The Instigator
johnlubba
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

God is an absolute and complete being, and re-incarnation can not be ignored on a rational basis.

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 1 vote the winner is...
johnlubba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,851 times Debate No: 27118
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

johnlubba

Pro

I will argue that God is an absolute complete being, Made of two energies, 1 mutable material energy, and 2 eternal spiritual energy, using my built up opinion from memory of Vedic philosophy, I also can offer some scientific arguments to back up my claims.

This is my fist debate here, and I hope my opponent can appreciate that I am a beginner at this style of debate, and may not portray my argument in the finesse and style I have witnessed from other participants in this forum. Never the less, apart from my style of and grammar skills, I believe I can deliver a good argument in favour of God being an absolute complete being, and that re-incarnation should be given more in-depth consideration.

With that all said and done, I welcome a formidable foe. :) And hope the adversary will be appreciated on both sides. :)

I will begin by Giving a defining of God, as a being with infinite attributes, an Absolute Being,( Absolute means no separation, ) so actually everything that exists, in material and spiritual form, is not separate from God, but rather instead is an actual expansion or emanation of God's divine energy, In understanding the aspect of material nature, i.e. The universe, or for a better term, The Material Cosmic Manifestation. God is inconceivably one and different with Himself and creation. (Please try and grasp this ) I offer an analogy of the sun and the sunshine to further understand how I propose to suggest, that something can be, Inconceivably, one and different.

The sun and the sunshine, both have the same qualities, but are both different in quantity, The sun is situated mighty in one place, yet the sunshine is able to be every where simultaneously, Both are perceived differently, yet both share the same qualities. Just like if the sun were to enter my window, I would be foolish to say the sunshine has entered my window.
This example is given to further understand how God is able to simultaneously be one and different, with his creation as an absolute being.

I will further try to portray a belief for the after life and an appeal to re-incarnation to be considered as plausible in the least.

Firstly, I refer to Dr Ian Stevenson, who dedicated his life to the subject and conducted research of some 3000 cases of re- incarnation, mostly including small children who claim to still remember and have knowledge a previous life.

Ian Pretyman Stevenson, MD, (October 31, 1918"February 8, 2007) was a Canadian biochemist and professor of psychiatry. Until his retirement in 2002, he was head of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, which investigates the paranormal.

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

Further I would like to state a remark by a well loved scientist, astronomer and skeptic, Dr Carl Sagan, Who wrote in his book, The Demon Haunted World.

""there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation" -Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World, 1995.

Sagan was a healthy skeptic and added in the same book: "I pick these claims not because I think they"re likely to be valid (I don"t), but as examples of contentions that might be true." They "have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." This is the approach that is needed, without the scoffing and the quick, judgmental pronouncements.

I hope I have given enough information to receive a decent a fair rebuttal, please bear in mind this is my first time debating on the format of this forum, and any indication's as to how I could improve this, and correction is most welcome.

I now hand over this debate to an opponent. Many Thanks.
jh1234l

Con

I see this is your first debate here. I never debated religion debates before, so I guess we'll see how it goes.

By "God", I assume you mean the Christian God.

Anyways, let's move on to the refutation.

" Absolute Being,( Absolute means no separation, ) so actually everything that exists, in material and spiritual form, is not separate from God, but rather instead is an actual expansion or emanation of God's divine energy, In understanding the aspect of material nature, i.e. The universe, or for a better term, The Material Cosmic Manifestation. God is inconceivably one and different with Himself and creation. (Please try and grasp this ) I offer an analogy of the sun and the sunshine to further understand how I propose to suggest, that something can be, Inconceivably, one and different."

So the god is both separate to his creations and not separate at the same time. Thus, this creates a paradox:

P1. Anything God creates is not separate of him.
P2. The creation is different/separate from him.
C. It is both separate and not separate, so this is not true.

The universe is a part of God, which you state, however you have yet to give proof that God is the universe and not at the same time. You have yet to prove God exists. You did not even say what you mean by "energy".

