The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
XLAV
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Is there an after life and/ or an intelligent creator?

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 1 vote the winner is...
XLAV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,526 times Debate No: 49733
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Cooldudebro

Pro

First round is for acceptance. Good luck!
XLAV

Con

I accept. Good luck to you too!
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Pro

CASE 1: After Life

There are many proof of ghosts and an after life. Here is a quote from an article:

"We have substantial, replicable proof that EVP can be developed into a powerful tool for etheric studies. If the evidence is considered, it is clear that many of the fundamental beliefs of science will need to be changed, and EVP offers a tangible means for determining how that change should be approached" (1)

There are also other kinds of proof. Recently, a forensics lab just confirmed proof of ghosts. (2) Hey, you can't argue with science can you?

CASE 2: Proof of and intelligent creator.

Let me get this straight, God is NOT PERFECT. Despite common belief, he isn't perfect. Let me also get this straight. I am NOT ARGUING FOR THE BIBLE! The Bible is false on many accounts. I am just arguing for an intelligent creator. Where did everything come from? God had to make it. Here is my formula.

God is pure energy

Energy can never be lost or gained, but changed forms

Energy creates.

God creates because he is pure energy.

God can never go away.

The matter can't always be there

Cells would be destroyed in space

Atoms can be destroyed over time

Therefore God is necessary.

Also, there is a theory that has been proven to show God exist. (3)

Good luck!

1. http://paranormal.about.com...

2. http://whofortedblog.com...

3. http://abcnews.go.com...
XLAV

Con

Definitions by Cooldudebro (Posted in the comment section):

god - creator

after life - life after death, ghosts, spirits

intelligent creator - god, the creator

Rebuttals

CASE 1: After Life

"We have substantial, replicable proof that EVP can be developed into a powerful tool for etheric studies. If the evidence is considered, it is clear that many of the fundamental beliefs of science will need to be changed, and EVP offers a tangible means for determining how that change should be approached" (1)

The voices from the EVP can come from anywhere. One theory suggest they come from the researchers' own subconscious. It's been suggested that somehow the researchers' thoughts are projected onto the tape. Another theory suggests they are from another dimension. It is theorized that there may be many dimensions of existence, and somehow beings from some other dimension are able to speak and communicate with ours through this method. [1]

Skeptics assert that there is nothing to EVP at all and that the "voices" are either hoaxed, random noise interpreted as voices, real voices already on the tape, or voices picked up from radio, cell phones and other such sources. [2]

In conclusion, the voices of EVP is not proof of an afterlife or ghosts.

"There are also other kinds of proof. Recently, a forensics lab just confirmed proof of ghosts. (2) Hey, you can't argue with science can you?"

Your source is unreliable. The Global Paranormal Service is not a legitimate organization. The group was investigating a supposed haunting at the local library. This was smart of them because libraries always have a "ghost section” so I applaud them and their intuition. An unnamed forensic lab has looked over their evidence has confirmed it’s authenticity. The image that was shown in your source could be a fake. People in the comment section of your source are also commenting the possibility of a hoax.

CASE 2: Proof of and intelligent creator.

"I am just arguing for an intelligent creator. Where did everything come from? God had to make it."

I accept your definition of god as the creator and god as energy, but I can't accept god as an intelligent creator if god is energy.

Definitions:

intelligent design - the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [3]

energy - energy is one of the basic quantitative properties describing a physical system or object's state. Energy can be transformed among a number of forms that may each manifest and be measurable in differing ways.

If god is energy than the energy created the "Big Bang". The Big Bang is not a form of intelligent design nor is it created by an intelligent creator. Energy can be called god since they have similar characteristics as god, but it cannot be called an intelligent creator. [4]

Pro failed to show how energy should be considered an intelligent creator.


Arguments

Case 1: Afterlife
People want to believe in an afterlife because they fear death, in some religions, to be reincarnated and continue living, and in other religions, to punish people who do evil (hell) and reward the ones who believe in their religion and do good (heaven).

An unlimited supply of anything, including life, means that its existence cannot be appreciated. If life is eternal than their should be no sense of urgency. Imagine living in eternity, everything that can be accomplished will be accomplished. Beyond all achievements their will be limitless pointless existence. An eternity of living would be hell. [5]






Sources


[1] http://paranormal.about.com...

[2] http://www.skepdic.com...

[3] http://www.intelligentdesign.org...

[4] http://www.space.com...

[5] https://www.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Pro

I know this will get you.


CASE 3: QUANTUM PHYSICS PROVES AN AFTERLIFE

I don't want to spoil this, but all you non-believers that don't believe in an afterlife, look at this. I am confident that this will make you a believer in afterlife.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...


So, if there is an afterlife, what created matter? What created our cells and life. This can only happen with God. So, God must exist. Afterlife must exist.

