It is not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god
Debate Rounds (5)
No Rules. Go Nuts
My opponent has provided no definitions or rules, therefore I will start my opening argument with some definitions.
1. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable
Based on this definition of logical, illogical can be taken to mean that which goes against that which is proven (known statements, events, conditions, etc.)
1. Proved and publicly acknowledge to be; apprehended with certainty
My opponent has asserted that "It is not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god." I contest this. Based on the definitions for this debate, it is clearly illogical to suppose the non-being of a god that has been proved to be.
 thefreedictionary.com and google dictionary; definitions combined
"realize that as this is stated, I could argue that if you know the god, clearly it exists?"
I know of Santa. I know of many things from books. As a matter of fact, without books or any kind of writings, we would have no understanding of a god.
god is known from ancient writings, nothing else, no evidence needed but the holy binky written close to 2000 yrs ago :)
If god exists at all, its only in the delusional mind of the human concsciousness, the same delusional place Elvis and Tupac alive exists.
It is Not illogical to suppose the non existance of a known god, who is only known because of ancient barbaric, sexist, homophobic, slave supporting, and who to kill and why writings that have some "inspirational gospels" sprinkled in later.
You can sugar coat and sprinkle all the virtue you want on a man that saves 2 million lives thru single handedly starting 10 massive charities, but I'll be damned if he doesnt spend the rest of his days in jail for molesting a handful of 8-9 yr old boys, and the black mark of his atrocity, shames the name he carries.
However, when it comes to the main character in the holy binky, the list of excuses for his behavior and intentions is longer than the list of known birth defects and diseases. :)
Harry Potter has 7 books. Take the time to put an argument together and you could defend the existance of Harry Potter as more than just a story. Just like you can put together an argument and defend the existance of a sky daddy written in other books as more than just a story :)
The influence and scope of the supernatural in human lives in 2013 is nothing short of embarrasing to Mankind :)
The bible--"Btw, translated into English, it says, "Because I said so, that's why."
"This is ALSO why debates usually have rules"
Its Not my responsibility to get you to fully comprehend the magical, mysterious and inspirational understanding of the universe and life that Mankind is aware of in 2013.
It is so magnificant its nothing short of an insult to the love in the universe, when it is asserted without evidence, that the reason for everything we know to be true revealed itself a couple thousand yrs ago, had a human sacrifice, tested love thru a mountain top burnt offering, and was surprisingly keen at knowing how to keep slaves :)
Remember when you were really young and learned connect the dots? When youre in law enforcement, the better you can connect the dots in your head, the better of a detective you will be, when it comes to connecting the dots on "what happened" based on evidence.
When among the elite in the world, when they aree connecting the dots of the complete 6 billion nucleotide human genome, the evidence provided obliterates any doubt of our evolution, and is extremely corrosive to any personal god creation story currently known to man.
There is no gray area here, the genesis creation is bogus, cumulative evolution by natural selection is moon landing true. Only the nut jobs think we never landed on the moon.
Seperate and then annihilate. Once we seperate religion from government, and they are no longer in bed together, religion will begin a rapid decline into mediocrity onto its way to absurdity, its rightoeous place :)
Any personal god known to man has a perpensity to be extremely concerned with human sexuality, and practicing some level of misogyny in their writings.
The illogical connecting of dots done by the religious mind, is evidence at how blinding to logic and reason the poison of a god story can be on a person.
True Scripture will shed light on the subject.
