The Instigator
KingYosef
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

God is natural, we just live in a supernatural world.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,167 times Debate No: 4126
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

KingYosef

Pro

The idea is very simple. First, I will define natural and supernatural, as well as other definitions that I feel are helpful.

Natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
2 a: being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).

World: the earthly state of human existence

Super: exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree

God: ultimate reality

Ultimate: most remote in space or time. basic, fundamental, original.

reality: the quality or state of being real.

God is natural laws, in a time in which we live according to supernatural laws.

there really isn't much more I can say. God is natural.
Tatarize

Con

God is non-existent and we live in a natural world. Simply defining things in a odd and unacceptable way does not allow you to conclude such things.

Natural has nothing to do with right and wrong. Right and wrong are moral conventions which allow humans to survive in society. When a lion kills and eats a gazelle, we do not accuse him of murder. When a dog mounts another dog for sex, we do not accuse him of rape. When a hyena runs off with the kill of a cheetah we do not accuse it of theft. There's nothing inherently moral or just about the natural world, they are human conventions for surviving in human institutions.

Natural does not refer to the wilderness. To say that we live in a natural world applies to the city as well as the rural, as well as to to the distant stars. It is saying that what we see is what we get. This table really does exist. I really am typing on a computer. There really aren't miracles occurring all the time.

The supernatural is something beyond this view of the natural world. That there is something transcendental beyond this desk or outside of the everything that exists.

Of all the definitions you give, the worst has to be your definition of God as "ultimate reality". This is no definition I've seen used by anybody reasonable. However, there's a bit to the idea as many view the godly realm as being beyond the natural world, above and transcendental to our existence and the stuff of real existence. However, your definition of 'ultimate' simply seeks to restrict such inclinations to the natural world by limiting it to within time and space. You want to eat your cake and have it too. You claim that God is "ultimate" which is to say "natural". You've essentially defined God as natural and supposed that that supports your conclusion.

Even with the silly definitions and rampant equivocation, you never actually even attempted to show that "we live in a supernatural world".

-------

By your definitions God would simply be the universe. The mindless, thoughtless, material universe, uncaring and unknowing and just there. Simply making God into the universe doesn't force one to exclude reality from the universe. Rather the above topic as you've been arguing would be "God is natural, we just live in God." Clearly if God is, as you say, reality and we live in reality then we live in God.

And again, it's all pretty much a moot point because most of the definitions were ripped out of your hind-end and even then definitions are attempts to grasp how we use words not how words must be used... and to top it all off the topic of the debate is completely false as there is no God and we live in a natural world.

---------

Also, I'd advise you to pay close attention to simply defining God into existence. Certainly if I defined elves as some form of reality, then I could try and parlay that into the conclusion that elves exist. You can't just define things as real things and then move on. There non-existence of God proper is enough to fault the topic you are trying to expound.
Debate Round No. 1
KingYosef

Pro

First, all the definitions come from Merriam-Webster. You say I am not reasonable for my definitions. I ask you why? Are they unreasonable because you are not accustomed to them? Is it because the religious factions you so passionately despise do not care to use these definitions? If not being reasonable and not being normal are the same thing, I will happily subject to your opinion. For the normal people tend to base their reason on emotion. I would rather my emotions stem from my reasoning. The definitions I choose are closer to the original meanings of the words, and thus, hold more weight and truth. They are not definitions that are products of confusion. I will review the opinions you hold on the definitions and judge if there is anything you say of any value.

Before I continue, though I judge atheism harshly, it is the lesser of the two evils (atheism and religion). Atheists live in accordance to God much better than religious people do. Atheists come to all their conclusions by deduction; which is the first step to understanding God. They just never seek to understand what is left. If God didn't exist, the apparent chaotic state of the world wouldn't be apparent, it would be real. Now for your definitions.

Nature: It is saying that what we see is what we get. This table really does exist. I really am typing on a computer. There really aren't miracles occurring all the time.

