CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS KingGinger93

Reward Points:50
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
87%
Arguments:57
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

Why must there be a who? Why is agency necessary for existence in and of itself? Why does this agency exist to begin with, even if it is eternal? It exists just because? How does that explain anything? That just pushes the question to the origins of existence one step further arbitrarily. If this agency (god) is by definition not needing explanation then the justification of this concept as a reality seems rather desperate.

Perhaps the reality is, is that all of existence in and of itself, what constitutes everything in existence, all actual realities is currently beyond our comprehension? Does an ant comprehend a planet? Probably not. There could be very real biological constraints on what we can comprehend. Engaging in an illusion of knowledge is not productice to the pursuit of truth as it undermines the virtue of investigation. It is better to have no answers at all than to have answers out of convenience to leave the question open. What you pursue desperately leads to imitation, what you pursue passionately leads to authenticity. As Stephen Hawking said "the enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge".

The chicken and the egg isn't a flaw in thinking or an failed rationalisation, it is two separate parts of information that we struggle to reconcile. Not a true paradox.

The bandwagon fallacy, the erroneous argument that quantity of supporting people indicates truth value of made assertion, is not two pieces of seemingly irreconcilable information but a train of thought that fails to actually explain anything.

2 points

Logical fallacies are the only few true paradoxes to exist, paradoxes in thinking, and only exist due to minds and thought not being perfectly consistent 24/7. Logical fallacies are not meant to be proven wrong, they are trains of thought that don't justify any convictions. It is unjustified conviction, invalid reasoning, A.K.A. illogic.

The bandwagon fallacy, that many people believing something makes it right is simply bad reasoning as conformity does not necessarily indicate truth, only a compulsion to believe. While one could hypothesize a situation that appears to be exempt to this rule only by over thinking. Like placing a bunch of people inside a simulation that conforms to people's beliefs. Not even this would prove that truth is dictated by conformity because it would be forced. The more logical explanation is that you are co-existing to a malleable simulation.

Logical fallacies are the acknowledgement of flaws in reasoning, not pre-existing phenomena that has yet to be understood.

It doesn't suggest. It implies a high possibility of no God(capital 'G' pls take note). Like 85%

I don't have to pander to your sensibilities, you don't like the way I type god that is your problem.

Actually god is not mentioned whatsoever in either theory because god is not scientifically verifiable, god is irrelevant.

Even without christianity they still don't make sense.

What are you talking about? The theory of evolution makes perfect sense and the evidence is well established, the experts don't disagree on evolution the consensus is strong, the only objectors are the fundamentalist christian groups.

Even if so

Come on!! You know the train is moved by atheists. Those scientistts get their emotions mixed up with work. You don't have to wait for them to come for confession.

Your understanding of science as a discipline is laughable, science it is engineered to work against our biases, peer reviews plays a part in deterring bias, I've studied the evidence, from an objective rational point of view the theory of evolution predicts much of what we expect to see in nature thus attesting to it's accuracy, we can make predictions using the theory of evolution.

So it's a coincidence? It's sensible . But then it's just the outlook. You cannot confidently conclude on motives.

The theory is highly unlikely to be intended for contradicting anyone's beliefs as science is a discipline that is engineered to deter biases.

Evolution makes sense(continuity) to some extent(doesn't mean it's true though);

It's not just that it makes sense, it's the fact that it explains a lot of phenomena and the entire biodiversity of life itself accurately enough we can make predictions off of it... That means something in science, I'm sorry slice it however you want but that is good science. It's empirically backed, it's the most accurate understanding of how species are changing over time (because they are, that is an established fact).

incomplete at the core(origins) making it nonsensical.

Are you talking about the theory of Abiogenesis? Because that is not evolution, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origin of anything other than biodiversity in life which it does beautifully, we all started out as a single cell organism and over time through changes (via mutations) driven by the desire to live and reproduce and the environment in relation to the organisms of that species leads to aquiring more advantages among it's populace over time. It makes perfect sense because it explains what we see in our overall understanding of the world scientifically and historically. We know due to methods used within geography that the deeper underground the fossil the older it tends to be, when aligning all the fossils we see change over time as the theory of evolution would predict. We've observed it directly via experimenting with cells, it aligns with our understanding of DNA perfectly, the only way it could not be true between our understanding of DNA and the theory of evolution is if mutations didn't occur which there is very concrete evidence of them occuring. No, the explanation for biodiversity of life does not explain the origin of life, that is a different explanation. We don't ask where atoms came from before we ask why atoms are doing the things they do. We ask both questions.

There are demonic doctrines. "Not all who say lord lord............"

And it sounds like more nonsense if you believe in the big bang theory and yet say God exists or he caused it in creation. He is a loony seeking attention and he got it. Even these atheistic scientists made it less nonsensical by making it highly imply God couldn't exist then.

LMFAO I can so relate, the irony is dumbfounding.

Religious is just letters. Your heart proves it. That guy was atheist at heart. And atheist scientists grabbed it. Most religious scientists reject what their fellow religious person said.....why? The catholic guy was either lying he believes God exists or he is an idiot.

I don't even think he even had a personal bible he used to read. The big bang was one of his childhood imaginations, he never let go(many can't), and he finally got a good platform to shylessly blurt it out. And it was grabbed by........(not all scientists)

Ok, do let me ask again, their is a man claiming that his theory explains how the universe was created and that he believes it was god's (liar or an idiot, doesn't matter) work, if the scientific community is trying to bend science to support the atheistic world view why would we lend credit to that man?