Plus, you said that God is an "Absolute BEING", however, Carl Sagan disagrees with you.

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. "-Carl Sagan [3]

Carl Sagan says God might not be a being.

"Ian Pretyman Stevenson, MD, (October 31, 1918"February 8, 2007) was a Canadian biochemist and professor of psychiatry. Until his retirement in 2002, he was head of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, which investigates the paranormal."

He did not actually proof the reincarnation in a scientific way.

"There has been a mixed reaction to Stevenson's work. Critics have questioned his research methods and conclusions, and his work has been described as pseudoscience." [1]

Pseudoscience is described by Wikipedia as:

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."[2]

Ian Stevenson does not have any actual proof regarding reincarnation.

"there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation" -Carl Sagan

Then he says that he himself also might be wrong.

" Sagan relates the story from the Chapter "The Dragon in My Garage" (which he notes follows a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard L. Franklin) of the invisible fire-breathing dragon living in his garage. He asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."-Carl Sagan [4]

Reincarnation is just like the invisible dragon, not really proved, not really disproved. You did not give evidence why reincarnation exists. Your only "evidence" is quotes from people, which does not have evidence either. For example, one could say "Apples are sometimes bananas" without saying things like how many times and where he/she got it.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
johnlubba

Pro

I wish to thank my opponent for accepting to participate with me in this debate, And show my appreciation for he's rebuttal's, However I will follow by presenting my reasons for thinking how he seems to have mis-understood my original premise. and why I think, what he has concluded as a rebuttal, is of the topic. Or maybe I have not portrayed my premise clearly enough.

And now I wish to put forward my reasons.

Firstly, I would like to point out that he has mis-understood my definition of God in this argument, I argue that God is an Absolute being by definition. And absolute means, NO separation.

But he has wrongly concluded, that I said, God is separate from the creation.
he said.

"So the god is both separate to his creations and not separate at the same time. Thus, this creates a paradox":

And that is a false representation of my premise,
I never claim God is separate from his creation. I claim God can be one and different with creation,

I see he has mistaken the meaning the the word DIFFERENT, to also mean SEPARATE in his rebuttal, When you state below

P1. Anything God creates is not separate of him.
P2. The creation is different/separate from him.
C. It is both separate and not separate, so this is not true.

I will now offer my own version of how I think your conclusion should be.

P1. Anything God creates is not separate from Him.
P2. Nothing in creation is separate from God,
C. God is Absolute. Absolute means NO separation.

God is able to be situated in one place but also at the same time, He is able to be everywhere, and part of everything I gave the analogy of the sun and the sun-shine, which both are the same in quality, but yet are different, if the sun was to enter your bedroom window, it would be silly to think the sun-shine entered your window. Both are the same in quality but both are different

God is able to be inconceivably one and different from he's creation, and again I offer an analogy above of how the sun and the sunshine can be the same in quality yet different in quantity, and how the sun can be situated in one place and the sunshine extend everywhere.

You start your rebuttal by saying,

By "God", I assume you mean the Christian God.

When I never mentioned the Christian God, Although the Christian God has great attributes when defining God, I think I can further claim any that might be missed out, by claiming God is infinite and absolute. Which is exactly like the Christian God, but not exclusively in definition. God by definition must have certain attributes to be worthy of the title of God, For example the minimum term to be used when defining God, is Supreme, If God is not Supreme, then he is unworthy of the title, God.

Here are some synonyms of the word supreme. From Collins;

cardinal, chief, crowning, culminating, extreme, final, first, foremost, greatest, head, highest, incomparable, leading, matchless, mother (of all), paramount, peerless, predominant, pre-eminent, prevailing, prime, principal, sovereign, superlative, surpassing, top, ultimate, unsurpassed, utmost

So It makes no difference if you assume the Christian God. Simply by definition. I find no difference in what the Christians find to be God and what a Muslim or a Hindu finds to be God, God is absolute, and infinite, so absolutely any conception you can fathom God to be, he can accommodate infinite conceptions, indeed he is.

