God Exists And Humans Depend On God To Live
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
*Rules*
1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote.
2. All votes *must* have thorough, serious reasons for voting and both debaters agree, by accepting this debate, to publicly ask the mods to remove those votes, after the debate, if the votes are not serious or thorough.
3. By accepting this debate, both debaters and the voters (and maybe one day I can say the moderators too) agree that any vote that is dishonest (defined below) about what occurred in the debate will be requested publicly by both debaters, after the debate, to be removed by the mods.
Dishonest votes include:
a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.
b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.
c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.
d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.
e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.
f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.
g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.
4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest (see above) or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.
5. Death23, ethang5, and any of their related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate because of the dishonesty section of the rules.
--------
*Full Resolution*
God exists and humans depend on god to live.
Pro
Has the BoP, 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to AFFIRM that god exists and humans depend on god to live; Pro should also refute Con.
Con
Has 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to NEGATE that god exists and humans dpend on god to live; Con should also refute Pro.
--------
*Definitions*
god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
superhuman - above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/superhuman
existence - something that exists.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/existence
exists - has objective reality or being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exist
humans - members of the Homo Sapiens species; human beings belonging to the genus Homo.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homo_sapiens
depend on - rely on.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/depend
live - remain alive.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/live
--------
May the better argument win!
Without a future, there is no fortune.
Without god, there is no human fortune.
A physical thing is composed of matter. Doesn’t matter if it’s a gas, liquid, solid or plasma—it is still composed of matter.
We arrive at this simple conclusion by observing the world around us and using our reasoning:
A physical thing can not create itself.
- That rock over there didn't create itself. Something else had to create it.
- That car over there didn’t will itself into being. Something had to create it.
- That building was created by something.
- The earth was created by something, it didn’t create itself.
We observe this fact, through science, about every physical thing around us. There is not a physical thing that we observe that is believed to have created itself.
One can ask these basic questions about every physical thing we observe— how did it come into existence? It could not have created itself, so WHAT created it?
As stated, when one asks this question repeatedly of everything, one ultimately arrives at the question “Well, what about matter itself?” (Reminds me of that Rocky & Bullwinkle quip, “Wassamatta U.!”). “What created matter?”
Well, when one asks the question “What created matter?”, it’s reasonable to use our experience about everything else we observe, via science, and draw the following conclusion “Matter could not have created itself because, as we witness around us, a physical thing can not create itself. It’s reasonable to deduce that this would apply to “matter” itself.”
Therefore, “matter” could not create itself. It’s reasonable to conclude that whatever created matter must be “im-material” (i.e. not composed of matter). In fact, what created the universe must exist OUTSIDE the universe (how would it be part of the universe and create the universe?).
The sun is a physical entity in this universe. It is composed of matter, as is other physical entities in this universe. As shown above, the “sun” could not have created itself. Nor could hydrogen.
While it is true God has power over nature, why is that? Is it because maybe God created nature?
- Did the sun create nature? No
- The Sun, though powerful, is still subject to the laws of physics as well as the theory of relativity. These physical laws/theories bind things within this universe. In other words, physical objects in this universe (me, you…the car…the surfer…and yes, the Sun) are bound by the laws of physics
Your origin of life on Earth is flawed. The sun may have simply just provided the right temperature/pressure for life to begin, that in no way can be translated into "The Sun created life". That would be like saying the oven "made the cake"-- it just simply provided the right environment. In addition, timply because science has replicated the building blocks of earth, this in no way proves that is HOW life originated on earth. I can construct an Atari video game in my garage….that doesn’t prove my way was the way the original video game was constructed.
Your theory on the formation and structure of the Earth is appealing. However, while it might explain the earth and it’s formation, it fails to explain the formation of other physical objects outside our solar system. Nor does it explain things that have non-physical existence, like thoughts, ideas, and concepts.
Just because we schedule our days/nights around the rotation of the earth to the sun, it the beginning it was done out of necessity. Now, with the advent of technology, it’s more of a convenience. In fact, many activities are independent of Night/Day (can I get three cheers for them finally installing lights at Wrigley Field??). I tend to schedule my work day around my Boss’ needs—I’m not about to start worshiping him as a God.
So wow you may follow the path of the ancient Egyptians and worship the Sun (Ra), one would question why? Through your power of reason and deduction, you should be able to deduce that something had to have created the sun, and thus, be more powerful than the sun.
"Allow me to lean on Aquinas, et al, a bit here."
"What created matter?...what created the universe must exist OUTSIDE the universe...the sun is a physical entity in this universe...the Sun, though powerful, is still subject to the laws of physics."
"While it is true God has power over nature, why is that?"
