All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

# God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 7/20/2013 Category: Religion Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 3,434 times Debate No: 35787
Debate Rounds (4)

47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
If there was no energy, the energy sum would be 0. If we have a universe, the positive and negative balance out to give us a sum of 0. Zero sum can refer to BOTH no energy, and a universe with has a positive energy that balances out with the negative. This means,.it doesn't matter whether we have a universe or not, the sum remains the exact same. This means, no laws of conservation are broken.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
"Zero sum is not the same as No energy"

If there is a state of no energy, and you were asked to sum it up, what would it be? 0. You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether we have a universe or not, the energy sum remains the

"Zero sum simply refers to the balance between positive and negative energy."

Once more, you are ignoring the point! If there is no energy, the sum would be the same as if there is a universe! 0. Thus, no additional energy is needed to get the universe going.

"The energy (positive, negative, balanced) exists and it created the universe. "

The universe could have came from no energy at all. You are making up this imaginary energy that had to start the universe haha
Posted by DT 5 years ago
Well, let me be quick on this one ;)

Zero sum is not the same as No energy.

Zero sum simply refers to the balance between positive and negative energy.
The balance does not mean "no energy" the same way that balance between cash and debt does not mean there is no cash.

The energy (positive, negative, balanced) exists and it created the universe. My argument is simply to show the nature of that energy - it is thermodynamic (can not be created) and it manifested consciousness.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
If there was no universe, and no energy, what would the net energy be? Zero. We have a universe, and what is the net energy? Zero. It never changes, with or without the universe. The conservation of energy would not be harmed. I did not say that anything about "nothing", why do you keep talking about "nothing"? Haha
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
"Just a parting response - the zero-sum was in reference to positive and negative energy cancelling each other, the same way cash and debt cancels each other. But it does not mean NO energy or NO cash nor debt. Energy can transform including to "positive or negative" but it does not preclude that it does not exist."

I did not say energy did not exist. I said that there could be no energy prior to the universe, then the universe can pop into existence, and that wouldn't change the net energy. It would always be zero.
Posted by DT 5 years ago
Congratulations!

Just a parting response - the zero-sum was in reference to positive and negative energy cancelling each other, the same way cash and debt cancels each other. But it does not mean NO energy or NO cash nor debt. Energy can transform including to "positive or negative" but it does not preclude that it does not exist.

The fact that one uses the term "zero sum" is indication that SOMETHING was being summed.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Would someone please counter that last vote bomb? He gave no reason at all why he gave me arguments. A 4 point counter would suffice as he had a good reason to give me the source vote, but if you feel a full 6 counter is justified, then I won't be upset about it.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
"it is nevertheless irrelevant as to whether God really exists or not."

It's relevant as far as the God I defined goes.

"Zero-sum is not NOTHING"

Nobody said a zero sum of energy was "nothing". That is a straw-man. Who said a zero sum energy was nothing? It's not. I made that point to show that no pre-existing energy was needed like you claimed. The universe could spring up from no energy at all.
Posted by DT 5 years ago
Based on the comments and votes, it becomes evident why I made arguments for the following in the first round -

* Futility of Religion
* Universe is NOT from NOTHING

The notions of omni- and maximally great God is based on Western Christian Traditions, is purely a religious claim and is not shared universally. However, since the debate is "God Exists" and not "Christian God Exists", I made it an effort to show the futility of the claims of Religion.

And since I am the first speaker, I merely exercised my privelege to refine the motion, and show that geography-based philosophical understones are never sufficient to address this issue, it is nevertheless irrelevant as to whether God really exists or not.

There were last-minute arguments (zero-sum energy) from the CON which I didn't had the opportunity to address as it was already the last round. But it touches on the very premise of whether the universe came from nothing.

Zero-sum is not NOTHING the same way that cash and debt may cancel each other and show ZERO in the balance sheet, it does not in anyway say that there was NO cash and debt. ZERO SUM may look like NOTHINGNESS, but one can not deny that there was SOMETHING (cash and debt).
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Sorry for the rant, but I honestly feel Fornier is not justified in his vote.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.