Rebuttal 1:

God created our ancestors and natural selection took the steering wheel from there. God basically made us and slapped us on the back and said lets see what my creation will become. I'll put my arguments against the big bang next round.

Ladies and gentleman. I have proven scientifically there must be an afterlife. Also, that matter can not just pop up. It had to be made by God. Thank you.
XLAV

Con

I have to forfeit this round because of real life problems, so -1 me in conduct. However, I will still continue this debate and post on the last round.

On to pro.
Debate Round No. 3
XLAV

Con

Rebuttals
CASE 3: QUANTUM PHYSICS PROVES AN AFTERLIFE

“I don't want to spoil this, but all you non-believers that don't believe in an afterlife, look at this. I am confident that this will make you a believer in afterlife.”

http://www.collective-evolution.com...;

Case 3 is more of Philosophy than Quantum Physics.

This argument has too many holes in it for me to believe Robert Lanza's claim. For one, it is never explained what he means by certain phrases like "By looking at the universe from a biocentric's point of view, this also means space and time don't behave in the hard and fast ways our consciousness tell us it does", as if the reader knows what he means by "hard and fast" in this context.

Second, the so called "proof" that is provided only proves how particles can change and behave in different ways and our ability to change our perception of the world, but none of that has anything to do with an afterlife. I also completely disagree with these two claims that Professor Lanza made:

"....death as we know it is an illusion created by our consciousness."
It is not possible to "think" something back to life or use our consciousness to prevent something from dying. Nature has its life cycles and if something is dead, it is literally dead.

"What you see could not be present without your consciousness"
How would Professor Lanza explain the existence of matter, space, and time before humans appeared on the earth?

I don't feel there is any concrete evidence in this article [1] to back up Lanza's claim and that's a sure fire sign that there is no truth to it.


"God created our ancestors and natural selection took the steering wheel from there. God basically made us and slapped us on the back and said lets see what my creation will become. I'll put my arguments against the big bang next round."
Pro failed to rebut my Case 1: Afterlife, but rather helped my arguments by admitting there was no intelligent creator and our life was through natural selection. Pro basically said energy created everything and life was made through natural selection, not through intelligent design. [2]


"Ladies and gentleman. I have proven scientifically there must be an afterlife. Also, that matter can not just pop up. It had to be made by God. Thank you."
Pro failed to prove the possibility of an afterlife and the existence of an intelligent creator.


Conclusion
Pro used unreliable sources to back-up his arguments and I, Con, was able to rebut all of Pro's arguments. I rebutted Pro's Case 1: Afterlife argument by explaining that the sources, or voices, from EVP are not exactly from the afterlife or ghosts, Case 2: Proof of an intelligent creator by explaining that energy is not an intelligent creator, and Case 3: Quantum Physics proves an Afterlife, by Robert Lanza, by explaining the lack of proof and pointed out the holes in the theory. Pro also did not back-up his Case 1 and Case 2 arguments after I rebutted them.

Again, if there is an afterlife, there will be limitless pointless existence. An eternity of living would be hell.


Sources

[1] http://www.collective-evolution.com...

[2] http://umso.wordpress.com...




VOTE CON!

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Conduct for the forfeit.

Pro, you had a lot of S&G errors. But I don't think it affected readability quite enough to justify points.

Sourcing was equal enough for government work.

On to arguments:

As Con noted, Pro's arguments all either were insufficiently supported, did not directly support the motion, or were what I would class as mere "sourced assertion"--particularly R3, Case 3, where Pro didn't evne actually make a case, but asserted that Quantum Physics proved an afterlife and sourced it.

As Con noted, parts of Pro's case, even if taken at face value (the energy argument) don't support the overall case.

Pro took on two topics that have been hotly debated since forever; I felt like it was going to be almost impossible for him to sufficiently support both in general, and having read the debate I feel that that has been borne out by the debate itself.

Thus, arguments to Con.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by XLAV 3 years ago
XLAV
I said I will still post next round...
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
you said u had to go
Posted by XLAV 3 years ago
XLAV
Why didn't you post your big bang argument?
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
God: creator

Those are.my definitions. I dont want this to be a technicality debate.
Posted by XLAV 3 years ago
XLAV
Cooldudebro, you need to post your definitions in the comment section or we might have a semantic dispute.
Posted by DocG84 3 years ago
DocG84
He defines God as pure energy. I believe in energy, I just don't call it God.

I don't see how his argument addresses any evidence for an afterlife though.
Posted by XLAV 3 years ago
XLAV
Can you be more specific with 'god'? Also add the sources of your definitions.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
What I mean:

After life: life after death, ghosts, spirits

Intelligent creator: God, the creator
Posted by XLAV 3 years ago
XLAV
Cooldude, can you post your definitions in the comment section?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
CooldudebroXLAVTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.