"Did the sun create nature?"
"Your origin of life on Earth is flawed."
"The sun may have simply just provided the right temperature/pressure for life to begin, that in no way can be translated into 'The Sun created life'. "
"Your theory on the formation and structure of the Earth...might explain the earth and it’s formation...it fails to explain the formation of other physical objects outside our solar system."
"we schedule our days/nights around the rotation of the earth to the sun"
"in fact, many activities are independent of Night/Day (can I get three cheers for them finally installing lights at Wrigley Field??)."
"Through your power of reason and deduction, you should be able to deduce that something had to have created the sun."
"While I could refute everything you write in defense of worshiping the Sun..."
"...there's no need to."
All aboard!
"The whole point is, if you can use logic and reasoning to show that some "thing" had to create the universe, the sun, etc, it stands to reason that worshiping the Sun is illogical when something much larger, much more powerful than the Sun is 'out there.'"
More than that, god does not have to be the creator of the universe.
Where did you get that idea Con?
"If you make the claim that people are dependent on the sun, then I would argue yes..."
"Yep, and my response is, there something much greater than the sun-- superhuman too."
"Sorry, I did not concede that God is a physical entity. When did I concede that?"
"The sun is a physical entity in this universe. It is composed of matter."-Con
"Curious, why don't you worship Earth?
So what if other things are worshiped for being superhuman?
Why does there have to be only one, again?
"Having one or two super-human abilities does not a God make. Sorry."
"I can name a whole host of things that a human can do that a sun can't do."
Even if humans have supersolar powers, it wouldn't negate that the sun, praise be unto hydrogen, has greater powers than humans rendering it superhuman.
"God exists and humans depend on god to live. That I believe."
"Sorry Magic Mike, you've done nothing to prove that the Sun is a God."
"You fail to understand the basic definitions, like "contingent". You stretch it to mean what you want. Nice playin with ya."
contingent on/upon - occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case.
"you think dreams/ideas/thoughts have a physical existence."
But while we're here, things that are contingent on the physical are physical themselves though they are not made of matter; they are contingent on matter, so are therefore physical.
"Likewise, you think the "God" simply means has some greater powers than a human"
Oblivious.
"But i stand by my statement, having a few powers greater than a human does not a God make. Sorry. It doesn't work like that."
"What you haven't proven is this: the sun is a God. The sun is a god in your mind. I get that. "
The mere fact that I've repeated the damn phrase about hydrogen so many times proves that I praise and worship the great hydrogen ball, and this satisfies the resolution.
"Of course, as an atheist, I'm sure you believe Truth is subjective."
b) Even if I reject the god claim made by countless religions, I still believe there are objective truths.
"In case your curious, I've already won the debate."
Thanks for the concession Con.
Maybe I'll prove that your god isn't real in a different debate...it'll be fun to watch you squirm to try to demonstrate such a ridiculous god.
Hahahaha, Con looks funny when he squirms.
As a preface, head moderator bsh1 has already publicly confirmed that additional “rules” included in the debate description are not binding on debaters, voters or moderators. Only the actual rules of the site as called upon from the Code of Conduct are enforceable;
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/755?page=1&post_number=4
Pro, as instigator, makes the outrageous claim that the sun is god, the sun exists, the sun is an important element of the ecosystem upon which humans rely, thus, humans “depend on god to live!” Clearly, nobody denies that the sun exists or that our ecosystem relies on it, so this debate hinges on if Pro can angrily intimidate his opponent into accepting his claim that the sun is god… which didn’t go too well to say the least!
First, Con begins by stating that he will be paraphrasing famous theologian Thomas Aquinas (thus indirectly using a source) to demonstrate that the idea of a “god” is more complex and detailed than his opponent is trying to paint it. Instead, he points out that the sun is merely a physical object, not even a sentient object at that. To this end, he draws attention to serious philosophical flaws in Pro’s claims, such as his claim that the sun created life on earth, when all the sun actually did was produce light which was part of the ecosystem that sustains life, not the actual creator of life itself. Pro’s only real rebuttal was to angrily demand that his opponent strictly obey the definitions and “rules” he created for the debate (some of which didn’t even appear until after the debate started, meaning they weren’t even included in the actual description). Con easily rejects this and continues.
