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.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
Since God is the alpha and the omega, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, aren't they one in the same.
One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. http://www.icr.org/law-conservation/
According to pantheists like Einstein yes. Pantheists have a sensible understanding of god, unlike most atheists and theists I've met who seem stuck with a very immature idea of what god is.
There is much we don’t understand about the world. I won’t attempt to say “therefore god,”nor prove the pantheistic view, just offer my own thoughts. I realize I don't have scientific proof.
If there were a god, it would exist; therefore it could be defined if its aspects be known.
Whether or not god’s aspects are known or understood is unknown.
As a species, we only have our own interpretations as to what god is.
I assume the possibility that if god does exist: we, within our collective knowledge as a species, have defined god at least in some way.
God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and a creator in many belief systems throughout history.
The universe is omnipresent. The universe is all encompassing and it has been since the beginning and will be until the end of time. It is completely pervading, not to an extent to say that a piece of the universe dwells within us; nay, we are the universe and the universe IS us.
The universe is omnipotent. Anything that has ever occurred or can ever occur was or will be made manifest by the universe; every supernova, every baby’s first steps. Also, nothing can destroy the universe without also destroying existence itself.
The universe is omniscient. Like its omnipotence, everything that has been or will be known is made manifest by the universe. Every philosophical inquiry, every technological advancement from infantile humans to advanced extraterrestrial civilizations.
The universe is a creator. Everything ever made or destroyed was a result of the universe. It encompasses, initiates, and makes possible all creation and destruction; all the innovations of humankind to all the formations of galaxies.
If these definitions we have of god describe the universe, then perhaps the universe is god.
I see too many flaws with strict definitions of what god is as they pertain to individual beliefs in individual religions. I instead assume the position that we are all pieces of the whole and our interpretations of the world we live in are as well.
God is unchangable and remains the same all throughout. Also you would have to explain how he could still be omniscient (knowing future events for clarity). God is outside the universe. God cannot be fathomed. The universe is fathomable. The universe is not God.
Show me that God is outside the universe. Have you visited where he resides? Since you have seen where God lives, you have just confirmed that God exists. Like I have always said,"If you want proof that God exists, just ask an atheist."
That is fairly simple. If you believe God exists then you may believe he created everything. Everything includes the universe. Meaning he is outside the universe since it's something he created.
Have you visited where he resides? Since you have seen where God lives, you have just confirmed that God exists. Like I have always said,"If you want proof that God exists, just ask an atheist."
Funny, I don't remember making such a fallicious claim. I don't have to confirm what I never claimed. Quite a foolish and childish rebuttal.
Yes. You are not part of the walls. You are not part of your home. You are separate from it. You are outside of it.
If one puts their heart into something, then it is a part of them. Can you exclude Michelangelo from his paintings? No, the paintings are Michelangelo. The paintings do not exist if Michelangelo doesn't.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! He can put his heart and soul into something but that doesn't change where he exists. Like usual you try changing how words are used to pretend to make a point.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! He can put his heart and soul into something but that doesn't change where he exists. Like usual you try changing how words are used to pretend to make a point.
I do not try changing how words are used, I just know the other meanings of words. You on the other hand, only desire to use the meaning of a word that fits into an argument and disregard all other meanings. I use the definitions of a word as defined by the dictionary, not Cartman's definition.
You haven't shown actual knowledge so far, so I am inclined to believe you are wrong.
You on the other hand, only desire to use the meaning of a word that fits into an argument and disregard all other meanings.
Actually, that is literally what you do. All you ever do is disregard someones awesome argument and use a worthless use of a single word out of context.
I use the definitions of a word as defined by the dictionary, not Cartman's definition.
We are using the same definition. You are using the wrong words.
That is fairly simple. If you believe God exists then you may believe he created everything. Everything includes the universe. Meaning he is outside the universe since it's something he created.
I created a home, I built it. Does this mean I have to live outside of it?
Funny, I don't remember making such a fallicious claim. I don't have to confirm what I never claimed. Quite a foolish and childish rebuttal.
Who said I made such a claim? Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? Your response to such a claim only proves a lack of intelligence.
Oh my god! Cartman, you have done my dirty work here. That made my day again. I was left confused as to where his rebuttal was supposed to be going to. It was unapplicable to our conversation.
Not as simple as you think. If you believe God exists then you may believe he created everything. True. Everything includes the universe. True. But that does not mean he is outside the universe just because it is something he created... Everything also includes himself. Who's to say that he is not the universe? And that when he created said universe, he also created himself, thus he would not be outside the universe, he would be the universe.
How can you be what you created? Explain. If I make a toy train am I now the toy train? No. I'm still the toy train. Could I possibly go inside the train? Maybe. Will that make me the train? No.
If you don't know what supernatural means then stay out of the conversation.
Cartman, here is your chance to inform everyone as to what is supernatural. You keep telling everyone what is not supernatural and yet none of us have heard a single thing that is supernatural. Should the word be delete from all dictionaries in order to make you happy?
