The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
zeromeansnothing
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 87717
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

The application of the Term God, with a Capital "G" - as we are speaking English - has always been, in every resounding religion (including Mythologies) IS, "the Mechanics of Reality, the substances therein, and that which is beyond."

The term "god" with a minor "g" is a reference to a "Mechanic Device" in our reality or a "substance" or philosophical or theoretical element.

This has been the application of the term God since Always.

Although it is not the topic of debate, THIS is why GOD factually exists regardless of any arrogant claims to suggest otherwise.

Because God is the Mechanics of Reality, the Substances of and beyond:
WE KNOW, scientifically that, ALL things are accounted for by his Wisdom;
His nature is Supreme;
His person is Absolute (in ethics and in the nature of being);
As well as the facts that he is wrathful to those who attest his laws [of morals and physics]; is merciful to all;
is Lovingly providing for each [Only perceived to not provide for those whom are subjected to the wickedness of Bigots (including immature parenting* {those who lack wisdom})];
& is Jealous for the sake of the Righteous because factual the victims of his Person are in fact contingent portions of his whole whom suffer form nothing but Insolence of others - meaning, his prosperity is inhibited, and the portions of himself which are victimized exceed in suffering the prosperity of the Criminal oppressor (ultimate envy).

God is in Nature Perfect, the flaws are those who reject Him (his law), and seek to arrogantly refute him by encouraging the perspectives of oppressors (womanizers, tyrants, bigots) subliminally in any method {atheism congratulates all corrupt behaviour [Atheism is Here also proven to be 100% wrong]}.

Solid.
zeromeansnothing

Con

'Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist'

deity='a god or goddess'

I do not know what your beef is with atheism?

Which is worse to you , a person who rejects Gods as a rule of thumb or a person who challenges your definition of God with a conflicting version of God. Explain yourself here.

There are many of your sentences that I would be in broad agreement with. This is easy to do because if we start from the point (which you have) that God is super magnanimous , then it automatically follows that all matters will be resolved within it.

Simply put here, How do you know so much about God and how did you decipher his ethics and justice.

What are you describing???
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

My beef with atheism is that is subliminally, passively and actively promotes the perspectives of doushabgs, criminals, corrupt politicians, perverts and social injustice. Where as theism doesn't - Only the atheists hiding in the congregation have ever contributed these characteristics to a religion - and thus the religion remains pure, and the atheist takes the full blunt force of the blow.

Secondly, It is equally Atheistic to reject God and to challenge the definition of God (note I did not say, "my" here as though I am supporting dogmatic false believers.) as both are a Lack of Faith in THE God. A faith in some god, or "a" God, is not anything but Lack of Faith in God. Agnosism, deism and otherwise is only atheism at it's root.

3.) The ethics and justice of God can be determined through scientific evaluation of our social sciences, history, laws of physics and reasoning ~ seeing as God does not Change, and you must accept him, you work With not around the parameters you Have. You do not make them up, you rationally approach your reality expecting nothing to materialize there. And working with a formula which is not subject to change if ANY new element presents itself for observation.

I am describing Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Greek, Norse and Egyptian Myth, Sikhism, and all other variants of Monotheistic and Henotheistic religions known to date.

I am describing eh Person of God, who is so limitless in his nature and secret ways that Only his Nature and Secret ways can know Him for his supreme excellence and not merely As such. That Nature is the Light of the World, the Son of God whom all things are through and returning to, Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God (whom is also substance and that which has not.).

thank you.
zeromeansnothing

Con

Thank You for your attempt at clarity. You are a Christian of some sort, believing in a personable God.

How did you come to the conclusion that God is in any way personable??? Are you working backwards from Jesus, or what??

This appears 'nonsensical' and 'unsubstantiated' to me and is a huge leap across the chasm of faith from talking about God as the mechanics of reality.