Next, Con demonstrates the flawed logic within the “definitions” Pro uses. Pro claims that the sun is “superhuman” because of the size and shape of the sun. Con points out that if the definition of “superhuman” is allowed to be as broad as any feature or trait that humans lack, then it would be all too easy to use that same logic to extend godhood to any object. For example, since an elephant is “stronger” than a man, this gives the elephant a “superhuman” trait according to Pro’s definition, and thus an elephant would be a “god” by such a definition. Con also points out that the earth itself shares many of the same traits which Pro attributed to the sun (size, shape, essential for life, etc), so why doesn’t Pro also worship the sun? Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this, other than to become increasingly angry and repeatedly demand that his opponent obey his special “rules” and definitions. Con once again refuted the idea that he was in any way obligated to obey these "rules" and definitions, particularly since Pro was clearly stretching the definitions to fit his own personal meaning, rather than the commonly accepted and intended meaning of the words.
The final nail in the coffin of Pro’s argument comes from Pro himself. After becoming increasingly hostile and visibly angry throughout the whole debate, Pro finally loses his temper in the final round and descends into one of the most childish insult frenzies I’ve ever seen that didn’t take place on a kindergarten playground. This obscene behavior is not only enough to cost him the conduct point for the debate, but if the best rebuttal he can think of in the final round is to launch childish ad hominem at his opponent, it rather solidly proves that he never had a real argument in the first place.
Arguments and conduct both go to Con.
1.) conduct: RFD for conduct in comments , and was deemed sufficient.
2.) arguments. This RFD is updated - removing all information provided for feedback as follows:
The definitions pro uses throughout are defined —IN HIS OPENING ROUND—, and cannot possibly be considered agreed to. At no point can I consider any of the definitions pro presented in the CONTENT OF HIS DEBATE to be automatically assumed to be true.
As a result I cannot and will not consider pro to have successfully defined and won his position by unilateral fiat in this case - the definitions used are clearly defined in pros CONTENT and subject to challenge.
Additionally - the CoC clearly states that I must not consider debate comments or other votes in the RFD (which I don’t), but even in the comments there is no example where con accepts the definitions, so I must as a voter assume that the newly presented definitions that pro uses HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED.
Everything PRO said, and argued in every round concerning the sun being god is accepted as unrefuted and true in every single argument he produced based on his definitions - predicated on those definitions being correct and accurate.
However, as explained - challenging these definitions is relevant and valid.
Cons primary argument, used throughout is that pro is using his definitions incorrectly, that he is stretching definitions, and that doing so has absurd results: this is his primary argument used throughout. The standout example of this, where con points out that the way pro is using his definitions is so absurd, it could be used to show that elephants or the earth are god, con points out throughout that this clearly isn’t what the definition —shared in Pros opening round — are intended to mean, and clearly explains that pro is stretching the definitions to suit his case - rather than those definitions being correct.
Given cons knockout argument that pro is misusing his R1 posted definitions: pro must show that he is using the definitions correctly, and that the definitions he uses - as worded and as used - are correct as per cons objections
Pro singly and solely rejects all of cons argument out of hand either by saying that the definition is accepted and can’t be challenged or by simply repeating the definition that pro is challenging.
As a rebuttal I find this WHOLLY insufficient as an argument and result in any rational voter having to view pro as completely dropping cons primary contention and effective kritik - and thus surrenders the entire contention he is making. As he offers no other argument - pro must be considered to have failed to meet the essential burden of proof he agrees to.
Pros only other argument - that con conceded, is not sufficient in my view. I don’t consider that cons statement supporting God, is a statement of personal belief, not a specific or implicit concession. To be a concession, con needs to accept or acknowledge pro has met the specific contention of the debate - which con falls far short of. And is thus not accepted.
Con's arguments were, at bottom, a rejection of Pro's definitions. And rejecting Pro's definitions violates the terms of the debate.
Rule #1:
"The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote."
Some of Con's arguments (paraphrased; forgive me):
"The sun, being made of matter, could not have created itself. Or life on Earth."
- Pro's definition of God says nothing about creation, so in the context of this debate, being a creator is not a necessary component of godhood.
"The sun is not God and cannot logically be called God."
- The sun actually does meet Pro's definition of God as worded.
"Pro has not proven the sun is God."
- I do believe he doesn't have to. It's not what the debate is about. He just has to make sure the sun meets his provided definition of a god. And it does. From there, all he has to prove is a) the sun exists and b) humans depend on the sun to live. I don't feel that Con really met Pro on either of those points. He spent most of his time arguing that the sun is not God, mostly by trying to bring his own definitions and outside presuppositions into the debate.
So I award arguments to Pro.
Pro's sources -- Oxford Dictionaries, Wikipedia, theplanets.org, Universe Today, National Academy of Sciences, etc -- were sufficient to back up Pro's definition of "god" and to back up the solar properties Pro argued fulfilled said definition of "god" (superhuman, power over nature, power over human life). Weighed against Con's sources in support of his argument, which were nil, I award sources to Pro.