You then say I claim the universe is part of God, This is correct. But you then state,

I have yet to give proof that God is the universe and not at the same time.
When what I am really saying is, that the universe is a part of God, not that God is the universe. such as the Material Cosmic Manifestation, ie the universe, is an expansion of He's external material energy. in other words the material energy, ie the Material Cosmic Manifestation, /the universe is only an extension of Gods external material energy.

The universe exhibits attributes a God would have, Such as energy which can not be created or destroyed, ie eternal it just transforms, also this material energy is able to manifest into innumerable objects, not only on this earth, but such as the infinite universe of trillions planets galaxies and stars. The universe exists and exhibits attributes of a divine energy.

Please Note: I am not claiming the universe is God, But that the universe is an expansion of Gods external energy, He can create infinite universes, that is an attribute of God, not just in marvel comics, But hey presto. It's reality Jim but not as we know it.

You further go on to dismiss the quote I offered from Dr Carl Sagan as an argument-incarnation and further use your own Carl Sagan quote to rebuttal my argument for God being an absolute being.

I think the quote I presented offers some weight to my argument and can be taken as something to consider seeing as who the quote comes from and he being a great skeptic.

I remind you again to take into consideration the depth of what he is saying and the many known cases open for research, Dr Ian Stevenson himself doesn't suggest a physical process as evidence, but that the propelling evidence of children who can remember past lives, as I can't say it better I will offer to quote again.

""there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation" -Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World, 1995.

You claim Dr Sagan then claims he may be wrong, but he is curious enough to mention it in His book.

You then claim that some considered Dr Ian Stevenson work has been described as pseudoscience.
But just below that commenting wikkpedia, it goes on further to state.
[5][6] Others have, however, stated that his work was conducted with appropriate scientific rigor.[

I Thank my opponent for putting up with me thus far, and no hand the debate back to him and look forward to a brand new round. I also hope the audience see my point.
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to my opponent for doing well on his first debate, and I apologize for misunderstanding your claim.

1. God

"God is able to be situated in one place but also at the same time, He is able to be everywhere, and part of everything I gave the analogy of the sun and the sun-shine, which both are the same in quality, but yet are different, if the sun was to enter your bedroom window, it would be silly to think the sun-shine entered your window. Both are the same in quality but both are different."
God is omni-present [1] , so he is everywhere.
If he is everywhere, then he is not in a fixed place. If he is not in a fixed place, this argument is incorrect.
The sun and sunshine analogy fails to work as sunlight is just a light from the sun and the sun isn't everywhere at the same time, neither is the sunshine. Plus, please describe what you mean by "quality". Quality is how good something is, and therefore irrelevant to this.
"When what I am really saying is, that the universe is a part of God, not that God is the universe. such as the Material Cosmic Manifestation, ie the universe, is an expansion of He's external material energy. in other words the material energy, ie the Material Cosmic Manifestation, /the universe is only an extension of Gods external material energy."
You have yet to say if mutable and eternal energy exists.
"The universe is a part of God" this means panentheism " the universe is part of god. [2]
God is omni-present, so he is in everything. However God cannot be in everything if everything is a part of him, therefore he is not in everything. Instead, everything is in him, not the other way around.
"You further go on to dismiss the quote I offered from Dr Carl Sagan as an argument-incarnation and further use your own Carl Sagan quote to rebuttal my argument for God being an absolute being."
You did not provide any actual refutation, only criticism, so I'll state my evidence.
"God is an absolute complete being."
Carl Sagan said that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."[3]
If he is not a being, he cannot be an absolute being. What is wrong with using my opponent's source to refute him? Nothing wrong.