You say: 'I am describing eh Person of God, who is so limitless in his nature and secret ways that Only his Nature and Secret ways can know Him for his supreme excellence and not merely As such. '

You describe a God here that is self aware in some way, ie has a directed consciousness. Do you say this because that is the sort of God you want or because you see it's/his will evolving??

In my atheistic realm I just see God as was, as is, and as will be. When I look at God in this manner I am not presumptions enough to suggest a development or an emergence of any sort. I can only personalize God within an act of worship for convenience rather than from the standpoint of perceived insight. I can talk of Mother Earth or the Man in the Moon or of Divine Luck or something like that but not in any real way. I repeat the question. 'How do you know so much about God'?
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

Zeromeansnothing, here, has armed me with an arsenal.
His attempts at debate format were entirely to his own detriment,
as he had not attained such a format. In fact He did not even: respond to my points;
or dispute the validity of my arguments regarding his previous argument - indicating
that I landed some solid points.

He goes on to ask question after question because he lacks content to contribute,
cannot perceive the context and content of the debate (indicating that
his opposition to it is arrogance, and not founded on substance.).

He refused to acknowledge I addressed his pervious assertions and did not go back to them,
to suggest I was wrong, ill-conceived or mistaken.
But instead, said this ~

"You describe a God here that is self aware in some way, ie has a directed consciousness. Do you say this because that is the sort of God you want or because you see it's/his will evolving??"

God being all mechanics of reality and the substances as well as that without substance is Naturally Unified as a whole in a Balance. This balance is directly aware of all components therein,
and has a union with each in some way. That awareness of itself, however Potentially perceived as ABIOTIC, is via an atheistic approach no less biotic than human's. Which are simply constructs within reality, which are driven by abiotic substance. So he presents absolutely nothing, and in fact demonstrates incompetence regarding his ability to stipulate over the subject matter.

He asks, "How can I see Go as being personable.", and the answer is simply. I'm in the palm of his hand. Get it.

I am rude when confronted with... well bigotry, BUT I am formal, and I maintain my cool, and never let emotions intercede with my ability to contribute to a debate, discussion or contemplation.
zeromeansnothing

Con

He asks, "How can I see Go as being personable.", and the answer is simply. I'm in the palm of his hand. Get it.?'

Sorry, but not really. Most of what you state comes across to me as one big waffle fest. Where does the palm of his hand metaphor come from? It reminds me of the kitsch-Catholic pictures of my childhood. You say that 'God is perfect in nature'. That could be read 5 different ways. Do you see nature as perfect. If so, then I probably agree with you. If you mean that this God of yours is perfect in your opinion then I would humbly ask you to explain your understanding of this perceived perfection without resorting to the preaching of the opening post.

Let's be brutal here. If I say an ice-cream is perfect in every way then how can that be argued against. All I am saying is that that is the ice-cream for me. This is a level of subjectivity that allows for no opposition.

I maintain that God is everywhere and I am debating same at present. You on the other hand have interpreted this presence and made of it something that, in your own words.....................

God is in Nature Perfect, the flaws are those who reject Him (his law), and seek to arrogantly refute him by encouraging the perspectives of oppressors (womanizers, tyrants, bigots) subliminally in any method {atheism congratulates all corrupt behaviour [Atheism is Here also proven to be 100% wrong]}.

God is perfect except for those who reject him, you seem to be saying. This is beyond my logic and I would suggest that it will sail over most attempts at serious consideration. It is just a rant, IMHO.

----
Debate Round No. 3
GoOrDin

Pro

GoOrDin forfeited this round.
zeromeansnothing

Con

Will this debate ever be read? I doubt that it will.

The protagonist's stance was typical of 'The I know' type of statement. In truth, he really does not. Gone are his womanizers, his atheistic mischievers, his .............. It is impossible to rationalize a personable God unless you approach it from one of two directions. You either make God an extra terrestial super evolved human with a Son that he uses for exhibitions or you assert without doubt that you know something 'so therefore it is. Yawn!