Illogical 5:39--The earth is so complex and diverse, it couldnt have just come from nothing, therefore, jesus is my savior, zeus would be stupid :)
Illogical 5:41--Humans are so complex, look at the eyeball, our veins, everything is just right, so it makes perfect sense that life was created by a being who can convict you of thought crimes such as lust :)
Illogical 5:42--Proof of a creator is all around us, look at the irreducible complexity of everything, that clearly shows that the reason for everything must be loved, worshipped and obeyed or you are subject to an eternity of punishment while those who did get on their knees get a scooby snack :)
Recognize 6:24--Mankind lives longer, better, more comfortable, advanced lives, when more money is donated in the name of Genius, instead of jesus. According to the 2009 Global Peace Index, very non-violent lives as well. :)
Just because a santa or a leprechaun or a unicorn or a god are written about in many ways, without any other evidence, these claims must be considered statistical improbabilities in order to remain intellectually honest :)
Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to Not question the origins of life, and suppose the non existance of leprechauns and gods with the same emphasis. Leprechauns are no big deal, and neither should be gods.
However in 2013, the most divisive and despicable fairy tale ever, the holy binky, is the sengle most disgusting invention in the history of mankind.
The atrocious nature of that filthy book absolutely screams at the intellect to stay away!
To question lifes origins and suppose the non existance of a known god, is only possible thru advocating intellectual honesty.
Another reason that it is not illogical to suppose the non existance of a known god, the sheer number of choices thruought time and the absoluteley incredible amount of obvious plagerism from older writings.
There are thousands and thousands of people who are proof that reading the bible with a skeptical, open, inquisitive mind will produce an Intellectual Advocate. There are many who were all once believers in christianity. All realized what they were reading was inconsistent, and irrational.
There are so many problems within the bible that it made them wonder why anyone wanted them to believe in it in the first place.
All are now Intellectual Advocates who understand the god of the bible is too idiotic, narcissistic and repulsive to be real.
The poison of religious dogma is worse when ignorance is present.
You need to understand that it is fact, that in the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of christian authorities. The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical christian mob led by a christian minister named peter, in a church, in 415. You may want to do your own research, and draw your own conclusions and understandings as to the ridiculous nature of religious poison on an uneducated, low level of consciouness.
CaptainObvious 1:4--The planet earth is covered with 70% water. Of the remaining 30%, you have desert and mountains and other non livable areas, so about 15% of earths surface is actually livable. Poor design or poor designer? Birth defects have been around since the beginning of time, poor design or poor designer? :)
BigKids 6:26--Standing up for intellectual honesty in the face of the most hostile enemy logic and reason are up against, religion and organized religion, is the enlightment necessary to change our world for the better :)
DevientGenie 8:45--You dont have to let your kids choose their own beliefs and form their own understandings, Nobody is going to force you to be awesome, you have to want to be awesome, because you love them enough to be awesome :)
RIDDLES 8:14--What does a stalker do, that the main characters written about in the holy binky does?....They put you on a pedestal, but then once they're rejected, its anger, and rage :)
Dont listen to a single human being, and apply equal amounts of skepticism to both science and religion. While doing your objective research, apply this equal sketicism and inquisitive nature, and you will clearly see that it is Not illogical to suppose the non existance of a known god :)
To begin my rebuttal, I would like to immediately point out the fact that my opponent has completely ignored my argument.
I find it interesting how my opponent began his argument by addressing what someone said in the comments instead of addressing my argument. Furthermore, my opponent's argument does not relate at all to the argument I put forth in Round 1. I conclude that my argument stands: it is illogical to suppose the non-existence of a god that has been proven to be. My opponent has provided no evidence to the contrary, and I do not see how he possibly can. Unless he can show why this is not the case, he has lost.
I would first point out that my opponent has used a different definition of "known" than the one that is specified for this debate. Known, in the context of this debate, can be taken to mean "proved and publicly acknowledged to be." This has already been established. I would point out to my opponent that this debate is not on the topic of the existence of a god or gods. Furthermore, it is not related to whether or not a specific god exists. The debate topic is whether or not it is logical to suppose the non-existence of a hypothetical known god. As I have already pointed out, if the god in question is already known to be/exist, then of course, based on the established definition of logical, it is illogical to suppose the non-existence of this god.
My opponent said the following: "It is Not[sic] illogical to suppose the non existance[sic] of a known god, who is only known because of ancient barbaric, sexist, homophobic, slave supporting, and who to kill and why writings that have some "inspirational gospels" sprinkled in later."
