The Instigator
mightbenihilism
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Debate_King1475
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God probably prefers bugs to people

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: Select Winner
Started: 10/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 63111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

mightbenihilism

Pro

God probably prefers insects to people.

This is based on the idea of "evidential apologetics", and assumes the following:

God exists.
Nature can tell us about what he is like.

By God is meant, at the bare minimum, the God of deism, but not to the exclusion of other ideas. An intelligent creator who set the universe in motion --- might be Allah, might be Krishna, might be Jesus. Might not. Whatever. You get the idea.

By nature is meant the earth and stuff.

If you don't assume, or pretend to assume, these assumptions, keep out of the debate.

Now, if nature can tell us about what he is like, then we can be reasonably certain that he prefers bugs like katy-dids, bacteria, parameciums, earth-worms, Ebola, and spiders to human beings. (that is, the a colloquial term for disgusting vermin beneath the order of rats, lizards and birds)
Why?
The following reasons:

1. There are more bugs on the earth.
2. There are more varieties of bugs on the earth.
3. Bugs have been on the earth longer than people.
4. Bugs can survive in far more extreme conditions than people.
5. Bugs can exist without people, and people can't exist without bugs

This demonstrates that it is more probable than not that:

1. God prefers more bugs more, or he would have made more people than bugs. For example, a cat lady LOVES cats, and she tends to have so many of them that they take over her house, eventually resulting in her eviction due to the smell and unsafe conditions. There are more bugs than people, so it is clear that God loves them more. God isn't a people-lady, but he's definitely a bug-lady, by sheer numbers.
2. There are three kinds of people: Conservatives, Liberals and Independents. There are literally a hundred or more types of bugs, however. Ergo, if "variety is the spice of life", that spice is probably crushed up bugs.
3. God wanted to check out some cool-lookin' bugs way before he wanted to look at some boring people. Bugs were year over a million years ago (probably) whereas people have only been here for 250,000 years or so.
4. People can only exist in certain climactic conditions, and if the temperature goes too far up or too far down, they will die. Since our armor is on the inside (which is stupid), we can only deal with so much wear and tear. Some bugs, on the other hand, can exist in many different types of temperature, and have their armor on the outside, which lets them take on just about anything. And bugs as a whole can exist in many different places that people cannot. Why? Because God loves the little jerks more than you!
5. Clearly, bugs don't need people. However, people need bees to pollinate flowers, stomach bacteria to digest food, and probably a few other things. People couldn't survive without at least a few types of bugs around, but bugs would do just fine without people. In fact, they'd probably do even better!

Therefore, theologically speaking, if the evidence of creation is a basis for learning something about God, then God clearly prefers bugs to people.

And note I said "BUGS" not "PUGS".
Debate_King1475

Con

1. There are more bugs on the earth.
2. There are more varieties of bugs on the earth.
3. Bugs have been on the earth longer than people.
4. Bugs can survive in far more extreme conditions than people.
5. Bugs can exist without people, and people can't exist without bugs

These are the observations that you made and you expect me to imply that there is a god from this evidence. Let me debunk each of your observation.

1. There are more bugs on the earth.
This implies that since there are so many bugs that they are easily replaceable and as an individual they are not as special.

2. There are more varieties of bugs on the earth.
This would shows that God gets bored with just one species of bug and he need a variety to keep himself satisfied but for humans there barely needs to be any diversity for himself to be satisfied showing that the basic essence of humans satisfies God more than the basic essence of a bug.

3. Bugs have been on the earth longer than people.
This could show how bugs were the test experiment for God and he realized that he made a mistake and instead of getting rid of bugs, he made them very different from each other but even that made him bored so he made man, which has kept him entertained since.

4. Bugs can survive in far more extreme conditions than people.
I disagree. If bugs go through a food shortage they are likely to die but if humans go through a food shortage our intellect showed us to keep backup food in the pantry, which God did not allow bugs to do. A bug can survive a nuclear bomb maybe but which of the two listed above is more likely the food shortage.

5. Bugs can exist without people, and people can't exist without bugs
That statement is not true because we could eat plants or other animals. Plants would be able to evolve into not needing bees to transporting their pollen and BACTERIA IS NOT A BUG!!!