There is no human like 'ethics or morality within our existence except that which we create among ourselves. Jump into the water and the crocodile will eat you. The fox kills all the hens without remorse or sentimentality. The child, born with deformity is a statistical inevitability. God has not got a plan for man but it will deal with us 'nevertheless as it deals with all things within it. Once there is movement forward there will be change.

The protagonists stance is that of the witch doctor rattling stones in a coconut shell and deciphering meaning. It is the stuff for burning witches and it is abhorrent to me at least. That is why I challenged it. Well Anyway!
Debate Round No. 4
GoOrDin

Pro

Alright Listen up. I expect my opponent to address these points of discussion:

1.) he has not touched on or given air to the topic of discussion, "That God is the Mechanics of Reality, the substances of reality and all that which ahs no substance, in all resounding world religions."
2.) he also did not, acknowledge his position as Con as being: Pro, God is NOT the Mechanics of Reality etc.. in all the worlds resounding religions.
3.) He also had no grounds in this debate to disillusion the topic of discussion by making asserts regarding everything from aliens to stipulably-flawed-perspectives to his personal, NON-technical, off-base problems with Faith.

As an overall Summary of the Nature of God Being, as I have presented:

1.) Krishna is the grand sum off all elements of reality. Personified to express his social-sciences in peoples emotions, desires and actions(including intentions), as well as thoughts. He is expressed vividly as being Holistically inclusive of the laws of nature, physics, theology, and is in essence by default of that Definition to his PERSON - how this offends, bewilders me (don't take debates personally.) - is real. He is the Word for, "the Grand sum."

To further elaborate, re-read my first post. It accommodates all greek and norse mythology very coherently. Myth is not dogma, preaching, nor is it directed at Paganism. It was a tax system to run a smooth Henotheist economy.

My opponent's lack of contributions, all throughout, compel me to leave it at that. Since I am not obligated to further develop any arguments.
My opponent was, PRO-God is NOT the mechanics of reality, the substances of and all that which has no substance, and he didn't contribute one line to that Clause.

**Morals are not opinion statements. Morals are determined by ethics. Ethics is the SCIENCE of evaluating effects of behaviours. The grounds for positive and negative, are not equivellable to Good and Bad, but the results of the evaluation.
Homosexuality advocates anal, oral and masturbation to children, womanizers, depressed people, sex victims, elderly, bigots, lazy boyfriends, criminals, corrupt politicians and every one else, subliminally, passively and actively in Public, at work, in schools and in the media ~ to the effect that it advocates social inequality, psychological trauma, anxiety, the disturbance of the peace of elderly, neglect for world issues, women enabling womanizers (and all that goes with that), corrupts children's and everyone else's imagination and ambitions (leading to all those, listed effects) and produces sex victims + with no further a-due, so much more.

This aspect of Morals is not OPINIONATED, nor are the results. This ethical science is based on facts. as are all morals. These ethics are determined by the Mechanics of Reality, which is very clearly reflected in all scriptures. Fear thy God* The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom. He will turn form you if you turn from his ways; The path of righteousness.

So thank you for participating in observing this debate.
I hope you learned something, more so about religion than about how to have a debate properly and communicate ethically with others.
God is Good. Expect nothing from him but to share with you his excellence. He loves all his creation, and eagerly seeks the destruction of those whom reject righteousness.
zeromeansnothing

Con

This is what 'the Din ' says

'God is Good. Expect nothing from him but to share with you his excellence. He loves all his creation, and eagerly seeks the destruction of those whom reject righteousness.'

There you have it , more self righteous preaching, based on diddly squat.

This guy wants to take a reasonably plausible statement that is worthy of consideration and then he wants to climb all over it and lecture to the great unwashed.

How is God good?
How is he excellent?
How on earth could be possibly love anything? God is impartial and actual.

How could he/it eagerly await his/its next meal never mind the destruction of the 'unrighteous' Yawn!

This is a vindictive rant based on a personal evaluation of all and sundry, nothing more.

