The Instigator
abard124
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 14 votes the winner is...
Lexicaholic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,673 times Debate No: 9244
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (14)

 

abard124

Con

I am an atheist Jew. I know that sounds oxymoronic, but we are not debating my belief system. We are debating the first half though.

Now, I have debated this before, and with all due respect to SlamminSam, I wasn't entirely satisfied with the debate, so I would like to have a second debate on it to see the other side.

Now, I know that most people are theists, and as such, I am not expecting to have much backing here, but if you have ever debated me or seen my debates, you would know that I am a strong believer that it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. So in other words, I am conceding that whoever debates me is much more likely to win, but also a caution that I am aware of that, and you shouldn't expect me to go easy because of that.

Because I am arguing Con, I will allow my opponent to argue first. Before that, though, I would just like to throw in the definitions we will be using for this debate.

God-The supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (1)

Exist-to continue to be (1)

Thanks to anyone willing to take this debate, and good luck to whoever accepts! I am looking forward to your argument.

1-Merriam Webster online dictionary
Lexicaholic

Pro

I thank my opponent for allowing me the opportunity (and the challenge) of this debate. Without further ado, my logical, empirical, proof of God:

God is the supreme or ultimate reality as the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. My argument is that God exists, that is to say that God was and is (though not necessarily that God must always be or always was). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [1] John 1:1. This suggests that God holds a two-fold existence as both a personal self-aware being and a primordial force. As a being, God must have some method of possessing awareness, though as a force God need not – and this I think is the key to understanding ‘God.' God is a force that was and became ‘aware.' In other words, God existed before God recognized itself or became aware. We might refer to this state as the godhead, where the godhead is understood to be "the essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly."[2] Or we might refer to it as the Tao, the essential unbiased something that gives rise to all things. [3] Or we might refer to it as the Brahman, the source of creation. [4]

The question is, what is this force that is necessarily aware and yet unaware simultaneously that is yet perfect in being and so revered? The Tao says that I can not name it … certainly I am inclined to agree. However, it must follow that it can be identified. If it could not be, the Tao could not mention it. Therefore, there is no paradox in proving God by comparing the Judeo-Christian conception with the Tao if it is identified but ineffable. That, I believe, it is, as I will explain below.

Many faiths have held that the spoken word is sacred, carrying with it the divine power to cause ill or to bring about miracles. One must wonder – what is the power of the word? A word is "a sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes." [5] Therefore, it follows that a word is a method of passing on information. Information is processed, stored, or transmitted data [6] While it may seem strange to use such a technical definition, it rationally follows when one considers that the rules governing the creation of language follow the same rules for information storage in computer science. [7]

Thus, it follows that the nascent divinity of God, which has held many names, was the first moment when information was transmitted and this event, the rising of the godhead at the beginning, gave rise ultimately to the capacity of that information to recognize itself. How did it do so? It did so through the formation of life. [8] What is life if not a great big rapid process of information exchange? [9] From the smallest organism to the largest, the one unifying element of all life is that information is exchanged therein. Man is said in many faiths to have been set apart from other life, yet man is many ways no different, materially, than most other forms of life. What separates man from life such that man may claim pride in its form, where as other animals would not conceptualize such pride in the first place? It is simple, really. Man has the ability to store vast amounts of data outside of itself in the form of drawings, writings, and complex structures, thereby extending the information exchange process into non-living material and preserving the effect of such information for future generations. So it might be said that what man recognizes as the godhead formed life, that life formed/is God, and that God formed/is man that God might recognize itself.

Of course, life itself is but one of many processes found in nature, and it can be argued that the touch of the sun upon a glass of water informs the water molecules therein to evaporate. This is fine. The godhead would likely better be defined as the necessary first exchange of information for things to be. Life would merely follow as the process by which the grand information exchange informing the motions of the stars and planets recognized itself, within itself.