2. Reincarnation

"I remind you again to take into consideration the depth of what he is saying and the many known cases open for research, Dr Ian Stevenson himself doesn't suggest a physical process as evidence."
Stevenson considered that the concept of reincarnation might help modern medicine to understand aspects of human behavior and development. He traveled 40 years to investigate 3,000 childhood cases that suggested to him the possibility of past lives. He did not actually suggest a physical process about how it happens.[4] However, some say that it is pseudoscience, some say it has scientific rigor. [4]
As you can see, this is possibly highly debated, and therefore is not adequate evidence.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://simple.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
johnlubba

Pro

Again I would like to start by thanking my opponent, for his contribution and patience,

I think what I am suggesting is quite difficult to grasp, It seems I have been able to improve my argument from round 1 into round 2, but yet Con has fully grasped the point I am trying to make concerning that God is a being which is Absolute with everything in creation and yet and the same time different,
It seems that we have cleared up the confusion between understanding that something can be different to something yet it doesn't have to be separate, The source, God, is able to be one and different with creation, yet still maintain a single identity. and can still be one unit, I appreciate I have digested this philosophy and analogy far longer than my opponent and the audience, and that for it to fully seem comprehensible to them may take a different style of thinking, which can be considered out of the box.

Firstly it seems, when given my analogy of the sun and the sunshine to my opponent, to portray how God is able to be, one and different to creation, that he has mistaken my meaning of the word 'Quality' to have a different meaning, he says,

" please describe what you mean by "quality". Quality is how good something is, and therefore irrelevant to this."

I will point out, that maybe this is where the he's confusion sets in.
When I say the sun and the sun-shine are the same in quality, I do not mean, that they are very very good quality, mean their, 'distinctive attributes by way of chemical composition',
Verily the sun-shine shares the same qualitive chemical attributes as the sun, for indeed the sun is it's source, and the sun-shine exists by virtue of the sun.

So after having established both are the same in quality, and do indeed share that same chemical attribute, which are not distinct to each other We can now move on to understanding how, although the same in quality, the do not act as the same, For indeed I say again, both are the same yet different, which the point of my argument here, If the sun were to enter my bedroom window, I would be foolish to think the sun-shine has entered window, Indeed I would be burnt to cinders, If the powerful burning sun were to enter my room. The sunshine however is always very welcome.

With that said, I further point out how the sun analogy, offers a perfect explanation as to how God can be situated in one place, like the sun is, yet He can expand he's energy everywhere, ie, the sun-shine, is an expansion of energy from the sun, both are the same in quality, and God being analytically the sun, is still remained situated almighty in one spot, and exist individually, and yet is able to emanate everything from himself and perform differently.

It is important to remember my original contention,

Inconceivably One And Different.

Inconceivably would mean, un-imaginable, so it would be fair that I understand, how difficult this is for my audience and my opponent to grasp, and that this philosophy which has it's origins in Vedic literature, is much richer and much more elaborate, than my feeble attempts to portray it, so I can only hope I have done well.

Secondly I would like to congratulate my opponent for pointing out my inclinations to pan en theism, mostly I am assumed to be a pantheist, which is quite different.

Now the Carl Sagan, Saga. We have managed to conjure up between us.

I would like to point out again, that Carl Sagans quote offered by me was in serious reference to my question of the subject of re-incarnation, My opponent did not address the seriousness of this claim by a highly respected scientist and skeptic.
Instead he offered his own Carl Sagan quote which was not in reference to the second topic of this debate, ( Reincarnation ) But the first, ( God is an absolute being) I pointed this out but he insisted on offering it again. which if I address further will derail my attempts to explain the plausibility of reincarnation

Con Posted.

Carl Sagan said that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

I do no see Cons point in posting this quote, other than that, Carl Sagan, obviously thought God to be similar to Einstein's God, in that God clearly exists, but is impersonal. As God being personal or not, is not my argument, I will ignore his point further, unless co like to point out where I am mistaken.

I will offer another Carl Sagan Quote that could further strengthen my Vedic argument for God's energy being responsible for the Creation.

First I will attempt to give an explanation that may help my opponent and my audience in understanding this quote with more clarity, According to my understanding of Vedic literature.