Give us all a break and stop rattling your rocks off in your coconut shell and making revelations based on smoke and above all leave the following poor unfortunates alone. Your ranting is scaring them.................You say

'Homosexuality advocates anal, oral and masturbation to children, womanizers, depressed people, sex victims, elderly, bigots, lazy boyfriends, criminals, corrupt politicians and every one else, subliminally, passively and actively in Public, at work, in schools and in the media ~ to the effect that it advocates social inequality, psychological trauma, anxiety, the disturbance of the peace of elderly, neglect for world issues, women enabling womanizers (and all that goes with that), corrupts children's and everyone else's imagination and ambitions (leading to all those, listed effects) and produces sex victims + with no further a-due, so much more.'

I say, lead me not into temptation, just tell me where it is. Thanks to all who read this.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
God is defined in every religion as being the Holistic Mechanics of reality the substances of it, and all that has no substance.

he is by definition masculine, given the accumulative perspective of his person,

and has the same mental capacities as a whole as a human does as an individual, except with inward observation of all contingent parts of his being.

simple. fact. and indisputable.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
ethics, "the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles. "
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
Morals are not opinions. I covered that in the debate.
Morals are determined by sciences called Ethics.

a definition exert:
" Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong -"

opinions are not applicable tot he term MORAL, never has been and never will be. That is close-minded atheist bigotry which is propagated through gossip.
Posted by missmedic 11 months ago
missmedic
Morality does not come from authority, morality is a choice. When the religious decide not to follow their god's commandments, they are using their own morality. Like this one.....
" You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads." A billion atheist are moral without gods. What does that tell you? That people can be good without gods.
http://www.livescience.com...
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
God, IS Moral Law.* fawking read the debate.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 11 months ago
zeromeansnothing
I am not having a go at GoOrDin in any personal way. Fair dues to him for initiating this discussion and for truthfully expressing his views ...................................but,

I have just watched a Yazidi, mother of five on the news today who was held as a sex slave by ISIS monsters for 7 mths in the name of a perverted religious mantra. GoOrDin does not condone this behaviour in any way but his modus for creating theological morality does. As the heading states ie 'All through history' an ever present sense of God has been perverted towards subjective preferences. Let's face facts, ...........................a moral code that needs to be propped up by religious 'jitterbugging' is not fit for human purpose. God does not make moral law, we do and if it is not sensible and well founded on societal needs then it is a crude form of social subjugation. GoOrDin, speaks of womanizers down trodding women. More women have been downtrodden, down through history by means of chauvinistic theism than by any other means. Have a nice day!
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
lolz.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
I'm going to point this out: In a debate, Questions are not arguments. Questions are illustrations of your lack of knowledge regarding the subject, and a lack of capacity to actually contribute.

regardless. You never once touched on the topic of debate throughout your last round.

YOU are presenting the claim that, "God, IS NOT, the defined as the Mechanics of Reality in worldly religions". That IS your claim. make it, defend it. and keep your nonchalant to yourself. You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with the clause, "God is defined as the Mechanics of Reality in every religion."

learn how to debate or forfeit.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 11 months ago
zeromeansnothing
The metaphor 'mechanics' is a bit naff, in truth, GoOrDin.

Mechanics need designers, technicians, and conscious concept people for it to exist. Isn't this a loaded suggestion towards a conscious creator God, which is what you are selling. Mechanics is a modern concept and is predated by most if not all religions.

The days are getting longer. The earth has completed another orbit of the sun at breakneck speed around the cosmos. Not a drop was spilled. Isn't that amazing. That does not infer that God is aware of the number 365, or 366 for that matter either. God is above human concepts of ethics, aesthetics, etc. To suggest that we are evolving towards 'God likeness' would only make sense if the earth had been seeded intentionally by a higher life type with the intention of reaping a harvest of some sort after billions of years of evolution. That would be a totally wacko 'way to go' with all this. That is painting God by numbers IMHO
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
it is about the title.
No votes have been placed for this debate.