Problem: this is the definition of reality, not nature. You say, what you see is what you get in reality. If that where the case, I would probably kill myself. How you see determines what you get.

Supernatural: is something beyond this view of the natural world. That there is something transcendental beyond this desk or outside of the everything that exists.

Problem: says who? Or is this another opinion you took as fact without looking back? If I am not reasonable, surely you will be able to judge correctly which of the following makes sense.

Nature comes from the word natus which is the past tense of the word nasci in Latin. It originally meant to be born of the universe.

So if an action is born of the universe it is a natural action.

Super can be understood as better or excessive depending on one's level of intelligence.

So, let's reason...can we conclude with solid evidence that there is a supernatural as in something better than anything born of the universe?

Absolutely not.

Can we conclude with solid evidence that there is a supernatural as in an excessive use of something born of the universe?

The answer is yes. Your definition of supernatural is a perfect example of one of these things we over use; I will let you decide which one.

We overuse the following gifts bestowed upon us by nature for our survival:

Emotion: It has replaced our reasoning, which seems to be used rarely and only for instant gratification. People see spiders and shiver in fear even though they very well know that it is harmless. Have you ever see an animal kill themselves because they were depressed?

Senses: don't even get me started. We live for our senses. We won't eat certain foods for idiotic reasons. We dress certain ways for visual appeal. We listen to music to make ourselves feel better. We use perfume etc.

Necessity (or its mutation, desire): All we ever do is want more and more and more of one thing or another. The universe gave birth to necessity. We need to eat. We have choices of what we eat. We now have an unnecessary (superfluous) amount of food to eat. We are even dumb enough to like some foods better than another based on taste (sense) instead of their utility to us.

Imagination: Just as our emotion now guides our reasoning, our imagination guides our ideas. We are completely backwards from the way God (or nature) created us.

Reasoning: with our emotions guiding our reasoning, we use it in the most obscure ways. Reasoning was given to us so we could understand the truth of things and the utility of things. Instead we use it to get rich, to get laid, to look good, and to make people love us or hate us depending on what we desire. Even this policy debate stuff I see on this website often; What is it achieving? I will probably be told that it shows intelligence and boosts wins. These two things are only for the ego. I can go on and on.

So tell me whose definition is more logical. Mine or yours? I am not talking about publicly held belief of what these words mean, but what they really mean.

Ultimate reality: above and transcendental to our existence and the stuff of real existence.

Problem: please, please just put the definition of ultimate and the word reality together:

The reality most remote in space or time, Basic, fundamental or original reality.

You keep saying that God is above when I have never said anything of that sort. He is below us and we must dig deep to find him. God is the most basic, stripped naked rules and sentiment of our existence. God is the foundation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"it's all pretty much a moot point because most of the definitions were ripped out of your hind-end and even then definitions are attempts to grasp how we use words not how words must be used..."

There is one right way and one thousand wrong ways to do anything and everything. How must words be used, In accordance to widely held beliefs and opinions? For if that is the case, than I am surely using these words poorly and I apologize.

" Also, I'd advise you to pay close attention to simply defining God into existence. Certainly if I defined elves as some form of reality, then I could try and parlay that into the conclusion that elves exist. You can't just define things as real things and then move on. There non-existence of God proper is enough to fault the topic you are trying to expound."

Have you seen an elf, or any evidence of an elf? No, so it's not real. I have not seen God, but every moment I live is evidence of Gods existence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Morality, You will probably laugh at me and say we are not talking about the same thing, but I assure you we are.

Animals and people follow the same laws of morality. Though we are trained to think differently.

A clean and free will knows what he needs for his happiness. For this person, stealing is bad because it is not worth the risk. Killing is bad because it is pointless amongst other things. Having lots of sex when not married is bad because you might have kids when you're not ready or get an STD. get the picture?

There is a right and wrong when it relates to necessity.

There is no right and wrong when it relates to desire.

