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.
God was and is and is to come. Supernatural things do not require a beginning and an end because they are not of nature which requires a beginning and an end.
He did not come into the world, for He created the world.
Nature not only does not need a beginning or an end. It in fact has neither. Nothing in the Universe has ever ceased to exist nor been created.
The difference between the natural and the supernatural is one is completely made up with absolutely no proof or hint of existence, while the other we observe every day, can measure, and are even a part of.
He didn't. God is alpha and omega, beginning and end, the first and the last. Causality is the means of state transformation facilitated by time, but time exists only within the universe. God needn't have been caused by anything to have been a first cause.
This is the theological equivalent of a seven-year-old asking, "How come fish don't have to breathe but people do?" Because everything else is not necessarily infinite, dude.
Ah, Assface and her insults. You're not often described as a pleasant person my guess is.
Typical Ad Hominem aside, I'd argue all things are necessarily infinite, dude. A creator is not necessary, in fact it would be redundant and bring more questions than answers.
Ah, one unfortunately common instance of the ad hominem fallacy fallacy. My analogy wasn't intended to insult you; it was seriously the only way I could think of to explain to you how simple acceptance of the idea that you can debunk an entire branch of philosophy by asking a single question makes you look. Your offense is telling, though: you got a lot of gruff from the bigger kids as a boy, I take it?
You are truly incapable of presenting an argument without putting down your opponent it seems. Perhaps then your insults are truly unintended. A sort of a subconscious defense mechanism? Because obviously the deep analysis necessary to shed social norms, like religion, is not the stuff of seven year-olds in most cases. You must be dismissive and brash and insulting because to be otherwise may invite self-analysis, which could easily lead to the crumbling of this superiority complex you've developed.
So, would you like to try and answer the question this time?
If god did not need a creator to exist, why would anything need a creator to exist?
Oh, in the last message it was intentional, as it is in the majority of my responses to your posts, which are so consistently marinated in misinformation and baseless condescension that to respond otherwise would be intolerable to my standards of decency.
deep analysis
Real deep. So deep. Deeper than your throat on a Tuesday night, brother.
this superiority complex you've developed.
As long as we're being pseudoanalytical at strangers on the internet, I've noticed that those who most often take exception to the unwarranted self-importance of others are those most guilty of the same. Taking stock of our respective shortcomings might be good for the both of us, eh, chief?
necessary to shed social norms, like religion, is not the stuff of seven year-olds in most cases.
Your confidence in your atheism is obscuring the meaning of the analogy. I'm not comparing the complexity of the subjects' matter, but the misunderstanding each relies upon. God and events are in different categories entirely, like fish and humans. See my first post for expansion on that.
So, would you like to try and answer the question this time?
If you'll reread the thread, you'll notice there was no question that went unanswered. I answered this one
necessary to shed social norms, like religion, is not the stuff of seven year-olds in most cases.
in the post you took initial offense to. It is an invalid question, but I answered it best I could. Maybe you were so mad with rage that you forgot? Ask another, less obfuscatory one and I'd be happy to answer it too.
But, to get back on track, would you like to try and continue, like I asked you to? I need to know how you're arguing that everything is necessarily infinite before we can get anywhere.
Yay for you. That's the first step in getting better, admitting you have a problem.
Real deep. So deep. Deeper than your throat on a Tuesday night, brother.
I'm straight. If I weren't I'd still not be insulted. Maybe you should suck some dicks though, at least get laid. Maybe you'd loosen up a little.
As long as we're being pseudoanalytical at strangers on the internet
You began the session, I just ended it. More accurately as usual.
Your confidence in your atheism is obscuring the meaning of the analogy. I'm not comparing the complexity of the subjects' matter, but the misunderstanding each relies upon. God and events are in different categories entirely, like fish and humans. See my first post for expansion on that.
"God is in a different category" is fine. But you assume I don't understand your insistence that this is the case. I do, and my argument is, fine, but if something can be a "different category" (god) and can act outside of the laws which make up our observable world, there is no reason something other than god could not have also functioned in such a way. Then to extrapolate on that, I believe something would more likely be simple force and matter acting not out of intelligence but the natures they have. That's easier than god. Believe in god if you must, you are the one being dishonest intellectually and dismissive of contrary arguments when you insist a complex eternal thing is more likely and more logically sound than simple things acting as we observe them act all of the time.
so mad with rage
as opposed to mad with... sadness? Happiness? What?
But you're assuming again. The rest of this is rubbish. You've answered nothing as to why god is a simpler or more likely beginning than that there was no beginning. Nor why if a god could function outside of current laws of the Universe other things could not as well. You have no basis, only faith. That's fine. Don't pretend it's anything more though because it sounds dumb when you do no matter how many insults and how much perceived self-superiority you try to present it with.
