The Instigator
Jmanwdogg
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If a god exists, it is impossible for him to care about the human race.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Jmanwdogg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 79433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Jmanwdogg

Pro

This argument presupposes a few things, so bear with me. First, it assumes, for the sake of argument, that there is a single god. This god is omnipresent, meaning that he is everywhere, omnipotent, meaning that he is all powerful, and nothing is out of his grasp power wise, and finally that he is omniscient, meaning that he knows literally everything. Other than that, anything may be assumed about god. Good luck.
harrytruman

Con

I will bring up my opponents defensive statement:
1. If God care about the human race, why does he let evil happen?
He wants to give them a chance to do the right thing by themselves
Any more statements? I don't know, please send some over!
Debate Round No. 1
Jmanwdogg

Pro

first things first; we presupposed that god is omniscient, meaning that he knows the results of all outcomes, as he is all knowing. Even if one were to choose to do something, that choice would be known to a being who knows the exact chemical structure of the persons brain, as well as their background, and the state of every single object in the universe. He is also omnipotent, meaning that even if he let someone do the negative thing, then he could just as easily undo that action, so that he could preserve "free will," while still preventing harm to pass on the victim. Beyond that, I am saying that, under the conditions that were previously stated, it would make no sense for god to care about the human race. the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, during which humanity has existed for about 200,000 (please lets not bring this argument to creationism, because as the entire scientific community can attest, that argument does not hold up and has not for about 50 years). We are a dust speck upon a dust speck etc. in the eye of a being who has existed since the beginning of the universe, and will exist once we die could not, logically, care about our existence. we do not care about the existence of a single bacteria, and god would not care about us for the same reason. This point is amplified especially when looking at the size of the universe, and our relative size compared to it, especially when considering the fact that the probability that the human race is an anomaly is statistically impossible.
harrytruman

Con

Carbon dating is flawed, a clam that was just pulled out of the water dates billions of years with it, they do not account for chemicals which would destroy carbon (such as oils and acids) or chemicals that would preserve carbon, they also fail to account for how much carbon was in its composition originally, in addition to carbon ratings inaccuracy, a human footprint wasps found inside of a dinosaurs in south America, the human race is most likely more than 200,000 years, and we have no reason to believe that the universe is actually 14 billion years old as you are accounting for it being formed randomly which is inherently impossible even if it were trillions of years old, in addition the previous 5 "days" in genesis, the actual Hebrew word was that of a period, which means it could have easily been the length of the cretacioous period, I will now discredit your statement that God could simply undo an action, God exists outside of time, preventing him from doing it would not be like us preventing something (if time travel was available) as he would be doing it in the present, besides, when someone chooses for their life to go one way (doing the action) they have to openly choose to turn away or God would be affecting free will.
Debate Round No. 2
Jmanwdogg

Pro

fun texts from the scientific community of the world: Nasa: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
PBS: http://www.pbs.org...
smithsonian: http://humanorigins.si.edu...

these are all peer reviewed studies by scores of world renowned scientists supporting my claim. Also if a being exists outside of time, then a beings death or well being literally could not matter as the person would be alive at some point, as death would not even be a concept he would be worried about, as someone would always be alive and dead in the eyes of god.

I am not suggesting time travel, I am suggesting an all knowing being would know whether or not you would do something, and that he could prevent harm coming to the victim while still allowing the perpertrator to do the action, thus not impeding his "free will."
harrytruman

Con

Couldn't, just knowing what a person would do doesn't mean they did it, besides I was dexterity how it was not as time travel would be relative to us, also it isn't like everything is happening at once relative to our concepts of action and present time but relative to our concepts of memory, and given our scenario an afterlife would have to be accounted for and would have to be accounted for either way considering 3/4 pounds that just vanish when you die (what) , this concludes that they would not be both alive and dead but that he would r err member or simply know that they die at a certain period, also I would like to reply to a comment you made in the second round:
"It would be like us being concerned with a couple microbes"
I would like to point out that NASA funded billions to have microbes brought to the moon, then time magazine published an entire article about them, and how they survived the moon, it's not too far off actually.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I thought whiteflame removed rougetech's vote. Why do I still see it?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: roguetech// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the argument that a god with traits that are impossible would have no reason to care. Although the argument is easily rebutted, Con failed to so. Therefore Pro was more convincing. Con makes several absurdly false claims regarding C14 dating that even Answers In Genesis wouldn't attempt, so I give Con a loss on conduct for lying. Sources go to Pro for providing some.