This is of course true. However, as I just pointed out, this is not the god we are discussing in this debate, and this is not the definition of known we are using in the debate either. If my opponent wanted to discuss this topic instead (whether or not it is logical to suppose the existence of the Christian God, who from my opponent's later writings I take it he is referring to), he should have made it very clear in his opening statement. As he provided no elaboration or definitions, I established the meaning of key terms in my Round 1 statement. Even though it is irrelevant, my opponent has said nothing about my definitions. I assume this means that he finds them satisfactory. If this is the case, then I wonder why he has argued the way he has thus far. Maybe I should not assume he deemed my statement worthy of careful reading, or even of reading at all.
As interesting and occasionally clever or incoherent the rest of my opponent's opening argument is, it is a complete tangent. He seems to be more interested in preaching on completely unrelated topics than on focusing on our debate.
He said, "However in 2013, the most divisive and despicable fairy tale ever, the holy binky, is the sengle[sic] most disgusting invention in the history of mankind."
He also stated the following: "Another reason that it is not illogical to suppose the non existance[sic] of a known god, the sheer number of choices thruought[sic] time and the absoluteley[sic] incredible amount of obvious plagerism[sic] from older writings."
He said, "Seperate[sic] and then annihilate. Once we seperate[sic] religion from government, and they are no longer in bed together, religion will begin a rapid decline into mediocrity onto its way to absurdity, its rightoeous[sic] place :)"
He said this: "There is no gray area here, the genesis creation is bogus, cumulative evolution by natural selection is moon landing true. Only the nut jobs think we never landed on the moon."
He said that "Any personal god known to man has a perpensity[sic] to be extremely concerned with human sexuality, and practicing some level of misogyny in their writings."
He even said this: "Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to Not[sic] question the origins of life, and suppose the non existance[sic] of leprechauns and gods with the same emphasis."
I cannot see how any of these statements relate at all to the topic at hand. The last quote, though I'm not quite sure what it means, seems to be an argument against his position (saying that it is intellectually dishonest to suppose the non-existence of gods). However, this is not a debate on intellectual honesty. This is not a debate on whether religion is despicable, nor is it a debate on evolution. It is not a debate on the validity of Christianity. It is not a debate about design. It is not even a debate about whether or not "The poison of religious dogma is worse when ignorance is present."
According to my opponent, "The atrocious nature of that filthy book absolutely screams at the intellect to stay away!"
Okay... Still, I fail to see how the Bible and his hatred of it are relevant. That would most likely be because these things aren't relevant.
In conclusion, he says "Dont[sic] listen to a single human being, and apply equal amounts of skepticism to both science and religion. While doing your objective research, apply this equal sketicism[sic] and inquisitive nature, and you will clearly see that it is Not[sic] illogical to suppose the non existance[sic] of a known god :)" I'm not sure what was meant by this piece of advice. It was unclear if he was asking the audience to vote with this in mind. I will not venture to say that my opponent is attempting to direct the audience away from both the topic and the actual arguments given in this debate, but it does seem this way.
In conclusion, based on the definitions laid out for this debate, it is illogical to suppose the non-existence of a known god (one that has been proven to exist). I'm certainly not saying that a god has been proven to exist. That is irrelevant to this debate.
I would ask my opponent to stay on topic this round.
Your adjective definition is deifferent than my verb definition, therefore it is Not illogical to suppose the Non extistance of a known god :)
As far as sticking to the topic, I just got a call from Sticky Magazine and they gave me the Super Glue Award for Topics.
They said that since I expalined the ridiculous nature of a human being in 2013 believing that any known god from any writings on this planet could possibly be true, they agreed that based on scientific understandings of the universe and life, it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god from ancient information :)
As far as calling it first goes with your definitions, actually means nothing. Im not here to split hairs, just because you are means nothing.