Of course, this means that in one sense, worshipping God is foolish, and yet, setting forth a cause of worship of God is wise. Worshipping God will do nothing for the worshipper that would not be otherwise accomplished without the worship. However, if life is a process of information exchange (on multiple levels) then the question must be asked, what is the end of this process? I couldn't begin to claim to know. However, whatever end it arrives at will likely depend, at least on this planet, a great deal upon humanity. To guide life towards the reverence of a single vision for this process is possibly to suggest one end for it. After all, the promulgation of a faith represents a new ideation within the information process. This is the so-called sacredness of the word – the recognition that words become beliefs, that beliefs inform actions, and that actions alter life, all life, to some degree. God's qualities do not inform faith. Faith informs God's qualities. "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names" [10]

I believe that, as of now, I have provided a definition and description of God suitable to be upheld against adversity. I therefore turn my theory over to my opponent, that he may pit his beliefs in contention with my own.

[1] http://bible.cc...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu...
[4] http://www.esamskriti.com...
[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com...
[10] http://www.newsweek.com...
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Con

Thank you for your response!

""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [1] John 1:1."
I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but the Bible is in no way an accurate resource. I see it as a work of fiction.

"The question is, what is this force that is necessarily aware and yet unaware simultaneously that is yet perfect in being and so revered?"
No, the question is whether such a force exists. Don't get ahead of yourself.

"How did it do so? It did so through the formation of life."
While you do make a valid point, from an atheist's point of view, you are absolutely on the wrong track. I feel like life started when just the right chemicals came together and there came the first strand of DNA. Eventually, that DNA became part of some ancient eubacteria which evolved into what we now know. So I think you got off on the wrong track and you are now explaining what God did, not whether it exists.

"The godhead would likely better be defined as the necessary first exchange of information for things to be."
So you are saying that "God" is a metaphor? Well, I would agree. Unfortunately for you, the definition that we agreed upon upon was that God is a being. Therefore, you are arguing for me that there is no existing being that we call God.

Even if you mean to be setting down a deist point of view, the definition that we agreed upon states that it is the ruler of the universe, which implies that it is not just what happens, but what makes things happen.

"I believe that, as of now, I have provided a definition and description of God suitable to be upheld against adversity."
Perhaps you have, but you have not suitably described the god which I am arguing against, as I provided the definition in round one. Because you accepted this debate, you agreed to my definitions, and therefore your argument doesn't hold much water.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, and I am looking forward to your next argument!
Lexicaholic

Pro

My thanks to my opponent for his quick response. I will now attempt to address his concerns:

"I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but the Bible is in no way an accurate resource. I see it as a work of fiction."

The Bible is likely not an accurate resource on its own, but as you can see by reading my sources, the appearance of God as being concomitant with a pre-existing expression of a divine/primordial force is held by many faith systems the world over. I have merely explained how this expression can make sense.

"No, the question is whether such a force exists. Don't get ahead of yourself."

Information exists, the passage of information exists, and so to the extent that I refer to the passage of information as the divine/primordial force, it exists.

"I feel like life started when just the right chemicals came together and there came the first strand of DNA. Eventually, that DNA became part of some ancient eubacteria which evolved into what we now know. So I think you got off on the wrong track and you are now explaining what God did, not whether it exists."

If God is the expression of the passage of information necessary to form the processes necessary to form DNA (or RNA, which preceded it) then God must exist of necessity. The real question is: what is information? If I am correct in assuming that information is the expression of data, and that data, when possessed, informs action, then it would seem to make little sense to differentiate the information exchanging processes in life with those found in non-living nature, except, perhaps, that being living creatures we are inclined to differentiate such processes for our own purposes.

"So you are saying that "God" is a metaphor? Well, I would agree. Unfortunately for you, the definition that we agreed upon upon was that God is a being. Therefore, you are arguing for me that there is no existing being that we call God."