Shiva is a Hindu God, with power such as God, immense powers, so who is really God? you may ask.
This is where thinking outside of the box comes in,

Well as I have already tried to explain, God is able to be simultaneously one and different with creation.
So it starts like this.

God is one. who became many.

God has two energies,

1 spiritual.
2 material.

Where does God get he's energy from? one may ask.

God is an absolute supreme all powerful being, and has no need to draw energy from elsewhere, God is self sufficient in energy, that is the nature of God,

no energy is able to exist independently, all things in existence, are independent on God.

So how is everything is creation manifested.

Just like gold is used to fashion many different objects, everything seems to be different but in fact shares it's existence to the source. Plato quoted.

Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.

Plato.

Furthermore the universe is also a living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.

As Carl Sagan says we are star stuff. Hence everything is fashioned by virtue of Cosmic material, God's multifarious energy.

Ok so God exists as One singular being, and then fashions everything by virtue of extremely powerful potency, such as the energy we see manifesting in the universe before or very eyes. God is also able to create other beings and Gods by way expansion and replication of Himself- something like a self replicating molecule, but on a Godly scale.

God is able to replicate an almost exact version of himself, yet keep back just a few mystical qualities.

Hence we have other powerful Gods in the Vedic literature, Shiva is one such God.

I now offer my Carl Sagan Quote as promised, to explain the way God is using he's potency and energy to make creation possible.

The late scientist, Carl Sagan, in his book, Cosmos asserts that the Dance of Nataraja (Tandava) signifies the cycle of evolution and destruction of the cosmic universe (Big Bang Theory).

It is the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of." Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but also the very essence of inorganic matter.
For modern physicists, then, Shiva's dance is the dance of subatomic matter.

I now hand the floor back to my opponent, and apologize for not having the space to address the issues of re-incarnation in fuller depth, Maybe I took on more than I can chew by raising two subjects in my debate, Hopefully I can address them further in the next round.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.rationalskepticism.org...
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to my opponent for a well-written response.

Panentheism is mainly about that the universe is part of god, which is what this debate is about.

Pro's Side: The creation is a part of God, but it is different. God is an absolute being.

The reason I put the Carl Sagan quote is because, this implies that God is not a being, and therefore not an absolute being.
Pro said that all energy needs God to exist and that God's energy is self sufficient because he is the supreme being ad can pull energy out of nowhere.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant. [1]

As you can see, energy does not come from nowhere, it only changes in state, so the energy part is negated.

"God is able to replicate an almost exact version of himself, yet keep back just a few mystical qualities."

If in pantheism or panentheism, this means another universe. This, however, can be explained using the multiverse theory, which does not require a God to work.

" Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but also the very essence of inorganic matter."

The seasons are not a product of creation. Seasons result from the yearly revolution of the Earth around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution. [2]

Plus, the existence of the universe does not require creation either. The big bang can explain it, and there may be alternate theories, too.

""The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. The core ideas of the Big Bang"the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies"are derived from many observations that are independent from any cosmological model; these include the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it can be inferred that everything was closer together in the past. Most scientists became convinced that some version of the Big Bang scenario best fit observations after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body." [3]

[1]http://www.allaboutscience.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Debate Round No. 3
johnlubba

Pro

I would like to begin this round by offering my opponent gratitude for being a very sincere, honest, and mature contender, and for playing fair thus far, and for allowing me the opportunity to enjoy my first debate here.. It's been fun.

So with that said, Please let me begin by pointing out a few mis-understandings Con has made about my previous argument,

Firstly, Con mis-quotes me, by saying,

Pro said that all energy needs God to exist and that God's energy is self sufficient because he is the supreme being and can pull energy out of nowhere.

This is a misunderstanding on pros behalf, because I never claimed God pulls energy out of nowhere,

I claimed,

Where does God get he's energy from? one may ask.