The definitions of my words are seen in the words themselves. They are defined in action thru example :)
I'm not required to define and layout definitions right away about certain words. There are No rules :)
Starting my debate by addressing the comments section is impossible to be an incorrect way to begin my debate, since there are No Rules :)
Another reason it is not illogical to suppose the non existance of a known god is because questioning lifes origins is the essence of free thought.
Any definition of a known god, is devoid of cumulative evolution by natural selection over billions of years, which has an unsurmountable amount of evidence, let alone electricity, so it is defintiley Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god :)
Your inability to hear tone of voice, inflection or to read my mind, is nothing to be ashamed of, I failed mind reading too, and Algebra. We cant all do everything right.
However, coming up with different ways to say "religion is the single most destructive and divisive invention in the history of mankind", thats my wheel house :)
Since religion is based on some ancient writings full of plagarism and disgusting, childish and immoral doctrine littered with misogyny, it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god from such writings.
What needs to be understood is that unjustified religious beliefs, are the only reason the idea of a god is possible. Without the ancient writings rhetoric, you wouldnt know of a god without holy books, therefore it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god :)
The terminology "Known god" , is used meaning to exclude unknown gods. Unknown gods are undetermined and undefined, unlike the currently known gods like zeus, horus, jesus, attis, krishna, allah, and any other known god writings.
Thats why it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god, meaning only known gods. An unknown Intelligent Designer, is different than a homphobic temtper tantrum flood boy :)
The reason for everything is currently undefined. The reason for everything is currently undetermined. However, with the utmost certainty, each religion will tell you exactly what the reason for everything is, a large amount of people in the world believe the reason for everything supports human sacrifice and rising 3 days of after death :)
That is a very well known belief :) However, any writings in addition to the 3 day riser called the bible, are just different interpretations for the reason for everything via the label god. A god known by a label in a book or writing, is Not evidence, and is another reason why it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god.
However, since these writings and definitions are all childish, and ridiculous, the intellectually honest answer, is that the reason for everything is currently undefined and undetermined.
Defining the reason for everything requires evidence NOT mere claims from old text. They all claim certainty. Step back be objective.
Treat each definition of god, with the same skepticism and intellect you use on zeus, and see how quiet your desire to invest time in nonsense becomes and the more likely you will see that it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god.
Ive been itching to get some True Scripture in since we have seen many reasons why it is Not illogical to suppose the non existance of a known god, Enjoy!
LOGICAL 2:14-- Could be trillions of earth like planets, are you claiming you know for a fact the vastness of the universe and the trillions of possibilities of lifes existance? :)
CaptianObvious 5:18-- No verses in the bible is there talk of evoultionary biology, physics, quantum mechanics, cells with a nucleus, or even electricity, all things more important and useful than walking on water :)
THOUGHTS 4:12--There is a huge differece between interpreting and ignoring. Be objective towards jesus and allah like you would to zeus, and you will see the difference using your zeus logic, let all your power of intuition, intellect and instinct give you morality, faith, love, and hope, believing in yourself and mankind, we can create, inspire, teach and save the world without crucification, baptism, goat killing, whatever ritualistic process one may subscribe too :)
Ideal 2:20-- Genius will finally replace jesus, when we believe we are the creative force of the many unlimited unfolding of possibilities that come into existance in this world. Thats how beautiful and precious this life is :)
WAGERS 7:2--The next time you think you want world peace, ask yourself this, Hypothetically, you meet a wizard with a crystal ball, would you vote to ridicule religious beliefs to the fringe of society and bolster our scientific education at all levels, if the crystal ball guaranteed world peace? :)
DUH 8:11--Either every single evolutionary biologist, physicist, and scientist is evil and involved in a conspiracy, or evolution of todays modern homosapien can be traced, cumulative genetic evolution over generations, is packed with facts, ONCE you get over your insecure science is the devil or conspiracy theories, and embrace the beauty of reality, its more blissful because its true and we know how it works :)
BigKids 2:8--Never being afraid to say "I dont know", and always in love with being proven wrong, thats what brilliant minds thrive on :)
DUH 1:14--Pareidolia, quite possibly the biggest Seriously Duh known to man :)
NOPE 4:19--Atheism is a religion as much as NOT collecting baseball cards is a hobby :)
DUH 12:15--The source or reason for everything, including the sub atomic world, gravity, and evolution, doesnt care about your sex life :)
All known gods are on the same level of ridiculous regardless of how petty their involvment in our lives, thats why it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god.