Conduct a tie. Neither side was exactly genteel. Yes, this is another debate from Mag employing sneaky wording and very selective definitions, but on the other hand I feel like this should be fairly clear to anyone who reads the debate description thoroughly. It's all laid out there. Plus other members give warnings. But people still accept the debates without seeming to understand that they will have to compete while handcuffed. I am not without some sympathy. It seems the only real way to escape defeat is to not accept the debate.
Observation 1: This debate pro needs to prove 2 things: God exists, and that humans depend on Him to live. Pro does not have to argue which God is real, just that a God exists and depends on him to live.
Observation 2: By accepting the debate, one necessarily accepts the rules and definitions provided. If one does not agree with those rules or definitions, they need to work that out prior to accepting the debate.
Pro's main argument was that the sun meets his definition of God and humans depend on the sun to live, ergo God exists. Con's main rebuttal was that the sun is a created object and thus is not God. However even if we grant that, con makes a huge blunder by arguing that God exists, only it is not the sun:
"Yep, and my response is, there something much greater than the sun-- superhuman too - more deserving of worship than the Sun. In fact, the sun depends on IT for it's existence."
Con needs to show that God does not exist OR that humans do not depend on Him to live. He fails to meet this burden. By arguing that the sun is not God but God is God, he concedes the resolution.
Because I didn't feel like it was necessary. I certainly could have given pro the source and possibly the conduct point also.
Thanks Virt. I'm a work in progress.
Out of curiosity, why did you vote sources a tie?
Much better on explaining the source point
There ya go. We'll see if it passes inspection.
So, as Con highlights the terminological issues with pros argument - and pros completely failure to offer a rationalization of this interpretation - I cannot accept that his definitions can be interpreted in the way he said - thus the remainder of his argument concerning the ways in which the sun matches his interpretation - are irrelevant.
Pro attempted a Hail Mary - by claiming con conceded. I viewed cons statement not as a concession that you proved the contention - but that he personally believes in God: while I would discourage con from doing this, it was not substantial or significant enough to award pro points on a technicality.
Ironically, Pro was hoisted by his own petard - by deliberately making terms vague and ambiguous to wrangle his argument, his shifted his burden into establish his interpretation of the definitions that were agreed - if he attempted to justify this position he would have probably lost, as it would have alerted his opponent to the primary flaw in his position - if he didn’t attempt to justify his position, he fails to meet burden of proof. Pro does not defend his interpretation - simply asserting that this interpretation of the supplied definitions is correct - as this is the sole factor this entire debate hinges on, pro has obviously not established it, and con successfully casts doubt on it.
Arguments to con
Arguments:
Pro hinges his entire argument on definitions and semantics - if I accept every thing he said about the sun - his definitions still do not appear correct, nor valid in the context of the contention of the debate as I understand it: even with the definitions - I am highly skeptical as to why and how Pro could interpret the definition of God to include the sun and expected pro to justify why his interpretation of the definition was fair and reasonable. While I was perfectly willing to be convinced, no such argument was forthcoming that I could see at any point in the debate.
Pro may argue until he is blue in the face, that the Sun meets his interpretation of the definition - but if he doesn’t show his interpretation is valid, then the burden of proof he has an the positive claim is not satisfied.
Dictionary definitions are based on usage and meaning of the words as they are commonly used - not the other way around. As a result, I summarily reject pros argument that terms were “agreed”, as Con points out - elephants would match the definition of “superhuman”, but it would not generally be categorized as such. It is up to pro to argue that the vague and all encompassing interpretation he uses - which would also cover cows and magnets - is the right one to use.
While this makes me skeptical: I would not have awarded argument points had con not, in round 3, pointed this out:
“2. You stretch definitions to fit what you want.
Likewise, you think the "God" simply means has some greater powers than a human. No, there is more to a God then just that. The mighty elephant is stronger than any man. One can say it has super-human strength. But i stand by my statement, having one or a few powers greater than a human does not a God make. Sorry. It doesn't work like that”
Conduct: This debate and the way it played out appeared to be a deliberate bait and switch attempt by pro, with repeated deliberate omissions in his debate definition (see below) that seem clearly intended to trick a debater into accepting his debate based on the premise appearing to be saying one thing, only to have the entire premise turned on its head the moment his opponent accepted. This sort of shamefully dishonest conduct should not be tolerated on any debate. This together with pros petulant insults addressing his opponent which were utterly unnecessary: “Con obliviously asks:”, “Con whines:” makes penalization on conduct more than warranted. Conduct to con.