Stop being dumb man. You aren't even trying to be a snartass, you are just trying to antagonize. Super markets compared to markets is obviously a stupid comparison to make. Supernatural has a definition and I have no problem with the definition of supernatural. I have clearly demonstrated an understanding of supernatural, which you have not.
Sour is not the direct opposite of sweet, but one can make something less sour with sugar witch is sweet. I probably should have used a better example. There are many examples of something being both such as, a dry martini. How can any drink be dry? And yes, I'm being difficult.
In my understanding of the words, if natural is what exists and is what we define it to be in accordance with observation and study, then anything that doesn't exist or goes against the criterion we set for natural-ness could be considered supernatural. Couldn’t it? At least until we change our criterion to fit further validated observations.
You could say that iff god exists, than god is natural and not supernatural, just not yet known to fit within the criterion we currently set for natural-ness. In other word's god's supernatural-ness is defined by gods unobserved qualities that contradict what we know as being natural; god would be supernatural, not in existence but in quality of being unknown.
In my understanding of the words, if natural is what exists
Theoretically, the natural and supernatural both exist. The supernatural is the stuff that exists that we can't observe.
and is what we define it to be in accordance with observation and study, then anything that doesn't exist or goes against the criterion we set for natural-ness could be considered supernatural. Couldn’t it? At least until we change our criterion to fit further validated observations.
It is a primitive viewpoint to take to call something supernatural simply because it has no explanation. God is supernatural because it is being used as a way to create nature outside of nature.
You could say that iff god exists, than god is natural and not supernatural,
If god exists and is natural it couldn't have created the universe outside the laws of nature. If we are going to describe a natural god with all the properties of nature, then there is no reason to call it god, it is already known as nature.
In other word's god's supernatural-ness is defined by gods unobserved qualities that contradict what we know as being natural; god would be supernatural, not in existence but in quality of being unknown.
The only meaningful god to discuss is a supernatural one. It is supernatural by definition. The question is does the supernatural god exist, not a natural god. A natural god would be limited in power and thus not really a god.
I am assuming we are trying to believe in a supernatural god by definition. Do my posts make more sense now?
The supernatural is the stuff that exists that we can't observe.
Are we unable to observe the supernatural? Or currently without the means?
Would being able to observe and explain it then make it natural?
If so, doesn’t this still fit the idea to “call something supernatural simply because it has no explanation?”
If god exists and is natural it couldn't have created the universe outside the laws of nature.
Then perhaps it was in accordance with laws of nature. Maybe not the laws of nature as we presently understand them, but I’m assuming the possibility that our species has much to discover about the universe and the laws within it.
If we are going to describe a natural god with all the properties of nature, then there is no reason to call it god, it is already known as nature.
Likewise, if we are going to describe a god with all the properties of the supernatural, then there is no reason to call it god, it is already known as the supernatural.
The question is does the supernatural god exist, not a natural god.
Maybe for you. I don’t posit a difference between the two.
I am assuming we are trying to believe in a supernatural god by definition. Do my posts make more sense now?
Not to me, but then again that doesn’t matter as long as it makes sense to you I suppose. At any rate, I think it’s obvious we have different definitions of the word. As such, I rescind my original comment.
Are we unable to observe the supernatural? Or currently without the means?
Would being able to observe and explain it then make it natural?
If so, doesn’t this still fit the idea to “call something supernatural simply because it has no explanation?”
Unable at all.
Then perhaps it was in accordance with laws of nature. Maybe not the laws of nature as we presently understand them, but I’m assuming the possibility that our species has much to discover about the universe and the laws within it.
It isn't even my argument. That is the claim made by Theists. The problem with your idea is that we then have to figure out what caused god. So, the idea of a supernatural being that has always existed covers that problem. If there was a singularity that started off the Big Bang and the universe, there is no reason to call it god.
Likewise, if we are going to describe a god with all the properties of the supernatural, then there is no reason to call it god, it is already known as the supernatural.
That's like saying there is no reason for the term universe because nature encompasses the universe. The supernatural is a category of things. God would be a specific supernatural thing that is responsible for creating the universe.
Maybe for you. I don’t posit a difference between the two.
I think that is foolish.
Not to me, but then again that doesn’t matter as long as it makes sense to you I suppose. At any rate, I think it’s obvious we have different definitions of the word. As such, I rescind my original comment.
To say that the only meaningful god to discuss is a supernatural one is just your opinion first of all.
And it is not known that a natural god is limited in power.
You're getting this supernatural thing confused. Supernatural by definition is something beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. God, being beyond scientific understanding is supernatural.
And natural, by definition is something caused by nature and not by mankind. That's why I said, if god is to be god, he'd do the most godly thing and create himself, thus caused by nature.
That sounds like your problem then. If more explanation doesn't clear up my position you have the problem.
To say that the only meaningful god to discuss is a supernatural one is just your opinion first of all.
A natural is worthless because we already have terms to describe a natural god, and that is the word nature.
And it is not known that a natural god is limited in power.
It can't exist in a supernatural place, so by definition it is definitely limited in power.
or the laws of nature
Let's clear one thing up. Scientific understanding doesn't affect the laws of nature at all.