God is an absolute supreme all powerful being, and has no need to draw energy from elsewhere, God is self sufficient in energy, that is the nature of God.

So I am not claiming God pulls energy from nowhere, I am claiming that God is the source of all energy, and he can expand or retract His energy at will, In fact he can retract aspects of His partial energy to be the minutest in size, or he can expand His energy to an infinite size.

I will take further points offered from my opponent above Concerning the first law of thermodynamics, and the BB (Big Bang) and put them into a different perspectives which argue that God is an almighty powerful absolute complete being, whose energy is the Material Cosmic Manifestation. The universe.

Firstly my opponent points out the first law of thermodynamics, it states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
This is an attribute that greatly resembles that of God, In that God is not created and can never be destroyed.

It is important to note here, I do not advocate that, The Material Cosmic Manifestation, ie, The Universe, is God, totally, but rather I am trying to convey that the Material Cosmic Manifestation, The Universe, or Material energy, is simply just an expansion of Gods energy. This energy needs not be created by God, but instead can be retracted By God at will, or expanded, at will.

Indeed, this attribute, we observe in our very own universe and BB theory.
That all the entire energy of the entire universe with all it's trillions and billions and sextillions, of galaxies, suns and stars, was once retracted into an area smaller than a proton.

When I stop and think about that, I find it truly amazing.

A single little blip of proton, contained within it such power. In the Vedic literature it is Said by Krsna, that all this great Material Cosmic Manifestation, springs from but a spark of His splendour.

So we can conclude from this, a universe that was once the size of a proton, that expanded into an infinite size and it's energy is neither created or destroyed, but also has the ability to manifest into an innumerable amount of various objects and life forms. Put simply, the one became many.

All these evident attributes that the universe exhibits, are in direct reference to the attributes of an almighty powerful absolute complete God, having energy which is neither created or destroyed, to be able to exhibit innumerable manifestations, to be able to expand to an infinite structure, or to exist in the minutest form.

I will drop my argument for re-incarnation at this moment, due to lack of time and experience on this format, and for mistakenly biting of more than I can chew for raising two topics at once, I shall be more careful in future, and select a topic I can devote my whole attention to. I hope to raise it up as a single topic in future. I also hope I have presented a Good case to my opponent, and that the audience favor my resolution that the universe exhibits attributes by way of divine energy which carry the same attributes attributed to God, and how God is one and yet different with His creation as an absolute complete being.

Thank you very much

I now hand back over to my opponent and wish him luck for the next round.
jh1234l

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a great response.

I apologize for misunderstanding some of your arguments, but my thermodynamics argument still stands.

Now I see that my opponent is trying to say that God is the source of all energy and that he does not have to pull energy out of nowhere. However, how did God get here? Pro says he is not created. So God came from nowhere, which means that there is energy from nowhere.
The first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.[1]
If Pro's statement is true, then the Universe must have existed forever, as God is not created so there is no start. However, there are many other ages the universe could be.
Big Bang: 13.75 billion years [2]
The Genesis: 6000 years
None of those are forever.
Therefore, God has to have a start.

"It is important to note here, I do not advocate that, The Material Cosmic Manifestation, ie, The Universe, is God, totally, but rather I am trying to convey that the Material Cosmic Manifestation, The Universe, or Material energy, is simply just an expansion of Gods energy. This energy needs not be created by God, but instead can be retracted By God at will, or expanded, at will."

Pro has not given much proof on this so far.

"That all the entire energy of the entire universe with all it's trillions and billions and sextillions, of galaxies, suns and stars, was once retracted into an area smaller than a proton."

Nope. It was in a singularity.[1]

"A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter."[3]

"So we can conclude from this, a universe that was once the size of a proton, that expanded into an infinite size and it's energy is neither created or destroyed, but also has the ability to manifest into an innumerable amount of various objects and life forms. Put simply, the one became many."

One did not become many.