Sources - Pros argument were solely reliant on the specific definitions he used. Upon analyzing pros sources, there were misquotes and omissions which meant that pro was not arguing the definition he sources. The effect of these errors made his definition more ambiguous and broad so when considering the actual sources linked - not the misstated quotes - the sources actively undermined pros semantic argument. As a result I could trivially determine that pros argument was less strong than it seemed on its face just by looking at these sources.
Examples include his claim that the sub is a “perfect sphere” - his source says the sun is merely “near perfect” - which is not the same thing: his definitions for “being” in addition, specifically omitted key parts to the definition specifically related to “especially intelligent”. (Also some noted in comments)
As pros sources actively undermined his argument, he would have been better served posting no links or definitions at all. While con cited no sources, the lack of sources did not actively harm his argument - thus Sources must go to con for this reason.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action:Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, conduct, and sources.
>Reason for decision: Posted above
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficient, but arguments and sources are not. (1) Voters are required to assess the debate as it is presented. They are allowed to supplement that assessment with some deeper dives into the source materials given in the debate, but there must be some assessment based on how they're actually used. The voter must accept the rules and definitions of the debate in evaluating their vote regardless if they agree with it or not. (2) The voter is required to specifically assess sources given by both sides. Since the opposing side presented no sources one cannot give them the source point regardless of how poor the other side's sources were.
************************************************************************
That's ok, put up another vote with the correct source points allocations, the rest of the rfd is fine
Yup, that's my bad. Sorry about that, Pro and Con.
Con's arguments were, at bottom, a rejection of Pro's definitions. And rejecting Pro's definitions violates the terms of the debate.
Rule #1:
"The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote."
Some of Con's arguments (paraphrased; forgive me):
"The sun, being made of matter, could not have created itself. Or life on Earth."
- Pro's definition of God says nothing about creation, so in the context of this debate, being a creator is not a necessary component of godhood.
"The sun is not God and cannot logically be called God."
- The sun actually does meet Pro's definition of God as worded.
"Pro has not proven the sun is God."
- I do believe he doesn't have to. It's not what the debate is about. He just has to make sure the sun meets his provided definition of a god. And it does. From there, all he has to prove is a) the sun exists and b) humans depend on the sun to live. I don't feel that Con really met Pro on either of those points. He spent most of his time arguing that the sun is not God, mostly by trying to bring his own definitions and outside presuppositions into the debate.
So I award arguments to Pro.
Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro.
Conduct a tie. Neither side was exactly genteel. Yes, this is another debate from Mag employing sneaky wording and very selective definitions, but on the other hand I feel like this should be fairly clear to anyone who reads the debate description thoroughly. It's all laid out there. Plus other members give warnings. But people still accept the debates without seeming to understand that they will have to compete while handcuffed. I am not without some sympathy. It seems the only real way to escape defeat is to not accept the debate.
Upon reevaluation of Castin vote, we find that Castin does not meet the voting standard. Their RFD is posted above. The issue is the source point.
"Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro."
As the COC says
The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. ***Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources.*** There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Castin // Mod action:Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources.
>Reason for decision:See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently explains all points.
************************************************************************
Nah I don't think this can be topped for wording & succinctness: "Con needs to show that God does not exist OR that humans do not depend on Him to live. He fails to meet this burden. By arguing that the sun is not God but God is God, he concedes the resolution."
Best vote goes to Virt imo.
That's cool, I definitely identify with that. If I may suggest, it sounds like what you want is the forums, then. No criteria, no rules, no votes. Just discussion. It's my preference.
For instance you may have enjoyed this debate a lot more if you'd had it in the religion forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/16/topics
Hahahah thank you for appreciating my hyrdrogen humor, that was my favorite part of the debate as well, and you did quite an excellent job explaining exactly why Pro should win this thing, even if the definitions are undesirable/unfair and even if Pro is kind of a gigantic dick, which in fairness, I kind of am. Thanks for the honest vote, and I think you may have a better vote than Virt...just sayin'...Virt's vote's good too.
That was my favorite line of the entire debate!
Appreciate the comments. As noted earlier, I don't care about votes, etc. lol. I'm just here to engage in discussion and debate.
As noted elsewhere, I’m not here to “win” debates, garner votes, or win approval form others. I’m here to engage discussion.
I don’t adhere to the following formula:
a) Here are the rules/definitions of the debate (regardless of how outlandish they are)
b) If you agrees to the debate, you accept these rules/definitions
c) If you accept the debate, you agree to my definitions.
d) I can say what I want within the confines of my rules and definitions, can you cant counter because you agreed to the rules by accepting my definition.
e) Therefore I win
It’s pretty laughable actually. I think the only thing it accomplished was underscore the fact that the way he wins is by defining things his own way. Lol
Did anyone else laugh and harder and harder with every "praise be unto hydrogen"?