This, of course, is the best argument against God as I have defined it under this debate, though it does not necessarily refute my claim. Being has multiple meanings. Being may be "1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life 2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3 : a living thing; especially : person" [1] No belief system I can recall tends to think of God as a living thing, let alone a single person. Certainly some belief systems worshipped ancestors as individual gods, but even there was the assumption of some force or forces that came before and held greater prestige. I think it would be fair to toss out any definition of ‘being' taken to mean a single person or living thing. By regarding being as applying to something other than a single person or life form, it is possible to argue that God is a ‘being' for the purposes of this debate.
The version of God you are probably most familiar with is an omnipresent spirit having omnipotence and omniscience, and being possessed of all good. That version of God arguably still exists, though only if you accept that the concept of spirit is a metaphor for information. Think of it this way: what makes you, you? If, for example, your brain was switched with that of an ape, and the ape held your thoughts and you the ape's, would the ape or the man be you? If you think as I do, you would define the ape as yourself, and the body now occupied by the ape's brain as your possession. Now let us extend this hypothetical scenario further – what if your brain was erased and all the information therein necessary for cognition was stored in a computer? Would the information in the computer be you, or would the thoughtless, mindless brain be you? Once again, there is a sense that it would be better to qualify the information in the computer as yourself, though certainly the concept that what makes you yourself has been wholly removed from anything of yours that was once physical may seem jarring. There is, however, rational cause to value the information over the physical mass that contained it – namely that the information contains the data that gave direction to the physical mass, without which the mass is as good as inanimate. Therefore, to the extent any person exists in a spiritual or true sense, that person exists as information.

Remember, the godhead and God in my argument are one in the same – the function and the recognition of the function are comparative by analogy to the mind and the body (though certainly the analogy is poor). The godhead pre-existed life of necessity as the driving force behind all exchanges of any and all information. Information consists of data. Data informs action. Therefore, nothing acts without God. God is omnipotent. Nothing is known that is not God. God is omniscient. No good thought occurs free from God. God is omnibenevolent. God is in all things. God is omnipresent.

Of course, God is also all data that informs suffering, though the tendency of life to avoid suffering suggests that God holds a preference for a lack of suffering. This is not a new idea, however, even in Judaism. [2]
God, the ‘mind' of the godhead, exists as that information is exchanged within living things that can recognize the process of the godhead in action (though imperfectly through empirical observations of discrete phenomena). Because the recognition event that allowed the function of the godhead to note itself did not occur before life existed to perceive the godhead (by interacting with and recognizing itself), God, as distinct within the godhead, did not exist until such time as life existed to know God. However, as God is defined as that aspect of the godhead experiencing recognition within life, God exists so long as life does as the information being exchanged amongst all living things.

Because God exists within living things, God is partially the information transmitted. If spirit is a metaphor for information, then God is spirit. If this spirit then resides in all things (or rather, all things are through this spirit), as I have said, then this spirit or essence, possessing data that informs the actions of all things, is ruler of all things. To the extent that any living thing thinks, it thinks for/through God. [3] Therefore, God is a being that is ruler of all things. "For from him and through him and to him are all things." [4] Romans 11:36. "Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self." [5]

"Even if you mean to be setting down a deist point of view, the definition that we agreed upon states that it is the ruler of the universe, which implies that it is not just what happens, but what makes things happen."

God, as the first (and continuing) cause of all processes, makes things happen because all causes link back to that first. Provided that the Universe is finite, and that it once existed in a compact and, most importantly, directionless state,[6] no natural process could form that was not a consequence of the first natural process that required that the natural Universe "be." [7]

I now humbly turn this debate back over to my opponent.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.tektonics.org...
[3] http://www.opednews.com...
[4] http://bible.logos.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Con

Thank you for your response!

"My thanks to my opponent for his quick response."
Sorry this one wasn't so quick. I won't try to provide an excuse. I was just slow.

"Information exists, the passage of information exists, and so to the extent that I refer to the passage of information as the divine/primordial force, it exists."
I don't quite see the passage of information as a force, though. Perhaps the reception is a driving force, but the actual exchange, I'm not so sure.

If you don't mind, I'd like to skip ahead and then return to where I was.