The universe was once compressed in a singularity, very dense, very hot. Then, it grows in size, eventually forming protons and other particles, which eventually formed helium and hydrogen nuclei, then it continues. [1]

Plus, it might not be infinite size. It could be spherical, finite but with no boundary.

Pro has not yet proven that God is a absolute being, and only said that it must be true because God shares some attributes with thermodynamics and the universe. This is a fallacy, as this only states that some attributes are shared, but that does not mean that Pro's argument is true.
I'll give an analogy.

1. Chicken sandwiches are not ham sandwiches.
2. Tuna sandwiches are not ham sandwiches, either.
3. Therefore chicken sandwiches are tuna sandwiches.

Notice how that is flawed?

I await my opponent's response.

[1]http://www.allaboutscience.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
johnlubba

Pro

Again I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate, and look forward to the closing round.

I will attempt to finish the fifth round and try to answer the questions raised by my opponent.

I have noticed my opponent has likened my definition of God, as being the universe in it's entirety, and taking only my Material definition of God to be a complete being, and has not noticed I mentioned God also has another energy, which is Spiritual. And that God is aloof Of the Material Universe, situated as an individual, and yet one with His creation, by way of expansion of His energy. I offered the sun and sunshine analogy above, and have shown how the sun and the sunshine can be simultaneously one and different with each other.

I would also like to point out that my opponent is asking me to prove Gods existence, And that is not my contention in this debate, I have never declared I can prove Gods existence, but rather I would attempt to Argue a good case. There is a slight difference if I admit I know I can't prove my case, but still propose I can pose a good argument.

And instead of trying to prove Gods existence, I thought I could argue how the existence of our universe exhibits attributes as those attributed to God, Such as the first law of thermodynamics my opponent suggests, which is energy that is neither created or destroyed. God is also said to be neither created or destroyed, But then my opponent states the universe was created along with space /time, at the moment of the BB, so if God is the universe, then God also had a beginning.

This is a good point raised by my opponent, but like I suggested, God is not entirely material energy, but also spiritual energy, And spiritual energy is not subject to the same principals as material energy. in fact spiritual energy is a superior energy,
Take for example your material body, once you had a baby body, then a child body, then a teenagers body, then an adults body, Now your baby body no longer exists, that body is destroyed, all the atoms have been replaced and no longer exist, but YOU are still existing, and in some years you will change your body again in this lifetime. with the body you posses now, but YOU the spirit soul will still exist.

So the conclusion is the body is changing, but I am still existing, that because my true identity is not this material manifestation of my body, but the spirit soul that dwells inside the body, which is not subject to the same principals that the laws of physics have on my material body. ..........

The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 2.25

The same way it is suggested we are made in Gods image, we are both material and spiritual beings, the material entity is an emanation or expansion of energy due to having the inhabitance of a spirit soul, which is the real self. Not the material body which is the covering and always changing.

Similarly, Just like our material body is an expansion of material energy due to our material body having the presence of the spirit soul.
Also the material universe is able to expand due the presence of the Super soul. Both are inconceivably one and different.

God as spirit is able to exist outside of Space/time, because everything that begins to exist needs a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause, this cause must be necessarily uncased. God and Spirit energy is the conclusion, which is not bound by space or time or physical laws.

The Material energy is also Gods energy, and is simply an expansion of energy of which was once re-tracted into a singularity, and expanded by way of the Super soul entering the singularity, and then began the Material Cosmic Manifestation, the creation, by way of expansion or the BB. Infinitely small and infinitely dense, A complete single unit. of infinity dense and infinitely small, Which is another attribute which is given to God, the ability to be infinitely small.

The universe exhibits the same attributes that you would expect to see from God.

God is said to be infinite,

NASA stated.

The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements have led NASA to state, "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error."[1] Within the Friedmann"Lema"tre"Robertson"Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model,[2] while other FLRW models that fit the data include the Poincar" dodecahedral space[3][4] and the Picard horn.[5]

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

Apparently God is infinite,
and lo and behold, our modern cosmologist's tell us, this universe seems most possibly infinite.

