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.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Kellogg

Reward Points:27
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.
84%
Arguments:18
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

Biocentrism, using the definition in the title, is not the opposite of Anthropocentrism.

It is a symbiosis. It is actually the balance of the two 'centrisms', each of which is parasitic.

I believe it is equally wrong to let humans use the environment unrestrainedly, and to deny them the right to work in it at all.

Both have the right to survive. Humans are capable of destroying the environment, and we know this. Humans are also capable of destroying each other, and true Biocentrism (parasitic) would be one way to do that.

[also- i am talking about extremes. The spectrum between surviving in an environment and encroaching on it lies between theses extremes, and is somewhat a matter of policy.]

2 points

a teenage mind will think masculinity and femininity can only be physical descriptions.

also, why couldnt the reference to god's image be to something other than gender, like creativity, etc

3 points

Jesus was a man that walked the earth. everyone for 2010 years has agreed on that point. it is indisputable that he lived and walked and talked with people, who followed him, loved him, were disappointed by him, or killed him, but none who made him up themselves. his words and actions are recorded in various places including the gospels, which were written by the people who followed him wherever he went for 3 years, and separate, secular histories that concur with the bible on his humanity and existence.

you may dispute his claims to deity, you may declare his words to be false, but you cannot deny his existence.

we have created synthetic viral life: what of the rest of life, including ourselves?

1 point

this is a valid point because it introduces an implication:

IF God exists THEN the Creation vs. Evolution argument is affected.

2 points

--it is not a faulty analogy because humans, plants, and watches are more complex than rocks, though maybe differing by degree (and see above).

and the degree does not detract from the argument, rather it strengthens it.

--also, if the watchmaker is more complex than the watch, how does the principle of greater complexity allow complex artifacts to arise in nature? how does such a principle allow us to dismiss the analogy(see above--'degree')?

what about entropy and the law of thermodynamics, in which collective complexity and order are lost over time?

2 points

ID is about specific complexity and information.

"the letter A is specific but not complex; the sequence NDEIRUABFDMOJHRINKE is complex, but not specific; the sequence METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL has specific complexity and is recognizable as a sentence. the sentence contains the type of information we would like to describe, the kind of information characterized by specific complexity."

--my paraphrase from Dembski's book intelligent design

--there is specific complexity in the watch, such as refined and shaped metal; various gears, springs, and levers in concert (complexity) that move hands across markings in regular, geometric forms that convey specific meaning.

these things DO NOT arise from nature-- particularly refined metal and plastic, and therefore also those shapes and qualities that refined metal can provide, such as springs, do not arise in nature either.

no known mindless natural process can produce a gear, let alone multiple gears, levers, and springs that fit together in different ways to move a hand in a regular manner that provides information about the path of the sun through the sky.

for that matter, what known mindless natural cause produces living beings? none. (read about Spontaneous Generation -- the first proof ever developed in modern science, the one that gave birth to the scientific method, proved that living things arise only from other living things.)

2 points

to answer the question, "who created God?" :

God is, by his nature, uncreated.

either everything came from nothing, or everything came from something.

nothingness cannot produce anything, ever, so the only option left is that SOMETHING must have always existed, and caused or created everything else.

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5lY0TcdAw

8 points

the debate over the Criteria for existence continues:

-is a lack of physical observation and materialistic experience sufficient to Disprove God's existence?

-is emotional or immaterial experience of God sufficient to Prove it?

here's an argument For the existence of God:

1-god is spirit: therefore immaterial and invisible

2-therefore the existence of God CANNOT BE TESTED by mere lack of physical evidence of his being or residence

(2a-example: the loch ness monster. does it exist? well, can we find it? see it? does it leave 'footprints'? does it show up on sonar? we look for physical evidence of the existence of physical beings, supplemented by deduction and induction.)

(2b-how does one look for immaterial beings?)

3-immaterial, invisible things exist, such as: Purpose, Truth and Falsity, Knowledge, Character, Innocence, Logic, Commitment, and the Emotions.

(3a-this is a short list. most any concept, quality, or abstract thing would qualify)

(3b-materialists would say knowledge, etc, and especially emotions are not abstract but are merely chemicals and electricity in the brain.

this is an insufficient description-

emotions may have a physical cause (i disagree) and a physical manifestation (indisputable) and still transcend them-

knowledge may be stored physically and still be abstract-

form is not matter, yet interacts with it.

commitment, etc, are even less physical.

what of truth? logic? modern science has these as their foundation: having the intent to discover Reality (the True way things are) by methodical, logical means.)

4-therefore, a materialist does not have a complete, comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge of the universe

(4a-and can only describe the physical manifestations of immaterial things, not their essence. just like someone may follow the letter of the law and disobey the Spirit of it. this is the use of a technicality to escape the intent and purpose of a rule)

5-therefore the test of God's existence is not materialistic.

TO BE CONTINUED

2 points

if death doesn't exist, life doesn't exist either, because death is the end of life.

does life exist? what is life?

1 point

Part 1: personhood requires life.

living beings "undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce." --wikipedia

i include in this the ability to interact with their environment.

although there are dead people, they were once alive, and couldn't have achieved personhood otherwise.

Kellogg has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Chap
Age: 14
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States

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