You're getting this supernatural thing confused. Supernatural by definition is something beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
You don't understand the definition. Something is not supernatural because it isn't currently explained by science. That would mean that things change from supernatural to natural every day. That is clearly a silly notion. Since scientific understanding and the laws of nature aren't linked like I mentioned, there must be something that you aren't understanding about the definition of supernatural. When it says scientific understanding it is referring to the ability of science to describe it, not whether science has all of the details involved.
God, being beyond scientific understanding is supernatural.
Only a god that couldn't possibly be described by science is worthy of discussing, see? I am right.
And natural, by definition is something caused by nature and not by mankind. That's why I said, if god is to be god, he'd do the most godly thing and create himself, thus caused by nature.
Nothing can create itself. So, that doesn't make sense to me. Plus, you just got through saying god is supernatural, so it can't be natural.
Nothing can create itself. So, that doesn't make sense to me. Plus, you just got through saying god is supernatural, so it can't be natural.
Hermaphroditism, the condition of having both male and female reproductive organs and do create one of themselves. They do create themselves, not impossible. Just because at this time we know of tapeworms and plants doing this, doesn't mean it's impossible. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263151/hermaphroditism
It is you that is missing something, the universe is not one dimensional; But you are. If everybody in science that came after Newton thought as you do, all of his theories would have never been contested. There are many sides, your side is just one of them.
I am the only one who challenges anything here. If every scientist thought like you they would settle for Newton's theories and ask if the sky is blue thinking they were contesting Newton. You have no idea what I am talking about but you are desperate to be part of the conversation.
Why would that be the case? If god is to be god, he would do the most godly thing and be the only one to have created himself, and the thing that makes him supernatural is the fact that no one can explain any of it. Except him of course, and if he is the universe, then we are a small part of him, and in being a small part of him, it isn't at all impossible to figure it all out, just... extremely hard apparently.
Because it make god something and the opposite of that something. You can't be both. God can do a bunch of stuff that is observed in the natural world, but that doesn't make it natural.
God is often referred to as Mother Nature, how can any one be any more natural than what is nature itself. Yet, Mother Nature has the ability to create everything thus being a supernatural identity.
We cant really say wither God is or is not real. There is not enough data to even prove the existence of God... well correction there is no data, but if he was real do you honestly think that he wants us to find him? We have to get through this life before we are taking in to the arms of the lord to heaven.
But there is a reason why the Big Bang is also called The God Theory. I mean you could see God as the universe the big bang creating all form of life that we know now, 7 days could of been the billions of years these gasses gathered up together. The first humans eating forbidden fruit, well our brains were still developing it could of been one of poison and we learned not to go to it again.
I am not agreeing with the point but you could be correct metaphorically.
The thing is that you are stretching the definition so that it fits your definition of God. Just because we don't understand something doesn't automatically make it supernatural, mystical, etc. It simply remains unknown until we can understand it. Lightning isn't mystical. Meteor strikes are not supernatural. Matter is the same.
I'm not sure you are understanding your own actions here. You are taking extreme measures to make the universe seem like God. If you use Occam's Razor I believe it would be much more logical to assume the universe just exists. It's all natural. It's something we may learn to explain.
I'm not sure you are understanding your own actions here. You are taking extreme measures to make the universe seem like God. If you use Occam's Razor I believe it would be much more logical to assume the universe just exists. It's all natural. It's something we may learn to explain.
No, whether or not we have an explanation for something does not change if it is natural or not. You are not understanding the definition of supernatural.
It means beyond the scope of what science can comprehend eventually. It doesn't mean fully explained because that would make everything supernatural. Where is the cutoff for what science needs to know about something before it becomes natural?
Well what's the point of living? Seeing as though you can find happyness in everything there is...I'm sure he doesn't need to be anything more than everything around you...including that rack...
The universe seems to be a living organism much like a cell, all through we can never know for sure as of now I do believe that the universe is conscious and in turn we can safly call it God as we and all things sprung from the belly of the universe.
Our energy will continue to be recycled long after we are dead and even after the universe rips itself apart, energy seems to be transcendent and I like to think that our energy and all the energy within the universe or multi verse for that matter is alive and conscious.
This is just my theory I could be wrong by my reasoning has a hard time seeing it another way as of now.
How about the cells in your body? Are they conscious? They behave like a community. Or maybe the universe is like one giant computer network and each individual one of the computers or processor core. But would that make it conscious? Is our society a conscious entity? I don't have the answers. I'm just some guy on a debate site ;)
Anything we don't understand could be supernatural, but isn't necessarily supernatural. Due to the way supernatural is defined, anything that manifests in reality could be supernatural until we have a scientific understanding of it, but we can't definitively state that any manifestation of something is supernatural because we are unable to rule out the possibility of future scientific discovery. The supernatural is a label for what can't be understood, not a label for what we don't understand.
Quantum mechanics changes energy into matter and vice-versa all the time. It is my understanding that god is infinite, however, the universe is not infinite and therefore cannot be god.