But other reasons why I think God would like us more:

6. He put us at the top of the food chain.

7. He gave us better technology to survive and make our life better.

8. He gave us complexity and uniqueness to each day in life to keep it more entertaining for us.

The evidence does point to God loving us more than the bugs.
Debate Round No. 1
mightbenihilism

Pro

The King writes, "since there are so many bugs that they are easily replaceable and as an individual they are not as special."
If rarity determines how much God loves something, then he really loves dryococelus australis, which is far more rare than people. And since there are only a dozen of them, God clearly loves a TYPE of bug more than people. If your argument is true here, God still loves bugs (a dozen dryococelus australises) more than people. BOOO-YEEEEAAH!

His dark Majesty writes, "God gets bored with just one species of bug and he need a variety to keep himself satisfied but for humans there barely needs to be any diversity for himself to be satisfied showing that the basic essence of humans satisfies God more than the basic essence of a bug."
If lack of variation determines satisfaction, then God is far more satisfied with the measles virus than he is with people, for only one strain exists (Lauren Sompayrac, How Pathogenic Viruses Think, 2012) KAPOWEEAOWW!!!

The heinous highness says, "bugs were the test experiment for God and he realized that he made a mistake and instead of getting rid of bugs, he made them very different from each other but even that made him bored so he made man, which has kept him entertained since."
If bugs were a test experiment, he wouldn't keep them around. For instance, when you test make-up out on a lab dog, you euthanize the dog once you realize it looks good with the make up on and doesn't get allergic to it. That's just basic science. BAMBALABAM BAM!!!!

The muckraking Monarch pontifercates, "If bugs go through a food shortage they are likely to die but if humans go through a food shortage our intellect showed us to keep backup food in the pantry, which God did not allow bugs to do. A bug can survive a nuclear bomb maybe but which of the two listed above is more likely the food shortage."
Ants store food. Ever watch the movie Ants? The whole idea is that Ants are the original doomsday-preppers! BUHM BUHM BHSHSSHS!

The Khan of Koalabearishness shouts, "we could eat plants or other animals. Plants would be able to evolve into not needing bees to transporting their pollen and BACTERIA IS NOT A BUG!!!"
But, I clearly defined bacteria as a bug in my opening remarks. If you didn't like my definitions, you could debate me on their validity on a separate debate thread, but since you agreed to the terms of the debate you must clearly agree that baceteria is a bug. Sorry. DUNGADUNGA BOOM SHSHH.

He also writes,
"He put us at the top of the food chain. He gave us better technology to survive and make our life better. He gave us complexity and uniqueness to each day in life to keep it more entertaining for us."

First, tell Ebola we're at the top of the food chain.
Second, God didn't make technology. People invented technology to put up living in a cruddy environment (made by God).
Third, people aren't really all that complex or unique. You're probably just easily entertained because of growing up near power lines. I'm sorry for you, and I wish you well, but, sadly, most people are boring and laaaame.
Debate_King1475

Con

Ok according to some of my argument may prove that FOR THAT SINGLE POINT ALONE that God loves HUMANS MORE THAN BUGS. I agree it does prove that humans are not on the top for every category against every organism BUT YOU ARE IGNORING THE ARGUMENT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUGS AND HUMANS AND NOT OTHER SPECIES. . Also, I explained that we are talking about the bug community as a whole and not one species!!!

By saying that God made some organism less than humans would mean that he cared more about the species that he made less of because each individual is more important. Each individual's importance would be how we are judged by God but you made some random point about a specific type of organism. I am arguing that BUG AS A WHOLE AND NOT A SPECIES ARE LESS IMPORTANT TO GOD THAN HUMANS.

Also, by saying and I quote, "KAPOWEEAOWW" "BOOO-YEEEEAAH!" "BAMBALABAM BAM!!!!" "BUHM BUHM BHSHSSHS!" "DUNGADUNGA BOOM SHSHH." it makes it difficult to take you serious because you are acting childish.