DevientGenie 22:22--The Genies use of politicially incorrect verbage and wit towards god, is absolutely littered with TRUTH, its astounding. This is to ensure a swift kick in the direction of when the cloak will fall, and all men and women will come out from behind the curtain of god, and there will be one less cloak and curtain, for pedophiles and other evils to hide behind :).
IGNORANCE 3:4--If we dont have god then everybody will just go crazy because nothing is going to happen to them.......How about the fact that going crazy means losing your house, your life, your wife and everything you have, the ignorant caveman will always be, at least without religion, we wont have a cloak for evil to hide behind :)
Relax 3:12--When you feel your faith in the validity of a god waver, and questions start to come up, thats your intellect, intuition, and instinct, joining forces, and doing their best to wake you up and say it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existance of a known god :)
Of course I don't get to define what my opponent means by the words, but I did define words for the context of this debate. If my opponent thinks my definition of known doesn't stand then I suggest that he read the DDO tutorial thread .
"A poorly worded debate resolution is open to semantic. Semantics occurs if one uses a word that has multiple meanings, and the opponent twists the meaning around so that the definition favors him or her. An opponent might also take a figure of speech, and argue against the literal meaning."
"Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definition"
"To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first. . ." There seems to be a cut off, but it is clearly inferred that the first definition stands.
I suggest my opponent be more specific in his wording in his next debate resolution.
Though it is irrelevant, known is an adjective in the sentence "It is Not[sic] illogical to suppose the Non extistance[sic] of a known god :)"
My opponent states the following: "The definitions of my words are seen in the words themselves. They are defined in action thru example :)" My opponent provided no examples or context in his opening statement.
"I'm not required to define and layout definitions right away about certain words. There are No rules :)" Yes, one is supposed to layout definitions and specifically explain the contention he/she is trying to defend. Since I defined it first, my definition stands. My opponent should have been more specific if he did not want me to use a semantic argument against him. He did not specify what he meant by no rules either. "No rules" could simply mean that he had no additional rules for the debate or guidelines such as "no new arguments in the final round" or it could mean, as someone pointed out in the comments, that it can just be a nonsense debate. Really, there's a difference between "there are no rules" and "no standard ddo or debate procedure apply and you can do whatever you want." Regardless of the debate, the same categories are used in voting. I don't think my opponent will get very far with his "no rules" justification. If there are no rules, then there are certainly no rules prohibiting me from using a semantic argument.
My opponent states: "The terminology "Known god" , is used meaning[sic] to exclude unknown gods . . ." If this is what he meant, he should have explained in his opening statement. He did not however, and my argument still stands uncontested.
Once again, as interesting as I found the rest of my opponent's argument to be, he failed to refute my contention: It is illogical to suppose the non-existence of a god that is known to exist. This is the definition of "known" that was specified for the debate.
In conclusion, he has dropped my arguments and conceded. I win.
Round 1 Examples:
I know of Santa. I know of many things from books. As a matter of fact, without books or any kind of writings, we would have no understanding of a god.
It is Not illogical to suppose the non existance of a known god, who is only known because of ancient barbaric, sexist, homophobic, slave supporting, and who to kill and why writings that have some "inspirational gospels" sprinkled in later
"There seems to be a cut off, but it is clearly inferred that the first definition stands".
That is awesome, its like the inferred assumption that there is a divine creator that is in control of the natural order of things. Thats the type of attitude everybody had back in the day.