""1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life 2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3 : a living thing; especially : person""
So if we toss out definition 3, as it shows it as a person then we are left with the multiple definition 1's and definition 2. Because all of those refer to existence, they get you exactly nowhere, as that's where you're trying to go in the first place. Unfortunately, our agreed definition of "exist" isn't much help. However, the most appropriate definition of "existence," brought to us from Merriam-Webster is an "actual or present occurrence." I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a metaphor or abstract idea is an "actual or present occurrence."

"If God is the expression of the passage of information necessary to form the processes necessary to form DNA (or RNA, which preceded it) then God must exist of necessity."
But God is not the expression of the passage of information.

"If I am correct in assuming that information is the expression of data, and that data, when possessed, informs action, then it would seem to make little sense to differentiate the information exchanging processes in life with those found in non-living nature, except, perhaps, that being living creatures we are inclined to differentiate such processes for our own purposes."
How does that have anything to do with there being a God?

"That version of God arguably still exists, though only if you accept that the concept of spirit is a metaphor for information."
But under the definition of God, you can't do that. It isn't a "Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness."

"Think of it this way: what makes you, you? If, for example..."
Yes, but it is not making me believe in a "Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" who is the "ruler of the universe."

"Therefore, nothing acts without God. God is omnipotent. Nothing is known that is not God. God is omniscient. No good thought occurs free from God. God is omnibenevolent. God is in all things. God is omnipresent."
That is a very good argument, but it isn't arguing for a being.

"If spirit is a metaphor for information, then God is spirit."
Wow! You have a lot of faith in an argument which I made clear last argument that I did not accept!

"Therefore, God is a being that is ruler of all things."
I can see your reasoning for a ruler, but it seems like the being came in in hopes that I wouldn't notice. I noticed.

I would like to thank my opponent for an extremely challenging debate, and I would like to apologize once again for the horrible delay in my argument. Once again, the definition of God is "The supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." Because my opponent did not describe a being, he has failed to prove the resolution; therefore, vote con.

Looking forward to your argument to finish it off!
Lexicaholic

Pro

My thanks to my opponent for presenting me with a fun, challenging, and cordial debate. That last quality is sorely lacking sometimes, and I am glad to see that this is not the case here.

"Sorry this one wasn't so quick. I won't try to provide an excuse. I was just slow."

No worries. It is quality, not quantity, which counts. ;)

1. Information exists, and etc.

"I don't quite see the passage of information as a force, though. Perhaps the reception is a driving force, but the actual exchange, I'm not so sure."

The transmission of data is a twofold process of expression and reception. For reception to occur requires expression of the information to be received. Both are merely two aspects of the same force, as it acts upon and is reacted to.

2. Definitions of Being and of God

"So if we toss out definition 3, as it shows it as a person then we are left with the multiple definition 1's and definition 2. Because all of those refer to existence, they get you exactly nowhere, as that's where you're trying to go in the first place."

They get me somewhere if I show that the ‘being' being discussed exists.

"Unfortunately, our agreed definition of "exist" isn't much help. However, the most appropriate definition of ‘existence,' brought to us from Merriam-Webster is an ‘actual or present occurrence." I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a metaphor or abstract idea is an "actual or present occurrence.'"

I am not positing God as a metaphor or an abstract idea. I am positing God as the definition of the sum of all processes leading to the transmission of information. Similarly I could deconstruct the word ‘tree' into all biological constructs classified as "a perennial woody plant." http://en.wikipedia.org... It's much simpler to say the word ‘tree', though, just as it is much simpler to use the word ‘God' than the sum of all processes leading to the transmission of information such that it necessarily must be that being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness serving as ruler of the universe, and which is frequently the subject of worship.

"But God is not the expression of the passage of information."
This is only one aspect of God, technically. God is arguably greater in scope and expansiveness than the ordinary understanding, but, by virtue of possessing such scope, necessarily includes lesser understandings. If I define John as a ‘person who is a lawyer', and John turns out to also be a doctor, he does not cease to be John because my definition didn't encompass all of what makes John, John. If John turned out to only be a doctor, however, there would be a conflict in definitions. As it stands, God is a being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness (necessarily by virtue of being proven omniexcellent), who just also happens to be even more. Hence my distinction between God and the godhead (i.e. God as we know God and God as God is in God's entirety.)

