The Instigator
Dorb
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Zetsubou
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

A Reading of Genesis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Zetsubou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,658 times Debate No: 12383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (6)

 

Dorb

Pro

I argue that a close reading of the King James version of the Book of Genesis demonstrates that God was not the sole existing entity before the creation of the world.

For the sake of this argument, we will assume that anything written in the King James version of Genesis is truth. Furthermore, no other sources will be allowed. Only a close reading of the words of Genesis can be brought to bear on this argument.

To win this argument, I will only have to prove that there was something else that existed simultaneously with God. This "something else" can be anything. As long as I show that, according to Genesis, there was something other than God, I win.

In Round 1, my opponent will accept. In Round 2 and 3, I will present my argument, and my opponent will have Round 2 and 3 to attempt to refute it.
Zetsubou

Con

Thank you.

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:1-2, http://www.biblegateway.com...

KJB is in English only so no Hebrew secret meanings.
Objects.

Start
1.God

Created Dimensions,
2. Heaven
3. Earth

On Earth
4. Void
5. Darkness
6. Spirit of God
7. Water.

Argument Negated, Thank you please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Dorb

Pro

Before beginning, I'd like to thank my opponent for taking this debate.

To begin, I will present the same passage that my opponent proffers:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light': and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

My opponent claims as follows:

"Start
1.God

Created Dimensions,
2. Heaven
3. Earth

On Earth
4. Void
5. Darkness
6. Spirit of God
7. Water."

I, on the other hand, claim and argue the following:

Start:
1. God
2. Language

Created Dimensions:
1. Heaven
2. Earth

On Earth:
1. Void
2. Darkness
3. Spirit of God
4. Water

I claim that my opponent has forgotten one key element that existed at the start: language. Furthermore, I do not have to prove what language, as long as I can prove that some kind of language existed, some medium through which God speaks. To be more precise, I claim that the words "let," "there," "be," and "light" exist at the start. For the purposes of this argument, I will use the word "language" to designate these words.

The proof that this is the case is the following passage: "And God said, ‘Let there be light': and there was light." Before God speaks, however, Genesis never states that God created language or that God created these words. Because the Book of Genesis does not state that God created language or these words before speaking, we must assume that before the "beginning," before the creation of the dimensions "heaven and earth," language already existed. I thus conclude that before the "beginning," at some point before God begins the creation of the world, God existed with language simultaneously. Because language is something other than God, I claim that something else existed.

Unless my opponent can prove that language IS God, I do not see it can be stated that language did not exist simultaneously with God at the start.
Zetsubou

Con

I accept - some form of language may have existed I need not go off on a tangent of how god communicates. I would like to cite Pro's words in Rounds 1:

"I argue that a close reading of the King James version of the Book of Genesis demonstrates that God was not the sole existing entity before the creation of the world."

Language: Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
-->http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Language is not an entity my argument still stands.

>>>Inferred argument<<<
--If there's language there must be another entity for god to communicate to, right?--

i) No, there can be a language before any form of communication of that Language. Language can exist separate from any person or entity. If there were no humans would English still exist? Yes, but there would be no one to understand or to comprehend it. It would be an ‘unknown unknown'.
In one sentence: Your reasoning has a false Enthymeme, existence of language = existence of life.

ii) There is also another argument, God may just be lonely and schizophrenic so is just talking to himself. Why must he be talking to someone?

Con has the burden to prove to me another entity exists or the burden to prove the existence of language equals the existence of another entity. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Dorb

Pro

Con states: "I accept – some form of language may have existed." In other words, Con accepts my claim that language existed simultaneously with God before creation.

Con argues that language is not an "entity," and that therefore, I must "prove the existence of language equals the existence of another entity." Con, however, provides no evidence that language is not an entity. Con's claim is an empty one. Because Con raises this point, however, I will argue below that "language" is in fact an "entity."

But for the sake of argument, suppose for a moment that language is not an entity. It would not matter to this debate because I clearly stated in R1 that "To win this argument, I will only have to prove that there was something else that existed simultaneously with God. This "something else" can be anything. As long as I show that, according to Genesis, there was something other than God, I win." Because Con agrees that language exists simultaneously with God at the start, it does not matter whether language is an entity or not. I only had to prove "something" existed. I already have, and Con agreed with me. Therefore, it would seem that I have already won this debate.

Nevertheless, I will continue to fortify my argument. I will argue that language is an entity just to remove all doubt on the part of my opponent. First, Con provided no definition of "entity," but merely stated that language could not be one. Therefore, to begin, I will provide definitions of "entity" from two sources.