You also said, "If lack of variation determines satisfaction, then God is far more satisfied with the measles virus than he is with people, for only one strain exists." For that one point yes measles get a point but WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MEASLES!!!
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUG AND HUMANS!!! Also, bugs needed to be tweaked many times because the ultimate essence of bugs did not satisfy God as much as the ultimate essence of humans.

You also said "If bugs were a test experiment, he wouldn't keep them around. For instance, when you test make-up out on a lab dog, you euthanize the dog once you realize it looks good with the make up on and doesn't get allergic to it. That's just basic science." You are saying that we can kill the dog because it could be allergic and get sick. YOU ARE GETTING OFF TOPIC AGAIN!!! BARELY ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE SAYING RELATES TO THE ARGUMENT AT ALL!!! However, regarding your issue when you said that if God did not like it he should have gotten rid of it. He would not want his hard work to go to waste so he would keep it. Also, he needed to compare his old creation with his new creation to know if he is making progress. By getting rid of the old creation, he will not know if he is making progress with his new creation.

I will admit that ants store food but not all bugs store food as well as humans. I am talking in the larger sense that the majority of bugs do not store food as well as humans store food in pantries.

WHY BACTERIA IS A NOT A BUG

In the dictionary a bug is definite according to http://www.merriam-webster.com... as

a : an insect or other creeping or crawling invertebrate (as a spider or centipede)
b : any of several insects (as the bedbug or cockroach) commonly considered obnoxious
c : any of an order (Hemiptera and especially its suborder Heteroptera) of insects that have sucking mouthparts, forewings thickened at the base, and incomplete metamorphosis and are often economic pests "called also true bug

No where in here do bacteria qualify as a bug. I agreed to the terms of the debate which you stated,

"God probably prefers insects to people.

This is based on the idea of "evidential apologetics", and assumes the following:

God exists.
Nature can tell us about what he is like."

The point of the debate is for me to disprove you and I will also disprove that bacteria is not a bug.

When we find a vaccine for ebola, we will go back on top of the food chain. However, we have been on the top of the food chain longer than Ebola in the last 2000 years, but as of right now we are losing. BUT WE ARE SECOND PLACE RIGHT NOW!!! Bugs are so far down the food chain they are no where near humans.

Also, you stated, "God didn't make technology. People invented technology to put up living in a cruddy environment (made by God)." God gave us made humans. Humans made technology. God indirectly made technology. He gavel humans the brain and the tools we need to make technology possible.

3rd PEOPLE ARE THE MOST COMPLEX ORGANISM ON THE PLANET!!!

We can go on a run, go on a walk, talk to a friend, play a game, go on the internet, have sex, eat food, sleep, build something, paint a painting, write a book, invent something new, debate someone online, play sports, sing, jump rope, go on a trampoline, play a video game, go on our phone, go fishing, go wake boarding, pray to a god, go on camping trips, smell the outdoors, go on a bike ride, and so on. There are so many things that god let us do and yet what can a bug do eat, sleep, communicate, move, and reproduce. Also, you said, "most people are boring and laaaame." As I explained above, being a bug is far more boring than being a human.

Just stay on topic with your arguments. You are making random comparisons that have nothing to do with bugs and humans. You even compared bug and humans to euthanizing puppies with make up. PLEASE NO RANDOM ONOMATOPOEIA AT THE END OF EACH OF YOUR STATEMENTS.
Debate Round No. 2
mightbenihilism

Pro

I predict Con will not defend themselves on any of the following false accusations, sloppy methodology and errors in basic logic, and they'll probably justify it with some tough-guy John Wayne talk like "Yr not even worth the trouble, bug-lover!"

Prove me wrong, Con. Show I'm no Nostradamus:

1. Con says, "I explained that we are talking about the bug community as a whole and not one species" - No Con didn't. My arguments implied it. However, I was pointing out in my rubettals that Con's argument could also be used to prove my point of God's love for bugs over people.

2. Con says, "I am arguing that BUG AS A WHOLE AND NOT A SPECIES ARE LESS IMPORTANT TO GOD THAN HUMANS" Con isn't arguing my actual position. He's arguing against the validity of my reasons. As I said, "God prefers bugs like katy-dids (INDIVIDUALS), bacteria (INDIVIDUALS), parameciums (INDIVIDUALS), earth worms (INDIVIDUALS), etc." I nowhere said "BUGS as a WHOLE".