" it would seem to make little sense to differentiate the information exchanging processes in life with those found in non-living nature"
How does that have anything to do with there being a God?
I was just providing an argument for a full explanation so that you wouldn't limit the scope of God to the information exchanged solely to, by, within, and amongst living things.

"'That version of God arguably still exists, though only if you accept that the concept of spirit is a metaphor for information.'

But under the definition of God, you can't do that. It isn't a ‘Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness.'"

Sure it is. A being does not need to possess consciousness to be. If we assume that life is a small subset within Everything and that consciousness is an epiphenomena of information processing as a small subset in living things, then consciousness, being limited in scope and function, could hardly be the definition of ‘being.' Not even Merriam-Webster requires consciousness. It merely requires that a being actually be.

3. You are what nature would have you think you are.

"Yes, but it is not making me believe in a "Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" who is the "ruler of the universe.""

To the extent that you are powerful, wise or good, or that anyone has ever been so, it has only been through those processes that are described as a subset of that which I have contemplated to be God. Therefore, to the extent such expressions have any meaning, they only have meaning through God.

4. Omniexcellence is rationally proven.

"That is a very good argument, but it isn't arguing for a being."
It is arguing that that which I have classified as a being is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness. This part isn't meant to prove the elements of being.

5. Information = spirit.
"Wow! You have a lot of faith in an argument which I made clear last argument that I did not accept!"

You said you did not accept that God could be a metaphor. I agreed. You said nothing about spirit, which merely describes a quality of God (subset again), not the entire thing.

6. God is a being that is ruler of all things.
"I can see your reasoning for a ruler, but it seems like the being came in in hopes that I wouldn't notice. I noticed."

God is proven as a being earlier and as ruler by necessity of being that which allows rule to occur. I think it would be safe to say that you have conceded all points save ‘being.'

My thanks to my opponent for this opportunity to debate. I do appreciate it. Now I shall make my last appeal:

God must meet these criteria for me to win the debate:
1.God must be a being – hence he must exist
2.God must be supreme in power, wisdom and goodness – hence he must be their source
3.God must be a ruler of the universe – hence he must be responsible for all happenings in the universe
4.God must be worshipped as to point 3.

I have shown:

1.God, as I define the qualities of God, exists
2.God is the source of all occurrences and is all occurrences, and hence, is the source of all power, wisdom and goodness and is all power, wisdom and goodness, and thus is perfect in them
3.God directs the universe, and so God is ruler of the universe
4.God is described in part by those major religions I mentioned in round one, and worshipped as to that part by them as the ruler of the universe.

Ergo, I have proven the existence of God. No small feat, that. Vote Pro!

PS Thanks again to my opponent for this debate!
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Lwerd's right. You can be an atheist Jew. It's not just culture. One can be Jewish religiously, culturally, and racially.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
JCMT - I think he's referring to being an atheist who was raised culturally as a Jew. My friends call themselves "Jew-ish" lol. Anyway, Lex, I understand your points a bit better now. I still don't agree about the Bible thing; that implies the fallacy that just because a lot of people believe in something that it necessarily makes it true. Plus, having a knowledge on basic history of religion will show you how people borrow things from other religions and why. That could simply mean that one retard made something up and over centuries thousands of other false claims stemmed from that. Of course, I personally find the Bible fascinating and as such see your point entirely. However I'm not sure I could accept it for the purpose of debate... I think if you had more characters, you could have expanded. Actually I think if you wrote this debate as a paper instead of a debate, it would have been really brilliant. I think things just needed expanding. You definitely outperformed your opponent in most areas, but even his small comments did shed light on some aspects of doubt to the readers.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Oh, I see you are ... I just put in a response to your suggestions ... I'm sure we can work something out on that.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
So, are you thinking about taking the debate challenge I posted against you JCMT?
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
lol XD
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "I am an atheist Jew."