Apparently God is one being who created all beings,
And the universe is one gigantic organism, that is containing all other organisms, which by their nature are all related.

Apparently God is able to manifest into innumerable objects, animate or inanimate.
And the universe is exhibiting manifestations or a mass scale of tremendous quality.

Apparently God is neither created or can he be destroyed.
And the universe exhibits energy that's neither able to be created or destroyed.

I thank my opponent here for being a mature and challenging adversary, but bid my audience to vote pro. God is an absolute and complete being,
jh1234l

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for being a good debater, and showing his arguments.

"Apparently God is infinite,
and lo and behold, our modern cosmologist's tell us, this universe seems most possibly infinite."
Quotes? Evidence? Proof?

"That guy told me that he has an unicorn." without actually giving the actual quote, people cannot know if that guy really said that.
Since the universe has a finite age, we can only observe a small chunk of it. [1] Although WMAP has shown that the universe is flat, we cannot know if it is infinite if we can only see a chunk of it because light takes time to travel. (about 299,792,458 meters/second. [2]

"Apparently God is one being who created all beings,
And the universe is one gigantic organism, that is containing all other organisms, which by their nature are all related."
Or the beings formed in abiogenesis and then evolved. Even Berkeley University says that evolution is true! [3]

"Apparently God is able to manifest into innumerable objects, animate or inanimate.
And the universe is exhibiting manifestations or a mass scale of tremendous quality."
Evidence? Proof? Quotes?

"Apparently God is neither created or can he be destroyed.
And the universe exhibits energy that's neither able to be created or destroyed."
Just because they have similarities means that they are the same?

"Similarly, Just like our material body is an expansion of material energy due to our material body having the presence of the spirit soul.
Also the material universe is able to expand due the presence of the Super soul. Both are inconceivably one and different."

No proof for the existence of the soul given.
The material universe is expanding, yes, but it is not due to a super soul, but possibly instead due to dark energy.[4]

"God as spirit is able to exist outside of Space/time, because everything that begins to exist needs a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause, this cause must be necessarily uncased. God and Spirit energy is the conclusion, which is not bound by space or time or physical laws."

Why does the cause need to be uncased? On my opponent's last round, he says that the Big Bang is amazing and can prove that god is an absolute being, this round he says that it is caused by something else.

"Take for example your material body, once you had a baby body, then a child body, then a teenagers body, then an adults body, Now your baby body no longer exists, that body is destroyed, all the atoms have been replaced and no longer exist, but YOU are still existing, and in some years you will change your body again in this lifetime. with the body you posses now, but YOU the spirit soul will still exist.

Yes, I agree that the material body is changing, but no evidence is given by you to prove that the soul exists.

In conclusion, my opponent has not made his claims on evidence, only bare assumptions. This is not convincing enough to advocate panentheism.

[1]http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[4]http://science.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
@ TheGoonies1

I guess you could say that, I actually bought a book called' The science of self realization' from a boot, about ten years ago sale for 50p, written by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and it changed my view on things, I am actually a westerner who has picked up the eastern philosophy, but it's all self educating, from books, I do not move in any circles with others who have the same views, simply because in the heart of London town, the area where I grew up an live, most people are not even aware of Swami Prabhupada. I am an aspiring reader, and continue to enjoy the Vedic Philosophy. As a westerner. :)
Posted by TheGoonies1 4 years ago
TheGoonies1
Pro are you a student of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada?
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
"I will argue that God is an absolute complete being, Made of two energies, 1 mutable material energy, and 2 eternal spiritual energy, using my built up opinion from memory of Vedic philosophy, I also can offer some scientific arguments to back up my claims."
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
... What exactly are you debating? It's like you are both atheist and theist at once.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
johnlubbajh1234lTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was mostly arguing against the existence of god, which (I think) was not quite within the topic as set out by pro. Also, pro has a certain charm of style which makes him difficult to disagree with.