The alchemist, despiser of the trinity, and fanatical anti-papist, Sir Isaac Newton believed, it was clearly inferred there was a divine creator fine tuning everything :)
Putting a god as a constant in any equation is why humans dont learn as much as they would when they have god as a variable. Variables allow for more free thought.
The worst thing a child can do to his church, is to truly be objective, and embrace free thought and allow their consciousness to finally stretch its legs.
It seems as though there are a lot of questions from Con that maybe he should have asked for clarification before the debate again No Rules means No Rules.
Losing a debate because of split hairs or semantics is up to the voters. If the voters believe that No Rules means I am free to express definitions whenever I want, and any rule that says the first to call it is right, cannot be enforced because there are No rules.
Con should have asked for clarification of what No Rules meant, as it seems to be a concern to him.
The confusion on the adjective or verb difference in meaning of the word "Known", is due to a poorly worded, and grammatically incorrect placement of the verb "known".
I agree the chosen topic is a grammatical and utterly unnecessary way to challenge those who believe the reason for gravity and all stars and galaxies, made an appearance around 2,000 yrs ago in the middle east for a human sacrifice and resurrection :)
Losing a debate because of the grammatical correctness of the topic or any semantics is like losing a Holdem hand to a one outer on the river, if Not for bad beats, I would have None :)
So sure, if thats the way the votes go great I still get the opportunity to throw out more ways that, no matter how you say it, it is Not illogical to suppose Non existence of a known god :)
Space, time, matter... everything originated in the Big Bang, an inexplicablly huge explosion that happened 13.7 billion years ago. The Universe was then incredibly hot and dense but only a few moments after, as it started to cool down, the conditions were just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter in particular, the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons, which in turn were bundled into nuclei three minutes later.
Then, as the Universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for the electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the Universe.
Another 1.6 million years later, gravity began to take control as clouds of gas began to form stars and galaxies. Since then heavier atoms, such as carbon, oxygen and iron, of which we are all made, have been continuously in the hearts of the stars and stirred in with the rest of the Universe each time a star comes to a spectacular end as a supernova.
So far so good but there is one small detail left out: cosmological and astrophysical observations have now shown that all of the above accounts for only a tiny 4% of the entire Universe. In a way, it is not so much the visible things, such as planets and galaxies, that define the Universe, but rather the void around them!
Most of the Universe is made up of invisible substances known as 'dark matter' (26%) and 'dark energy' (70%). These do not emit electromagnetic radiation, and we detect them only through their gravitational effects. What they are and what role they played in the evolution of the Universe are a mystery, but within this darkness lie intriguing possibilities of undiscovered physics beyond the established Standard Model. Atoms make up everything, every atom is 99.9% empty space. What is empty space? Origins Project at ASU in Tempe, Az Lawrence Krauss. Learning is Fun :)
Evidence tells you it is Not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god, ignoring evidence is what keeps the lights on in the church :)
Each religion simply adjusts to fit the current level of consciousness at that time in history. Meaning, if you notice during the evolution of each religion, the next story in line according to the year it was written, has many similarities to the past stories written before it, however they just tweek the next story or alter it or flat out change it, and call it all simply interpreting. Really? Interpreting?
How about ignoring, or avoiding, or Flat out denying and dismissing things to fit and mold a belief that you can "sell" . Not bothering to question, hmmmm, maybe this is all dumb. No, you say, "the stories of the bible have to be true because its the word of god", really? We outgrow and evolve in everything we do as a nation based on one thing, our thoughts. If we believe its ok to buy and sell people to be our slaves, that s the reality we create. If we believe after that atrocity and collossal human error, we have seperate bathrooms and seperate everythihg even drinking fountains for blacks, and this all happened in one nation under god, and those thoughts, those ignorant thoughts, became dispicable action, and inevitibaly became reality. When we thought that it was fashionably cool to wear trutle necks and corderoys, we lived in a reality of turtle necks and corderoys. Whatever we think is real, is.