My first source is the Oxford English Dictionary. I use the OED because it is the most reliable dictionary available. It clearly defines "entity" as: "being, existence, as opposed to non-existence" [1].

Con accepts that language existed. Because an entity is defined as a "being, existence, as opposed to non-existence," I claim that language is in fact an entity. In other words, because language exists, it is therefore an entity. Nowhere does it state that the word "entity" is limited to a "being" with material existence. In fact, as my second source states clearly, an "entity" need not have material existence.

On Wikipedia it states that an entity "need not be a material existence." In short, language, although it has no "material existence," is still an "entity." In the same article, we find that the "the word entity is used in a general sense of a being, whether or not the referent has material existence" [2]. Again, language exists, it has a "general sense of a being," and therefore, it matters not whether it has material existence or not – it is an entity.

If Con plans to argue that language does not exist in his final round, then I make it clear now that I have shown, at the very least, that the word "light" existed prior to creation. Con has already agreed to this claim. Therefore, I can make the claim that the word "light" existed simultaneously with God prior to creation. Point is, something existed with God, and an "entity" is "being, existence." I have nothing further to argue.

In conclusion, language, or at least the word "light," existed simultaneously with God before creation. In R2, Con agreed. Because I have shown that words are entities, I have removed all doubts Con expressed about my initial claims. Therefore, I ask that you vote Pro.

Thank you.

Sources:
[1] http://www.oed.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Zetsubou

Con

Language is not an Entity. This round will be a primarily lexical, from the words and only from the words. Sorry for the tangenting but it's Pro's only argument.

3 definitions for the two terms.

ENITITY
1) Entity - independent, separate, or self-contained existence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2) Entity - Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

3) Entity - That which has a distinct existence as an individual unit. Often used for organisations which have no physical form.
http://en.wiktionary.org...

LANGUAGE
1) Language - the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2) Language - Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

3) Language - A form of communication using words either spoken or gestured with the hands and structured with grammar, often with a writing system.
http://en.wiktionary.org...

---------------------
NOTICE -- The OED is a private dictionary your definition has no verification for the reader. You link – [1] – is no more than a link to the OED homepage. Your definition is groundless.

Criteria.1.
Independent, separate and self contained. Language is not independent, separate and self contained because it is a mental TRUE quasi-object it is dependent on the human mind and dependant on humans. I again ask the question, when no one is speaking it, does a language exist? No. Why? Because there is no evidence for it's existence. That sir is the corporeal distinction.

Criteria 2.
Largely the same. Language is not a particular object. It is mental and non physically existent. See particular in a dictionary. As for discrete (Definition 3 - Separate; distinct; individual; Non-continuous), discrete in this sense in synonymous with what is above.

Criteria 3.
This definition is different to the others. It's similar when it refers to individual meaning but different because it refers to: "organisations which have no physical form". Like language, correct? Yes, like language. What must be taken in account is the two things that must be fulfilled. i) To be an organization of particulars. ii) To be a individual and an self sufficient concept. Language passes one (i) but fails another(ii).

---------------------
>>Analysis of Wikipedia article<<
-> It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Object (philosophy). <- (synonymous?!?!)

-> Paragraph two - "Sometimes, the word entity is used in a general sense of a being, whether or not the referent has material existence; e.g., is often referred to as an entity with no corporeal form, such as a language. It is also often used to refer to ghosts and other spirits.
->Repeat: "Is often referred to as an entity with no corporeal form, such as a language."
->Directly: If it has no corporeal form it is not an entity.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

-----------------------------
The question of Light

Not once have I said light existed before or simultaneously before genesis. Not once have I used the word light. You give no argument as why light existed with God.

"3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
Genesis 1:3-4
http://www.biblegateway.com...

The creation of light is named POST GENESIS, at creation, god existed before light. Argument Negated.
-----------------------------

Resolution affirmed Vote Con.

Thank you.

Websited Direct pages above.
->http://www.biblegateway.com...
->http://en.wiktionary.org...
->http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
->http://www.merriam-webster.com...
->http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
There are two other ways in which I could of won with dorbs other meaning "to prove that there was something else that existed simultaneously with God"
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
There are two other ways in which I could of one dorbs other meaning "to prove that there was something else that existed simultaneously with God"
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Correct CN,
Presenting full resolutions in round 1 will reduce the number of word trick debates on this site.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
This is why people need to learn the nuances of English and state precisely what their resolution is!
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
First, you allowed your opponent to dictate the terms as you conceded the first round. I do not recommend doing this. The term "entity" was relevant to the debate so you should have defined it or at least presented your position in RD 1. Entity would not have been a big deal, but you presented "language" as an entity. A review of the OED definition should have made you aware that this would be a debating point. Again, why not present language as the entity in the first round? You still have not answered this question.