Ah, yes, for as the atheist orthodoxy dictates, one must take offense to all japes and calumnies except those possibly intended to cause offense on grounds vaguely related to prejudices imagined to be religiously-ingrained. I remember being thirteen.
Maybe you should suck some dicks though, at least get laid. Maybe you'd loosen up a little.
Funnily enough, the last guy who suggested this to me was literally a rapist.
You began the session,
Wrong again, Gay Guide to Springfield. If you found personal conjecture in my first reply to you, you read too far into it. If you wonder what led me to believe you're a particularly sensitive man, though, this is it.
you assume I don't understand your insistence that this is the case.
Forgive me for following Occam's Razor. Yet you continually seem to assert that you don't in your constant implication that, despite what you've previously intimated is an extensive philosophical education, you've misunderstood my position entirely. See:
if something can be a "different category" (god) and can act outside of the laws which make up our observable world, there is no reason [blah blah something else couldn't]
acting not out of intelligence but [their] natures
why if a god could function outside of current laws of the Universe other things could not as well.
etc. But whether you want me to respond to these rebuttals of nothing I've yet said and nothing I plan to say is unclear. You prattle on about assumptions, but still you manage to make a presumptuous ass of yourself. I get the feeling this discussion would be more productive if you strayed away from personal commentary, but maybe you're not capable of that. See:
Believe in god if you must
You have no basis, only faith.
re:assumptions: I don't believe in god, skipper.
as opposed to mad with... sadness? Happiness? What?
Correct. "Mad" means things other than "angry," Webster.
it sounds dumb when you do no matter how many insults and how much perceived self-superiority you try to present it with.
There are probably words in the English language to perfectly describe how much I'm laughing right now but god in heaven help me they are rebellious to my cause and will not let themselves be known.
Anyhow, again, if you're at all interested in distilling this episode of the dozens down to the important parts, I really am interested in how you're arguing that all things are necessarily infinite.
The facet of human psychology whereby we assess causal relationships, if we see something in movement, we automatically assume it was "moved" and link it with a mover. If a mover cannot be seen, we assume the presence of an "agent". This is useful from an evolutionary standpoint as it allows us to predict the behaviour of predators we cannot see, and recognise that the movement in the grass is caused by a tiger.
This also means we tend to designate an agent to every event we observe that has no observable mover, hence why we used to use the idea of supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena like rain, thunder, wind, the sea etc etc. Now we can look behind the curtain of nature and reveal the workings of the complex machinery within, and we know that rain is caused by water gaining and losing energy, the sea moves due to the gravitational influence of the moon and the rotation of the Earth, etc etc.
However, some humans still resort to this instinctual reasoning when thinking about the universe, and sometimes when thinking about the origin of, or complexity of life. Hence why we still have god, just a diminished concept of it.
Source: New Scientist magazine, March 21st 2012, issue No. 2856
Muslims don't believe in God, they believe in Allah.
Buddhists don't believe in God, they believe in Buddha.
Hindu people don't believe in God, they believe in Brahman.
Therefore, it all depends on who was introduced to you and in my case, God was introduced to me.
According to the Christian Bible, God came into the world through His son, Jesus. And Jesus came into the world through the intercession of the Holy Spirit in Virgin Mary.
We can't segregate god in terms of ethnicity, geographical boundaries, age, religion, gender, etc. The god is a mental image needed to all of us for doing good things in the right manner that lead to positive effect on human kind.
I have a simple question to all, can any one us concentrate on zero or null without thinking about anything such as no family issues, no money, no neighborhood nuisance, boss and work pressure, feeling of heart while having a baby, or anything ......simply just forget every pain or pleasure in this world.
The answer is big "NO"
The first think in the pain or pleasure we do, is ask for help or thanks to the god for this deed, but to do this we need an image, either in form of man like jesus, bhuddha, braham or in the form of book like bible , geeta, kuran.
so, we the human are so entangled in the web of life, that we need god for our-self. The key point is, in complex and critical situation, we need help of god in form of sculpture or book or a human that leads us to right path. To make this effective and believe in god leads to these books or representatives of human, finally GOD COME INTO THE WORLD.
We could call Him God-A, GodA, GodAlpha, AlphaTheos or for that matter just Alpha. Or we can use the Greek Theos or TheosA. These names designate the God referred in Document A, the Pythagorean God. I will use God or GodA and hope that I will lessen any hostility by religious fanatics which may think I am referring to their God. I am not! So not to unnecessarily offend or defend any religion I will name him GodA but use God interchangeably.