I have a lot of self made scientific theories. Some are with existing evidence and some are assumptions. So there many people who have a lot of things in their heads. some are good and others nonsense(what big bang happened to be)

Ok, if you think it is so easy then go collect your nobel prize. I'm waiting... after all if a man claiming his theory was god's work was accepted by the scientific community why couldn't your theories?

It will be disrespect, to discover Him like a planet.

On a side note, I am very curious as to why you think that is?

Of course scientists are good for the world, knowledge empowers everyone. Science advances the world and empowers every aspect of society, we live longer, happier lives due to our scientific prowess. Science is the means that our species learns, and to gain wisdom means to learn. Yeah sometimes it seems a little ridiculous with irresponsible people not paying attention due to their phone, and sending in essays with texting lingo but compared to the preservation of life, rising quality in life, it is worth it, plus much popular technology exists in it's infancy (cell phones) that young people are just starting to learn how to use responsibly. We'll grow out of it.

Science void of atheistic nonsensical theories is good: evolution, big bang etc.

Tell me, what do either of these have to do with atheism? Neither theory suggests there is no god, the only thing making these theories "atheistic" is that they contradict fundamentalist christianity. That doesn't make evolution, nor the big bang "atheistic", if anything it is anti-fundamentalist, and not really when you consider the fact that the theory was never intended to contradict anyones religious beliefs, it just happened to do so and was only intended to explain the phenomena of biodiversity of life, and it explains the phenomena very well establishing evidence across several fields of science that also coincidentally documented things that fit the theory (thus being established as evidence). Evolution is more Pro-truth" than it is "anti-fundamentalist christian", and it is more "anti-fundamentalist christian" than it is "atheistic".

The Big Bang theory came from a catholic who believed it to be the moment of creation from god himself. Of course none of that is scientifically verifiable and thus has no place in a scientific theory so of course when science classes teach the theory they don't teach it to students as gods work, they just teach it for what it is meant for in the field of science as they should, an explanation to how our universe as we know it was created, why the universe is expanding, and etc, because it does that well. Now tell me, if the scientific community is trying to bend science to support the atheistic stance on god's existence, why would we accept a scientific theory from a religious man claiming it be evidence for his god's creating of the universe?

It is evident that all the flaws in science are from theories generated by hypocritical atheistic scientists.

No, the flaws are generated from the fact that the entire universe and the whole of reality are pretty fucking incomprehendable... Entire Scientific fields that are obviously studying very real aspects of our reality contradict each other... What we understand from the very big "Astrophysics" crumbles to dust when we walk on over to "Quantum Physics" territory and vice versa. The most controversial issues within science is not evolution... Evolution is one of the most backed scientific theories in history, as far as the scientific community is concerned is pretty much fact at this point with over a century of research backing, only controversial politically. True scientific controversies have nothing to do with religion, atheism, or anything that is actually pretty fucking off subject. God is not even considered a factor, because god cannot be scientifically verified one way or another, not even used to explain anything scientifically. Science doesn't reject nor accept god, it doesn't consider god at all and probably won't until we get emprical evidence of god if we ever do.

I feel like disagreement is taken too personal and irrationally treated as a hostile thing. It doesn't have to be. In America it is considered rude to express ones religious, or political view points in general, even at the dinner table. I hear in other countries that is not always the case, people do so freely. With the over-sensitivity that can occasionally occur for minorities on the left, or for tradition and religion on the right, both liberals and conservatives are at fault to a degree. We disassociate ourselves with people who disagree with us while our peers sling insults directly at the people who don't share our opinion. This social taboo to expressing one's own opinion simply polarizes the people, without that the people in turn are more exposed to their own cognitive dissonance forcing us to face our own biases. The social taboo of being opinionated doesn't help our country, it is in fact an obstacle holding us back, and only we the people through the changing our own mindsets can overcome them.

Only if there are jobs which require no college education that need to be done, otherwise no we should not have to go to college to get a "good" job. Now it is encouraged to go to college because there are significantly more jobs requiring an education than jobs that don't, and if too many people don't go to college there might not be enough of them. Plus, going to college only gives you more opportunities not less. However college isn't for everyone, and that's ok, as long as you find a means to make a living.

the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought

Key word... Unlawful. Abortion can be perfectly legal and thus not murder. Exactly What I have been saying from the start. Thanks for proving my point.

It's so comical debating people that hold the same views as every other Liberal I have ever debated. You are like clones of each other. The conversation ALWAYS goes through the same deceptive ignorance to the facts of what is actually going on.

Why are you wasting your time then? Why would anyone want to listen to you if those disagrees with you are all deceptive clones of each other or what have you? Why would we debate you? You must be fun at parties ;). I can understand feeling that way, but that attitude is not going to show anyone the error of their ways nor make them want to engage with you, like me. So you "win", only because I see no value in continuing to engage with you, good luck. :)

You say..."Who are The democrats? I haven't heard of The democrats, I've heard of democrats, but who is this mysterious group The democrats. I am super curious."

You can not be that stupid! OBVIOUSLY when I'm talking about GOP ompromises to stop no restriction late term abortions at 5 months, then The DEMOCRATS oppposing these compromises are the Democrat Congressmen & Senators!

Well if you were smart you'd understand I was trying to make a point, but not all of us are smart and that's ok ;)

Do you have any idea how many times I have wasted time explaining total hypocrsy and double standard on moronic statements such as you not going to base your vote on one issue. YOU CONSTANTLY DO THIS WITH RACISM!

When did I vote based on racism? How would you possibly know if I did? How would you know who I vote for? You aren't stalking me are you? Do I need to call the police? Btw in case you are special and haven't already figured out that I already know you are not referring to me specifically but creating a false equivalency between me and all other democrats, that is kind of the point I'm making.

KingGinger93 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here