If I sound arrogant so be it. The God I know was understood by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Alexis de Tocqueville and countless others. Intelligence is not needed to see God, only desire to know the truth. Religion was created to help man understand God. It seems, though, that it has pushed man away from God. Atheism is by far makes men more judicious, but that is only because you are closer to God whether you believe it or not.
Tatarize

Con

The problem I have with the odd definitions are not that they are all bad but rather that you are using them to equivocate.

- re�li�gion - something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
- pol�i�tics - political principles or opinions:

Clearly politics is a religion!

No.

The biggest offender in your litany of crappy definitions was your definition for God. The actual M-W definition is:

"the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind"

The a and b in the definition are completely relevant to the definition. Further, you are again equivocating on the point of dividing up "ultimate" and "reality" to say that it is "most within time and space" and "actually real" to conclude that God clearly exists.

Let me draw a parallel: Ghosts are supernatural. Super means extremely. Natural means real. Ghosts are extremely real!

It isn't the use of the words I object to. Rather it's the fact that you're equivocating all over the place and using the dictionary as an authority of what exactly words mean rather than a guide to how they are used. Nobody uses God to mean any natural entity anymore (I suppose pantheists and there might still be a deist kicking around). You seem to believe that there are "original meanings of the words" which come from the dictionaries and expand out from there. I suppose next you'll say that history books made wars happen and encyclopedias have declared that Madrid is the capital of Spain even though everybody in Spain wanted it in Barcelona. There's no such thing as "original meaning of the words" in that given context and certainly taking them out of a dictionary and out of context doesn't give them more "truth or weight".

There is no god to live in accordance with. It's a phantasm which you apparently believe in because the dictionary says it's so. I've heard of Biblical literalist and spoken with countless numbers of them. But you're the first dictionary-literalist I have encountered. Atheists do not believe in God. That is all. There's no accordance with God because there's no God to have an accord with. The world is rather chaotic anyhow but like most things out of the chaos comes a bit of order. You'd be astounded how many of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are based on exactly that principle (all of them).

>>this is the definition of reality, not nature.

That is what is meant by the word "nature" in the context. Natural as opposed to supernatural. The real as opposed to the unreal.

>>You say, what you see is what you get in reality. If that where the case, I would probably kill myself.

My condolences.

>>It originally meant to be born of the universe.

Yes, everything in the universe is natural.

>>We overuse the following gifts bestowed upon us by nature for our survival:

Adaptations for survival are not overused.

>>Have you ever see an animal kill themselves because they were depressed?

Yes.

---

Yes, we have amazing faculties which are not present in the other animals but we use them to the same ends because the ends to not change. We eat, we breed, we fight, and we die. Nothing about the internet or powergrid or art has changed the underlying four F's of human motivation: feeding, fighting, fleeing, and reproduction.

---

>>Problem: please, please just put the definition of ultimate and the word reality together:

And if I remove the blue marble could the marble be red and just very sad looking? Words meaning change when placed into conjunction with other words. You are asking me to equivocate.

----

God is not natural. God is non-existent. Everything that exists very much does exist and everything that doesn't exist doesn't exist. You can't dictionary a God into existence and you certainly can't conclude out of the blue (color, depressed, thin air?) that God exists in the first place. Furthermore, nothing about this very natural very real world is supernatural.
Debate Round No. 2
KingYosef

Pro

KingYosef forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Equivocation != sound logical argument.

God, as typically referred to is supernatural. The world is fully in reality without transcending reality or being bigger than reality it just is.

Further, simply being referred to as supernatural does not imply that such an entity even exists. In fact, many would argue, that saying that something is supernatural is saying that you are talking of nothing.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KingYosef 9 years ago
KingYosef
I have no problem being wrong, if i'm wrong i'm wrong, thats it. Hopefully my opponent will enlighten me in one way or another this round. Even if I learn one thing useful, no matter how small, It is better than winning.
Posted by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
There are just so many things wrong with your argument, KingYosef, really, wish I saw this one earlier.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
KingYosefTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 9 years ago
ecstatica
KingYosefTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
KingYosefTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 9 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
KingYosefTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
KingYosefTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03