The Instigator
Neoman
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
The-Holy-Macrel
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Is there a god? round 2

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 5 votes the winner is...
The-Holy-Macrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 878 times Debate No: 62703
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)

 

Neoman

Con

Since you are a christian, and think you are smart, why dont you "bring it?!" :)
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Don't forget that this is not a personal debate. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Neoman

Con

Thank you for accepting. first, lets start with the "definition" of god:
God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Do you believe this definition is correct? If not, propose you own.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Definately next round we should start debating but that definition is ok but you may want yo pock one so it is easier to defend, if you want this definitonn then i only have to prove that one exists. I would prefer the first part of the definition though.
Debate Round No. 2
Neoman

Con

Based on this definition, god can affect nature and lives of people, so can humans. We can give life to a stem cell (Dolly the cloned sheep), which in this case the "life" of a cell and life of a sheep are entirely different subjects. or we can destroy the entire world with nukes in 10 minutes. thus, we can give life and take life away. So called god has no power to stop us. He/she/it doesnt even get to vote on anything. Do you agree on my statement?
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

I will rebuttle on that statement actually.

1---humans aren't supreme. If there is something then something has to cause it, what exactly? the big bang. It would take such an infanite force to create creation/the universe that there has to be a god that creates it. Even if the universe had as much matter as a pebble something must have made it. Therefore (a) god must make it.

2---The arguement is "is there a god" and in your statement you say that god CAN affect nature and the lives of people, that doesn't mean he does so therefore your statement doesn't support your position on the topic.
Debate Round No. 3
Neoman

Con

I did not say god can affect nature and lives of people. I was quoting from webster, which you accepted as a reliable source.
Yet you havent agreed nor disagreed on my statement which prooves as we now humans can give and take life just like your so called supreme god can. Here is a proof that dolly exists which most likely you never heard: http://en.wikipedia.org... and a human MADE dolly. Literally giving life as we now to a tiny cell, so we can say dolly was created by a human.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

While your statement is true it doesn't support your con side on is there a god? But my statement marked 1 in round 3 stands true.
Debate Round No. 4
Neoman

Con

Pro agrees my statement on round 4 is true; we can give and take life, just like a "god" can. yet we cant be a god because it conflicts with your definition of "god" on round 2 (we are not all-powerful spirits, we are not perfect). Due to this confliction, pro fails.
Conclusion: Due to the failure of my opponent on this debate, there is no god. Thank your time, you are welcome for opening your mind to a whole new world where you can question Everyting without fear.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

I would like to point out that con never rebuttled succesfully against my point one in arguement three one last time and also that his arguemrnt(s) dodn't support con's side.

Conclusion: based on pro's statement titled "1" which hadn't been disproven, pro wins.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
I am not saying that stem cell's life is not a real life. I know it is alive somehow. I am just telling you that its "life" is nothing compared to a human life. e.g. "get a life bro". I hope you understand what i meant now.
If i could've cloned myself, taught him the exact way of my own logic Conscious how cloning works, then we can say i would've existed forever.
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
""On the other hand, some Christians cite the teachings of Jesus and say that cloning could be the way to heal the sick and make the blind see." yes. we need such religious people."
I would just like to point out that now you are actually supporting religion in some small way.

"Though, the pope is wrong. If I sign the paper "yes you can clone me and do researches on the clone to save the humanity from the most of the disorders we know today" and the concept of "life" of a stem cell will be entirely different from the real life as we know which is the clone's."
First of all, this sentence is a little difficult to understand, so please forgive me if I am mistaken. You seem to suggest that stem cell "life" is not real life. Are you suggesting that stem cell life is not equivalent to natural life? If so, then your original stance that human creation is equivalent to Godly creation is voided.

"Therefor I do not believe that pope just gave the order to stop the research for its confliction with the human rights. He was truly scared."
If the Pope is comparing embryonic stem cell life to natural embryonic life, as I believe he is in this context, then he logically is advocating against the abuse and killing of the embryo, regardless of whether it is stem cell or real. He is appealing to humanity. Granted, he may have been scared for some reason, but I don't see any logical reason why he would be, or what he would have been scared of.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
"On the other hand, some Christians cite the teachings of Jesus and say that cloning could be the way to heal the sick and make the blind see." yes. we need such religious people. Though, the pope is wrong. If I sign the paper "yes you can clone me and do researches on the clone to save the humanity from the most of the disorders we know today" and the concept of "life" of a stem cell will be entirely different from the real life as we know which is the clone's. Therefor I do not believe that pope just gave the order to stop the research for its confliction with the human rights. He was truly scared.
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
http://people.opposingviews.com...

