with what I said? (Just curious don't mean to be attacking here.) I said that blind faith is foolish. What is the benefit of believing something without have a reason to believe it?
I don't agree with your definition of blind faith. To me, and to Dictionary.com, blind faith is belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination. I would say blind faith can be foolish.
I understand that religion is a comfort, and can help people through many struggles in life. But things like God and religion don't feel like the right solution to me. You have to be a good person to get into heaven, instead of because it's the right things to do?
.
You have to be chosen by God to get into Heaven.
Why is religion necessary to get this comfort when you can easily take comfort in being a part of a human community and the goodness that humans on Earth do have?
I'm not sure what your getting at. You will have to clarify yourself here.
People find religion for themselves, but then many use it to back up beliefs that can be hurtful to others, such as homosexuals, women, and so on.
It would appear that they have found a path of morality to follow. Are they wrong for doing so? I have yet to see any objective morals found elsewhere.
When people are making these claims and life choices based on evidence-less blind faith, I just don't see the cause.
People do what they want to do. Are you saying that there is a correct life choice preference to live by?
So if there's a reason to justify why things like the Bible can be defended as a reason for discrimination, I am very curious to hear what it is.
People discriminate without using the bible. People discriminate regardless. People use government, culture, social status, money, skin color, etc, to discriminate. Using the bible is just one of these many things. Do you ponder about the rest of these as well?
“Even under his wings, Day and night they never stop saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.’”-Revelation 4:8
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”-Genesis 1:1
Text doesn't surmount to valid evidence for most people. Many wish to see solid proof. Proof that can either be tested, or follows some form of logic that is understandable to all and has some decent backing.
Sorry to be the devil's advocate here but I believe that the biblical "God" as such does not exist. Our need for God to exist arose because we need to believe that life, the universe and everything has meaning and we need God to exist because we have to have faith and belief in something because we have lost or have never had faith and belief in ourselves.
When asking the unanswerable questions of why, who, how, when, etc etc the answer is always "only God knows", so belief in God keeps millions of people sane and avoids global anarchy.
So whatever you believe "God" to be is OK, whether it is in nature and all living things, whether it is in the spirit of humankind, or some celestial being, whatever your representation of God exists is OK simply because we need faith and belief that we are OK and being a part of the universe etc etc may be a bit overwhelming so we reduce it down to something we can hold onto.
I do not generally disagree with your premise on the origins of god, though I am intrigued by the conclusions you arrive at therefrom.
What makes you think that anarchy would be the consequence of the abandonment of god? What makes you think that would necessarily be an inherently or overwhelmingly negative thing? Do the benefits of the god delusion truly outweigh its harms?
My response was not premised upon presumption at all. You stated that: "...belief in God keeps millions of people sane and avoids global anarchy", which represents the view that the belief presently prevents widespread insanity and anarchy today. It is fine if you do not actually hold that view, but it is not my fault that you worded your earlier statement to that effect.
I do disagree that we created God to prevent anarchy, however. That implies a good deal more deliberate intention than I think gave rise to deistic faith. It also suggests what I consider to be a false dichotomy: deistic faith or anarchy.
I do not think the Inquisition was a positive event, but then again that represents the opposite of an abandonment of religious/faith oriented thought and action. What exactly was your point?
I do not think it is fair to fault me for misunderstanding your use of the present tense to imply a timeless concept that you never expressly identified as being timeless in your original statement. It can be simultaneously true that my statement was non-presumptive and a misunderstanding of your actual views; this is called miscommunication and it happens sometimes which is what my subsequent reply was stating. I moved on from that and made new points, but you seem more inclined to beat the dead horse instead of addressing those. So I guess I am done here.
Just remember that when referencing God, what your girlfriend or wife or both scream out during sex. If she doesn't, then one can assume you're not a fan of God. You blame God for your short cummings or if your a female you blame God for the guys short cummings. Religion often lays with the blessed and not those unblessed.