I got the concession I wanted so whatevs.
I get it that you don't understand the concept that just because X is dependent on the physical, doesn't make X physical.
Physical thing is needed for a thought, but that doesn't mean the thought is physical. Again, yo usay it is, but you can't prove it.
Science can't measure, weigh, or take any physical dimensions of a thought-- because there are none. And you've yet to point to any science that says otherwise. lol.
I think you've said a lot in your arguments:
1. You believe in stuff not supported (even refuted) by science
2. you stretch definitions
Thanks for playin'. lol
"No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical."
Thank you.
So anytime you are dealing with thoughts you must necessarily be dealing with something physical, is that right?
"the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical."
This may prove we're done here.
That's exactly what it shows man.
No physical thing, no thought.
" "Show me a person that is not contingent on air."
Right, but air doesn't produce people.
But if I said show me a person that is not contingent on cells, you'd have to admit that in order to deal with a human, you will have to deal with cells right?
"I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical."
I mean that's enough for me, we're good.
And I agree that thoughts are not the same substance as brains and neurons, I'm fine with that.
No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical. But I have no need to-- the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical.
That's like me saying "Show me a person that is not contingent on air. See that proves people are air!" Sorry. it just doeson't work that way.
I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical. But we all know just because something is dependent (contingent) on the physical doesn't mean it's the same nature/substance as that which it's dependent on.
Ok, well it's all kind of irrelevant to the resolution, and yes while constructs are contingent on the physical they are not made of the same material, i.e. not made of matter, I'll agree, but they are still physical because, you cannot provide an example of a thought WITHOUT its contingency matter.
Can you show that please?
Yep. It's basically saying is dependent upon lol.
X is contingent upon Y. Meaning, X exists only if Y is the case.
THis does not mean X is the same nature or substance of Y.
Dictionary didn't tell me I'm wrong. The dictionary you used simply bolstered my case. Simply because something is dependent on on something else, it doesn't mean that "that something" is physical, non-physical, etc.
Yet again, you're simply stretching a definition because you can't come to terms with the fact that non-physical, non-material things do indeed exist.
"Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more."
contingent on/upon - occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/contingent
You knew that though, right?
"Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things"
Now, that you've seen the dictionary tell you you're wrong, maybe you'll change this ridiculous idea.
Due to thoughts "existing only if" a brain and neurons existing "are the case."
Admit it.
You didn't know this, now you look silly.
Contingent. Allow me to quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do think it means what you think it means.” LOL
Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more. If something, let’s call it “X”, is contingent upon something else, then that means it’s dependent upon it. If something, X, is dependent on a physical thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that “X” is itself a physical thing. Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things. Any attempt to use contingent in this way is stretching the definition to fit what you want. I’m using the definition that is agreed upon by scholars.
Perhaps you can point to sources that use contingency the way you use it?
Again, the fact that you have to look to something else (i.e. brainwaves) instead of physically describing (scientifically observing) dreams/thoughts/ideas themselves makes it obvious—you are unable to physically describe idea/thought/dream because they have no physical dimensions. And why is that? Because they are not physical things.
Do you agree that the sun is a real entity, a deity, and an existence/being?
Ok.
Here's the definition of home, from Oxford dictionaries.
home - the place where one lives permanently, ESPECIALLY as a member of a family or household.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/home
Even if one did not live as a member of the household or family, one could still live permanently somewhere and this would satisfy "home."
Do you agree?
If you agree, then you also agree that an entity could be real, as Con conceded to be the case already in the debate, even though it's not especially an intelligent one.
So, the qualifier "especially an intelligent one" does not negate the sun being a real entity, just like not especially being a specific member of a household or family does not negate your dwelling being your home.
“(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.”
You missed off the specific condition of deity.
“A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.”
You missed out the key distinction at the end: where being in this sense is not abstract but especially implies intelligence.
You should probably correct these definitions in the next round: because it would be very easy for con to win this debate by simply pointing out these definitions and refute you based purely on semantics and selection of definitions.
What am I missing here that the sun does not satisfy?
god - a superhuman BEING worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
being - A REAL or imaginary living creature or ENTITY.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being
entity - a thing with distinct and independent existence....existence; being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/entity
Matthew 7:13 states, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."
Matthew 25:46 states, "And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
https://www.openbible.info/topics/hell
https://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell
Um, ok, but you realize that the sun satisfies "real entity" just as much as it satisfies, "existence" right?
That’s not up to me to decide, I’m just saying that It would be VERY easy for your opponent to argue that the sun is not an entity in the context of the definition you linked of “being”.
Is the sun "A real entity?"
That's in the definition you said should be there.