[*Reason for removal*] Source points require more reasoning. The provision of sources alone is insufficient to garner these points, as the sources must contribute in some substantive manner to the debate. Without that explanation, it's unclear that the source points are warranted.
************************************************************************
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
Feel free to start a debate. Suffice it to say that short of using a nuclear accelerator, you aren't going to cause C14 to decay any faster or slower.
Posted by harrytruman 2 years ago
harrytruman
C14 testing measures carbon in organic material, getting rid of it quickened makes it seam older, preserving it makes it seam newer.
Posted by harrytruman 2 years ago
harrytruman
I have proof, I thought that this debate was about God caring about humanity, ill have to create a entirely new debate for that, and I did not know that that was what they said,
I would also like to point out that your comment during the debate concerning links, I got educated on it and they can't tell the date of the universe by the deterioration of stars ad they do not have a control scenario, no further comment needed.
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
@harrytruman

>No, oils do in fact preserve carbon, and the claim that I was suggesting nuclear fusion? And acids to eat away at carbon bonds resulting in them deteriorating much quicker,

The high-powered laser tends to break molecular bonds too. Wtf does that have to do with the ratio of C14 ATOMS?

>I would like to point out that it dated millions of years,

You said billions, not that it helps ypur case. It would be literally impossible to date anything to millions of years old with C14 dating. Clearly, you either don't understand how radiometric works and making completely unfounded claims, or you do and are lying.

> if there was not a God I would not be a Christian

Oddly enough, that's what the Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Jews and followers of thousands of other religions say, despite not a single shred of reproducible evidence ever having been presented.
Posted by harrytruman 2 years ago
harrytruman
No, oils do in fact preserve carbon, and the claim that I was suggesting nuclear fusion? And acids to eat away at carbon bonds resulting in them deteriorating much quicker, these facts are easily verifiable, but my opponents are not, they are just a failed and unintelligent smear campaign, I would like to point out that it dated millions of years, not that there was any control, which is my point exactly, my belief in a God is solely based on factual evidence which has led me to this conclusion, you're free to test away but you won't find any fault in this, if there was not a God I would not be a Christian, but this is simply not the case, my opponent fails to grasp this concept.
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
@harrytruman

C14 dating does not work with aquatic organisms, due to the reservoir effect. C14 decays at a predictable rate, but is renewed by solar radiation causing the decay of N14. This creates a roughly constant amount of C14 in the atmosphere, which plants breath in, and animals subsequently eat. Since marine environments don't use atmospheric CO2, it doesn't work. The claim that a clam was dated to billions of years is irrelevant. But, it's also stupid. Really stupid. C14 has a halflife of 5,730 years. The amount of C14 left after hundreds of thousands of years becomes immeasurable. After billions of years, there would be an unpredictable amount left due the uncertainty principal would apply. Essentially, there is no way to predict when any given C14 atom will decay, while still allowing for a very precise average. So after a billion years, normal division would say there would be no C14 left.

But the stupid doesnt stop there. Billion year old clams would be mineralized fossils with NO CARBON. Why would you C14 date a rock??

Also, the claim of the clam is disengenous. SCIENCE determined and demonstrated the problem with aquatic dating. This is a case of science winning. It's not like some concerned religious citizen went out and dated something, and through years of lobbying, forced some elitist intellectuals to accept it. SCIENTISTS in the early days of C14 dating, to make sure it works, dated a variety of things, then TOLD everyone else the findings. You then take the findings and try to tell scientists WHAT THEY DID.

The claim that oils and acids is possibly even more stupid. The only way to change atoms an element is by adding or removing protons or neutrons. Fry some carbon in oil and it will still be carbon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
JmanwdoggharrytrumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the argument that a god with traits that are impossible would have no reason to care. Although the argument is easily rebutted, Con failed to so. Therefore Pro was more convincing. Con makes several absurdly false claims regarding C14 dating that even Answers In Genesis wouldn't attempt, so I give Con a loss on conduct for lying. Sources is being awarded because Pro had better quality sources. Con had so few sources (none) that it constituted inadequate source support. Pro had sources of superior quality.