So as we beleive seatbelts are not needed and gas mileage on a car is not important, thats just the way it is in the 60's. When we become more concioussly aware of the negative effects of something, we listen to our thoughts and make changes.
Religion with all its noble and honorable attributes, is in fact poisonous at the highest levels. The hierarchy in each religion, the leaders of each faith, contribute to the poisonous effects via greed and selfish pride. Religion still being used by evil to hide behind just as it did when religion first appeared. Lets evolve past this nonsense, and not allow Evil to continue to Mask its arrogance behind a shield or cloak of humility. Lets spare any more victims of this arrogance that are increasingly younger and becoming more in number. Enough is enough. Lets grow up and do what we do best....EVOLVE.
The future is going to do it anyways, lets just evolve concioussly past this nonsense, and lets do it today. More and more people are recognizing the sillyness of bibilical scripture, with the more and more science gets the word out on what they now know, and have found :)
Delusions 8:24--If a personal god hears you murmur, or chant, or pray, and you believe that created a positive result on a test at school, or a promotion, or a game winning touchdown, or any sporting athlete who thanks a god, what is your lazy god doing paying attention to your petty wishes but NOT teen girls forced in sex trafficing rings that are praying to get away alive? Grow out of the binky and be strong enough to make it on your own without the holy binky there for you to suckle that ultimitley leads to atrophy of your consciousness :)
First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for being as entertaining as always. It has been a pleasure debating him :)
My opponent's quotes are in bold.
"'There seems to be a cut off, but it is clearly inferred that the first definition stands'.
That is awesome, its like the inferred assumption that there is a divine creator that is in control of the natural order of things. Thats[sic] the type of attitude everybody had back in the day."
Yes, but it's standard debate procedure known to anyone familiar with this site. However, I guess that my opponent would be correct in stating that specifying that this is not the case for a debate would make it not the case for the debate.
"It seems as though there are a lot of questions from Con that maybe he should have asked for clarification before the debate again No Rules means No Rules."
It is not my job to seek clarification on such matters, but the instigator's job to provide clarification if he wants to prevent a semantic argument
"Losing a debate because of split hairs or semantics is up to the voters. If the voters believe that No Rules means I am free to express definitions whenever I want, and any rule that says the first to call it is right, cannot be enforced because there are No rules.
Con should have asked for clarification of what No Rules meant, as it seems to be a concern to him."
Once again, I don't need to ask for clarification. If my opponent actually did mean to put certain rules in place (such as no semantic arguments), he should have clarified. As I previously stated, if there are no rules, there are certainly none preventing my semantic argument. Furthermore, if he uses this "no rules" basis to justify his redefinition of terms, then I can of course do this too (define them back to my orginal definitions; note that since I have the last round, I would still win). Like I said previously, it's a poor escape route.
Also, I would ask my opponent to put quotation marks around what he's citing next time. He quoted http://public.web.cern.ch...
without quotation marks. However, he did seem to cite this as "Origins Project at ASU in Tempe, Az Lawrence Krauss."
I found it to be confusing.
As I have found this debate to be highly enjoyable, I would suggest that my opponent be more specific and not state "no rules" at the beginning of his debates. I think if he does this and stays a bit more on topic, it will make for many more interesting debates in which he will be much more likely to win.
Best of luck ^^
In the first places, current physical theories suggest that our universe is probably not unique. Well beyond our ability to directly probe, there may be an infinity of universes, with differing laws of physics, and perhaps different characteristics of space and time. This is not necessarily a problem if we are interested in understanding the nature of our particular universe.
But it could be that the laws of physics are probabilistic, and there is no fundamental reason why they are what they are in our particular universe. But"just as an epidemiologist studying a single patient can say little about what may be the cause of some condition, because it may be impossible to know what is normal and what is not"if we can study only one universe (our own), then we may never be able to directly empirically determine if fundamental laws are indeed fundamental, or just an accident of our circumstances. It is possible that we might be smart enough to derive a theory that explains precisely how the laws of physics are distributed across universes, and what the probability that our laws are what they are. But it is equally plausible that without access to a larger sample set we may never know.