So if it were there, the sun would still satisfy it, no?
Well no, not inconsequential at all. If the correct definition was used this would be an excellent discussion on God and dependence.
Using the wrong definition means that Con could win the argument by correcting your definition rather than disproving God. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent.
Eh...inconsequential.
A real entity, an existence...who's counting, right?
I’ve spotted a significant copy and paste error MAR. You copied the wrong definition for “being” from the dictionary.
It’s obvious that you meant to past was:
“A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.”, which is the correct definition for “being” in the context of a personality or God.
Instead you actually pasted the more generic “existence”.
I wanted to point this out, as it must have been an accidental copy and paste error, and it would detract from the quality of the debate if both sides accidentally mistakenly argued the wrong definition.
"While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc)."
Yes, it does, and I also linked the video with it, I guess you didn't watch it.
"Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not."
Then we're done here, because you don't understand contingency.
If something is contingent on the physical it CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE PHYSICAL.
It is because of this inextricable link that constructs, though not made of matter, are contingent on the matter of neurons and brains.
No matter, no thoughts, period.
"Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing"
Yes it does, because there is no thought without the physical brain.
I agree it's not made of matter, but it's physical all the same because it is a product of matter, you cannot point to a thought without a brain or neural substrates or you would have done it already.
Contingent on the physical means it can only exist if the physical exists, so it's effectively physical.
Quantum particles, gravity...come on.
"it just means it depends on the brain"
You like so many people online don't understand that contingent means CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT...it doesn't mean dependent...you're wrong again.
"I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical"
There are things that are physical and there are things that are contingent on the physical...now that you know what contingent actually means, this should make more sense to you.
"So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical"
No, your misunderstanding of the word contingent doesn't solve your problem.
When things are contingent on the physical, they are physical themselves, though not made of matter.
Finally, just to reiterate, the question is not about whether something is contingent or not. The question is on whether or not non-physical things (things that are "im-material" or not made of amtter) exist or not.
I would argue everything we observe/experience is contingent (dependent upon) something else. I would challenge you to find one thing in this world (nay, the universe) that is not contingent on something else.
So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical (material) or non-physical (im-material).
Again, let me re-iterate-- are there things that exist that are not physical/material things? I believe you would agree that yes, there are things that exist that are not physical/material. Correct?
Again, the multi-tasking etc, doesn't say anything about the content of the thought My original comment was that Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. You posted the link as a counter to my statement-- but the counter doesn't work. What does the study show? At best it shows they can tell when a person is thinking. What does it not show? WHAT the person is thinking. Big difference. But you understand that, right? Science has yet to be able to analyze the brainwaves of a person and be able to say definitively "Yes, this person is thinking of a monkey juggling 4 bowling balls while riding a Harley Davidson". While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc). I'm often thinking of different things while multi-tasking, and not necessarily the tasks at hand-- perhaps i'm thinking about that letter I forgot to mail....or the burrito i'm having for lunch......or the Spurs 2014 championship (their sweetest, in my opinion). So again, I stand firm on my point-- science has yet to say definitively the content of a thought simply by analyzing brainwaves.
Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not. You understand that, right? Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing-- it just means it depends on the brain. You understand that right?
I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical. While they are contingent (dependent) on physical things to exist, they are not physical things themselves. The fact that non-physical things exist is a very important point, and is the foundation for future arguments.
"The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts."
The first section I highlighted referred to multi tasking.
Multi tasking takes a series of thoughts, and with every subject, these activities were "all found a universal signature of activity."
All who were multi tasking activated the same part of the brain in the same way.
Learn by reading.
"Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity."
Yeah, like what it actually says about universal brain activity.
"I think you've painted yourself into a corner"
Yeah, it's the correct corner, where all who are correct about what they're saying go.
"where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts?"
Read about multi tasking in that study...those types of thoughts are universally indicated.
"You basically cannot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept".
Listen, all of those things are constructs, they are merely contingent on physical things, but are not physical themselves.
If the physical things didn't exist, they would not exist.
Stop asking me about physical dimensions of constructs CONTINGENT on the physical.
When one comes to terms that are there are indeed things that can not be measured/observed via science (because they are not physical or material), then one no longer has the platform of "It must be proved by science in order for me to believe it!" to stand on. And this seems to be the platform of many atheists.
Believe me, I was once one of them. lol.
You posted your link to that Berkeley article in response to my point about Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. why would you post that link then in response to my comment?
Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity. The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts. Can you point to the passage in that Berkeley article where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts? Interesting the only mention of the word thought in that whole article are in the title and in the sentence....that's it.