3. Con says, "it makes it difficult to take you serious because you are acting childish". This is the ad hominem fallacy. And besides, all those things he quoted were typos.

4. Con says, "WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MEASLES". Did Con not read when I defined bugs as "the a colloquial term for disgusting vermin beneath the order of rats, lizards and birds". Has Con never heard about getting sick with a "bug" --- referring not to an insect but to a virus or bacteria? C'mon Con. Learn to read things properly. It will do you a world of good.

5. Con says, "You are saying that we can kill the dog because it could be allergic and get sick." Its a well known fact human products are tested on animals and, afterwards, the animals are sent to heaven.

6. Con says, "He would not want his hard work to go to waste so he would keep it." This is a valid point and I applaud Con's intellectual dexterity in this regard. Well done Con, well done.

7. Con says, "I will admit that ants store food but not all bugs store food as well as humans. I am talking in the larger sense that the majority of bugs do not store food as well as humans store food in pantries." Again, you may be talking about bugs in the larger sense, but I am speaking of bugs in the specific sense, which is subsumed under the larger sense. There's a difference. It's like, you enjoy a box of candybars not because you eat them all at once, but because each individual candy bar is delicious. You simply appreciate the entire box because of the flavor of each individual candybar. Thus God loves each individual bug more than people, and loves bugs as a whole more than people on that same account.

8. Con says, "WHY BACTERIA IS A NOT A BUG". What is a flu bug? Its a virus. What is a stomach bug? Its bacteria. Anyway, I specifically identified bacteria and parameciums as BUGS in my prefatory remarks. Anyway, Con is acting childish and its hard to take him seriously when he or she doesn't argue my actual points, refuses to accept the stated definitions of the debate, and criticizes me for typos (as if that was even relevphant).

9. Con says, "When we find a vaccine for ebola, we will go back on top of the food chain." We won't find a vaccine. Wash your hands. Stay in doors.

10. Con says, "However, we have been on the top of the food chain longer than Ebola in the last 2000 years, but as of right now we are losing." We weren't on top of the foodchain during Spanish flu epidemic, the plague, AIDS RIGHT NOW etc.

11. Con says, "God gave us made humans. Humans made technology. God indirectly made technology." According to this reasoning, God made humans. Humans made the Mongol invasions, the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Holomador, genocides of North, Meso and South America, etc. Ergo, God indirectly made these genocides. God loves bugs more than people, clearly.

12. Con says, "We can go on a run." Meh.

13. Con says, " You are making random comparisons". I submit to the Con that something is not necessarily random because it goes over your head.

14. Con says, "You even compared bug and humans to euthanizing puppies with make up." Yep.

Anyway, I think Con for a splendid debate. I still maintain that God prefers measles to people, and that God euthanisizes us like labradors with eye-liner. So far, my arguments are clearly true, sound, logical, and these beliefs should be placed in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution forthwith.
Debate_King1475

Con

God probably prefers BUGS to PEOPLE!!!

You don't even understand what you are saying!! You have run out of ways to rebuttal against and just said that my logic is wrong and yet he DID NOT GIVE ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT!!!

Oh My God!!!!!! You are blabbing the most random nonsense and trying to defend your point! You based all of this on the premise that rats, lizard, birds and many other things are bugs!!!!!!!!!!! You are so hard to take serious! You are just throwing out random and false criticism at me to try and defend yourself but you are blabbing the most random nonsense!!!

READ THROUGH HIS ROUND THREE COMMENTS!!!! All of them are random facts
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
It's symbolic.
Posted by hatshepsut 2 years ago
hatshepsut
I thought it was the other way around: bugs (order Hemiptera) are insects (class Insecta) and arthropods (phylum Arthropoda), but spiders, while also arthropods, are not insects or bugs.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Clarification for the sake theological honesty:

I didn't mean to type "insects", dangit. I meant to type "bgugs." Insects are only one type of bugs, because spiders are pugs also.
No votes have been placed for this debate.