It gets worse. Because we have discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, the longer we wait, the less we will see of our universe. Eventually all the galaxies we now see will disappear, and even the evidence of the big bang itself will disappear. While I have argued, unsuccessfully, to Congress that this means we should do cosmology while we have a chance, it does mean that we cannot necessarily take comfort in the presumption that if we and our intelligent successors keep working long enough, nature will reveal more of her secrets.
Actually, the very cause of the acceleration of our universe may be forever impossible to pin down. Since empty space has energy, then this energy can cause the observed acceleration of the universe. But as there is no known laboratory experiment that can probe this energy, the only way we may be able to probe it is to observe the expansion of the universe over time. A constant rate of acceleration is consistent with a fundamental energy in empty space, but it is also consistent with a host of other possible sources of trapped energy in some otherwise invisible fields. We may have no way of knowing. And if it is really associated with the properties of empty space, we may never know why, because that too may be an accident, with different energies in different universes. With just a single universe to probe, we may never know.
And, as long as one is in the mood for worrying, even the remarkable apparent discovery of the Higgs Boson at the Large Hadron Collider, which validates the most remarkable intellectual journey humans have ever embarked upon, may yield frustration on the horizon. So far, just the Higgs has been seen. But the standard model has a host of weirdness's and a plethora of physics ideas have been proposed to explain them. Most of these ideas suggest some other new physics that will be seen at the LHC. But what if the Higgs is all that is seen? Then we will have no guidance on where to turn to resolve the underlying puzzles of the standard model. If nature is not kind, it is possible that the resolution of these problems may be at a distance and energy scale that is simply unattainable, either because of practical physical constraints, or the constraints of small-minded politicians.
Perhaps then, at the extremes of scale empirical science will reach its limits, and we will be reduced to arguing about what is plausible, rather than testing our ideas. I hope not, and I wouldn't bet on it either. After all, every time we do open a new window on the universe we are surprised, and there are many windows left to open. But worrying does help prepare the mind.
I should conclude by stressing do not believe that any of these possible limits will lead to the end of science itself, or even the end of physics, as some naysayers have proposed in the past. There are enough remarkable and perplexing aspects of the universe we can measure to keep us going for a very long time--LAWRENCE KRAUSS
Nature is indifferent. It is not inherently evil. People are NOT born evil Nature doesnt care if you think the earth is flat, it will form a sphere whether you like it or NOT.
Nature will make the earth revolve around the sun, your belief that the earth is the center and everything revolves around it, will not influence the indifferent approach taken by nature.
Nature will evolve thru cumulative evolution by natural selection over 4 billion yrs. Wrapping your head around 4 billion yrs like a big kid, is a great way to wake up your intuition, intellect and instinct, and allowing those 3 attriburtes to stretch their legs, is the single most corrosive thing to religious beliefs.
You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. I dont need to change peoples minds about evolution, anymore than I need to help them take a piss, if they cant do it for themselves, thats part of the problem.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Cumulative genetic change over generations, happens, just like gravity does. Google it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Allowing the poison of religious text to atrophy, and to encompass our consciousness, is the ball and chain Mankind drags on its way to a higher standard :)
I have made all the points that I want to make. All hail Lawrence Krauss.
I thank my opponent for an interesting and informative debate. Let the voting commence.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Although most of the debate seemed to be spent bickering over what the resolution actually meant, I think Con won that bit given he provided definitions first. For that reason, I award arguments to Con for his negation of his definition of the resolution in the second round. S/G to Con because Pro's spelling and grammar was markedly inferior.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: devient.genie put forth a largely incoherent rant, while Con remained civil throughout. Con took the "no rules" rule and ran with it.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.