Contradiction in terms.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
PS I know my response is a grammatical nightmare. My apologies. XD Let me know if anything isn't clear.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Thanks for the RFD Lwerd! Some thoughts:

1. Con assumed I was using the Bible as authority. This is only partially the case. I broke it down like this: God of, by and with the Word in many religions, or hold characteristics substantially similar thereto -- what is the most likely phenomenon to correspond to such traits? I settled on information exchange. It would seem strange that so many faiths display similar constructs when separated vast distances without there being some rationale for the similarities. I just proposed one.
2. I argued that information exchange is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness because it is the very process by which such characteristics come into being and are recognized --- without it, there is no p,w or g -- therefore it is perfect in that it is the essential requirement for the quality to manifest and is the source of the manifestation. Obviously it is not perfect in the sense of being limitlessly powerful, consciously wise or flawlessly good. Rather it is perfect in the sense that it is the only source of power (literally IS power), the possess all of wisdom (literally is all thought, which includes all wise thoughts), and only force of goodness (encompasses all good acts). So it is perfection in the sense of completion, rather than perfect opposition.
3. I suppose it depends upon the definition of living. :) I think the intent of that definition though, by coupling it with person in the same part, is clearly to suggest some biological form, which God, for the purposes of this debate, is not. ;)
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
In conclusion, I award the following points -- I agreed with Pro after the debate (which is really funny because I think Con provided the more convincing arguments, but I had to award this point to Con which I will explain in a moment); Pro had better conduct; Pro had better spelling and grammar; and Pro used the better sources. As I said, though, I had to award the part about arguments to Con. I didn't want to because I didn't feel that Con really put forth any arguments. Instead, he just opposed Pro's and did it quite effectively. Thus I had to award Con the point for who I agreed with after the debate, even though Pro did a great job of making the God argument unique and putting forth a new, intelligent perspective.

Overall I think Pro performed better in every aspect of this debate; however, the flaws in his arguments (the most important thing) were pointed out by Con even though he essentially didn't do much. Thus 4-5 points were awarded to Pro, and only 2 to Con.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
This RFD is going to be a little short (as it's not super official or anything, but I suppose I can be more thorough upon request). Arguments:

1) In terms of the Bible as a source, I actually agree with Con.

2) In terms as information being accepted as "God" in this debate, it would have to fall under the parameters that both debaters agreed upon. I agree with Pro on certain accounts, but I fail to see how information can be thought of as "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness." Not all information is perfect and good, therefore I have to agree with Con on this point as well.

Information may be omnipresent (the transfer of data inspiring action and thought); however it is not omnibenevolent -- good - which is essential in a discussion about God - doesn't always out-do evil meaning it is not omnipotent. For these reasons I cannot accept information as being equivalent to God, even though Pro pointed out that it is in life's nature to avoid harmful things. Omnipotence would suggest it would always overcome evil, as God is implied to always overcome the devil. This is essentially the very argument that atheists bring up in the first place: good vs. evil in question of God's omnipotence.

For the record, I disagree with Pro that the transfer of information is not a force. It is. Everything is energy : ) Mayhaps it would have been more appropriate for Pro to argue that energy is God...? I digress.

3) While I agree that most religions don't think of God as being a single person, I disagree with Pro, "No belief system I can recall tends to think of God as a living thing." I'm pretty sure that since life is the most highly regarded aspect of humanity and God is supposed to have originated all life, that God is regarded as "living" even if that living takes on a different form than how humans live...
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rayedawg2013 7 years ago
rayedawg2013
abard124LexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 jurist24 7 years ago
jurist24
abard124LexicaholicTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
abard124LexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
abard124LexicaholicTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
abard124LexicaholicTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
abard124LexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
abard124LexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:34 
Vote Placed by JonathanCid 7 years ago
JonathanCid
abard124LexicaholicTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
abard124LexicaholicTied
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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
abard124LexicaholicTied
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