The source for my religious info in that last post
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
You didn't answer my question about what type of degree you have, so I'll just assume that I hit that nail on the head. Especially since tablets and phones have autocorrect features nowadays that would undoubtedly prevent you from rampant spelling and grammatical errors.

Regarding stem cell research and cloning, you are mislead. The majority of religious texts do not say anything at all regarding the artificial creation or synthesis of living things.

Several denominations of Christianity even mused that stem-cell research was the modern healing that America desperately needs, and is a new way to "heal the blind and the deaf." The only true opposition was from the radically religious, and in many cases, it wasn't as much about "cloning" as it was about the sanctity of life.

The Catholic church, specifically, argued that synthesizing living embryos and then allowing them to die was abuse. It's not because of the moral implication of cloning, it's because they consider embryonic life to be precious, which is the same argument that Catholicism makes against abortion. The Catholic church didn't explicitly oppose cloning, they opposed abortion.

Regarding the answer to our creation, you may be right, and you may be wrong. But if you cannot flatly equate human creation with the concept of the Big Bang creation, then you also cannot equate human creation to the concept of God creation.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
My spelling has always been terrible, plus i am mostly on a tablet/mobile phone which makes it worse. Still according to bible copying a living thing must be impossible for us humans since the church did eveything in its power to stop the research when they started talking about human cloning. Anyways, answer to our creation cannot be explained by a book which is full of flaws.
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
@Neoman, technically speaking, we don't have any "proof" for anything. However, theoretically, at one point, a literal nothingness existed, and by some miracle, everything that we can observe (in addition to everything that we cannot) has come into existence. Whether by God or not, we were made from scratch. That is undeniable. Manipulating preexisting genetics and stem cells is not equivalent to creating matter from literal nothingness, no matter how badly you want it to be. If you are likening humans to God, then logically, from a non-Christian standpoint, you are also forced to liken humanity to the Big Bang. If you say that we aren't equivalent to the Big Bang, then you are admitting that humanity does not have the capacity to genuinely create. So then I am forced to believe that you are not an unbiased advocate for logic, but rather, a biased advocate against God.

However, congrats on the medical degree, Bachelor's? Masters? Doctorate? I only ask because you spelled "prove" wrong and are missing some punctuation and capitalizations. Not to mention, the way you communicate is reliant on mockery and personal statements, rather than the "facts" that you demand. This paints you in a very unprofessional light, making it seem as though you are either younger, or less educated than you claim to be. Specifically: by trying to mock others for their personal beliefs and logic, you are suggesting to your audience that you cannot communicate clearly, or that you are too emotional about this topic to be logically unbiased. By the way, in case you are wondering, I have a B.A. in English.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
I am a real scientist (have a medical degree, working at the E.R) so in order to proove something you have to show facts. "because it is written in some ancient book" or "because god said so" will not work on any true scientist.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
@craighawley215 Because we have so much proof that "god" created everything from the scratch. makes perfect sense for you. Keep believing in that like those cavemen believed the same way about the sun was a god.
@macrel talking about my youth... Are you a psychologist "wannabe"? Nice try. I dont hate god because you cant hate something that does not exist. second nice try :)
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
But he does show aggresion in his comments, but aggresion is natral. Something probobly happened when he was young. Causing personal hate torwds god. Neoman if you want to talk about it go to my forum.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
NeomanThe-Holy-MacrelTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The-Holy-Macrel had better conduct and made better points.
Vote Placed by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
NeomanThe-Holy-MacrelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments were poor. At least you could kind of understand CON though.
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 2 years ago
dragonfire1414
NeomanThe-Holy-MacrelTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Quite disappointing, I don't feel like I learned anything from this debate.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
NeomanThe-Holy-MacrelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not uphold his end of the Burden of Proof. He failed to connect the dots and argue in a way that made sense. Pro did his best to answer the claims brought up by Con and did very well with what he had to work with.
Vote Placed by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
NeomanThe-Holy-MacrelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was pretentious and offensive, while Pro tried to remain civil. This clearly was a personal debate for Con, and it harmed his arguments. After round 2, I can't in good conscious give spelling/grammar to Pro. However, Pro did produce the more logic based content, and Con didn't produce a thoroughly sound argument. In addition, Con never fully rebutted any of Pro's comments.