By length, i meant length as a physical measurement, not a measurement of time. I think you've painted yourself into a corner. You basically anot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept". The reason you have to point to brainwaves is because there are no physical attributes of "thoughts" or "ideas", so you are forced to look at something that is the result (or perhaps cause) of thoughts and ideas.
Spacetime-- the jury is stil out on whether it's a physical thing or not. Physicists, the biggest brains in the field, can't even agree on it. So if Physicists can't even agree to it, far be it from me to assume it's true simply because anonymous blogger on a website says it's true. But hey, that's just me.
The bottom line is this-- you're struggling to admit that there are indeed things that exist that are not composed of matter-- that are not composed of physical substance. Things like ideas, thoughts, and concepts. Because science directly measures the physical, the fact these very real things do not have physical presence implies that they can not be measured by science. Sure, you can measure by-products, effects, etc, but you can't measure or observe via science these thoughts or ideas directly. in fact, the by-products or effects are in fact GREAT evidence (dare I say proof) that these non-physical entities exist.
"No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves."
That's not what I said, straw man maker.
I said that we can tell the TYPES of thoughts people are thinking given the areas that light up.
"Here we have eight different experiments, and all found a universal signature of activity centered in the prefrontal lobe that links perception and action. It’s the glue of cognition."
"Initially, sensory areas of the auditory and visual cortex activate to process audible or visual cues. Subsequently, areas primarily in the sensory and prefrontal cortices activate to extract the meaning of the stimulus."
You should read more.
"what color is a thought?"
Well, being that thoughts are contingent on the physical they do not emit electromagnetic radiation, thus no color.
"What is the length of a thought"
Depends on how long the neurotransmitter can sustain transmitting the signal.
"Width?"
Contingent.
"Volume?"
Being that thoughts have no air, they have no vibrating air.
"How much space does an idea take up?"
The amount of space all of its contingent components take up.
Hey, spacetimeis a physical thing, can you run your obnoxious questions about spacetime?
What color is space...length...volume?
Keep in mind, I'm asking you about the thought, not it's byproducts or contigencies....
Don't describe the brainwaves-- I'm not asking you to describe the brainwaves.
Nice try. It's a valiant attempt, but not successful. No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves. Simply put, science has not been able to say something like "This person is thinking of the Titanic" simply by analyzing brainwaves.
Ok. Let's discuss this further:
1. Can you tell me any physical attributes of an idea? Better yet, give me the physical dimensions of "idea" I'll help ya with some basics:
- what color is a thought?
- how much does a thought weigh?
- what is the length of a thought?
- what is the width of a thought ?
- what is the volume of a thought?
2. How much space does an idea or thought take up?
These are pretty basic things we learned in elementary science class when discussing physical objects.
"Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. Science at best says because of the brainwaves, this COULD BE a thougNice try. If you are so sure, perhaps you can point to the specific scientific research that proves this."
https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/01/17/recording-a-thoughts-fleeting-trip-through-the-brain/
and
https://youtu.be/sU8SZwNK9QE
"Contingency is irrelevant to my question. I’m simply asking if you believe if there are things that exist that do not have physical existence."
Ok, then no, all things that exist in the universe are spatiotemporal and physical, including contingent constructs.
**"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I have no reason to believe that there are things that exist that do not have physical existence UNLESS they are contingent on the physical.
I have no reason to believe anything NOT CONTINGENT on the physical exists.**
Contingency is irrelevant to my question. It’s a simple yes/no question. I’m simply asking if you believe if there are things that exist that do not have physical existence. Answer it. Either you do or you don’t. Don’t dance around it with long-winded answers attempting to throw me off-base. It won’t work. Once I ask a question, I’m expecting an answer. I’m not asking you to explain why—if I want to know why, I will ask.
Based on your answers, I am assuming you would answer “YES” to this question. You are also adding on the clarifier/modifier indicating that these things are contingent on physical. So am I right in assuming you believe that non-physical things exist?
**Ok, so because the titanic is from the past and I know of it, it naturally must be in my memory, so to access the relevant facts associated with the titanic, I will need to activate my frontal lobe, and if my dopamine levels are where they need to be for me to accurately be able to communicate that memory from the frontal lobe to my language acquisition device, I can verbally indicate that I can recall images, books, and even movies I've seen that contain those relevant facts about the titanic.
This thought is a construct of the processes my brain and neurons go through with respects to that particular memory.**
Quit dancing around the question. The content of the thought is irrelevant (the contect of the thought could be anything—the Titanic…Jimi Hendrix…..Mother Theresa….Garfield the Cat…Lasagna). I’’m not asking you to provide details about the content of the thought. I’m asking you to provide the details, in physical terms, of “thought”.