The nature of the debate will determine the requirements for "winning". I don't mind statements detailing what you must accomplish, but those statements must be consistent with the actual debate; I already said this in my last response. If a participant presents a debate on common ancestry and states, "I only have to show two organisms share an ancestor to win" then I would ignore the statement as it is incorrect. This is not something you get to choose.

I gave the reason for awarding the conduct point in my RFD. If you wish to attack my RFD as you did when yvette voted against you then send the debate to me and I will defend it in proper format.

My Advice:
Present your definitions and your full position in rd 1 so anyone accepting the debate will know what she is dealing with from the start.

Do not use off line dictionaries unless you are willing to put the full definition in the comment section for all to read. If you use OED then you must put all of it out there so everyone can see it. The same goes for Blacks Law Dictionary. These great sources are not available to everyone online. Off line sources are fine but you must be willing to give the full context if challenged. I generally accept off line sources as is, but I knew the OED had more than one definition and that you presented only the one that supported your case.
Posted by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
sherlockmethod, thanks for your response. I'm not sure I understand it though. If I start the debate, don't I determine what the terms are for the debate? If one can't determine what the terms are for winning a debate that they start, what is the point of starting one in the first place? I stated what was necessary to win the debate: I stated I will ONLY have to prove that there was something else that existed. I never said I would have to prove this thing was an "entity." Why was I wrong? I was the one who created the debate. I assume that because I create the debate, I designate what the terms are. The use of "entity" had nothing to do with what I would have to do to win. I never intended any semantics with the word. The one who played semantics was my opponent. I was only trying to extract some conclusions from reading the words of Genesis closely. So how does this make my conduct worse? Or for that matter, my argument?

Again, I don't understand where I am using a semantics trick.... Because I did not provide definitions to a word that was irrelevant to winning the debate, at least vis-a-vis the terms I gave for winning? You could say my question is, why does my opponent designate the terms for winning if I started the debate? I would really appreciate any answers you have to these questions, especially so that I can debate better in the future. Thanks.
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Dorb,
In Rd 1 you very clearly use entity to mean "being" referring to God as the sole entity. You were stuck with it at that point. Yes, you made a statement in the round, "To win this argument, I will only have to prove that there was something else that existed simultaneously with God. This "something else" can be anything. As long as I show that, according to Genesis, there was something other than God, I win."

You were wrong. You had to show an entity and you did not provide the definition of entity for opponent. You do not determine what you have to do to "win", we do in reference to points. Your statement was inconsistent with the reality of the debate.
You instigated this debate but did not present proper definitions until after your opponent accepted. You used the word entity to give an impression that you were referring to a being and were then less than forward by not stating your case until after your opponent accepted. Why not put language as your "other entity" and define entity in its entirety in RD 1? You were playing word games and it backfired. Your RD 1 was a semantics trick and that is why I gave conduct to Con.
Posted by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
sherlockmethod, How did I attempt to play semantics? If your read R1 carefully, I never stated that I had to argue language was an entity to win. I stated that I had to show anything else existed to win.... Where are the semantics? And does my usage of "entity" in R1 not appear to allow for language? If anything, it was only shown that for certain definitions, language is not an entity. But for other definitions, langauge clearly is an entity. I don't understand where you come to the conclusion that my particular usage of entity in R1 used one of the definitions that excluded language. Please explain. I ask not because I don't believe you but because I would like to understand my errors. Thanks.
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Pro, why did you not copy the entire definition from the OED so Con could review it? You took one portion of the first definition. Many of the definitions work in your favor but you were dishonest in not presenting all of them since the OED is not accessible without a library card or a pay service. The OED is a great dictionary because it shows how the word was used through time. You did not provide this information. Your usage of "entity" in RD 1 does not appear to allow for language. Conduct and Source: Con

Convincing arguments. Pro attempted to play semantics by using the word entity in one sense (to imply a being existed before/with God) and then presented language as the entity later. Why not make your case in the first round and avoid the tricks? The implication of another being seemed to be Pro's point and Con accurately argued for exclusion of language as an entity. CA: Con
Posted by obrya1jr 6 years ago
obrya1jr
Stupid semantics. The translations are so loose in the king james version of the bible that all 19 goddard kids would slide out of it like it was a clown car. Plus, God and the bible don't hold a candle to Pastafarianism and the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Oh please Flying Spaghetti Monster, please bless these people. Can I get a RAAAAAMEN!?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
DorbZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
DorbZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Bravo453 6 years ago
Bravo453
DorbZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ANoobOwner 6 years ago
ANoobOwner
DorbZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
DorbZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
DorbZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23