The Instigator
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It looks like a God exists

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 2 votes the winner is...
brontoraptor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 309 times Debate No: 93767
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

brontoraptor

Pro

Reality and evidence make it look like a creator God exists.

God is defined as "the creator of our reality".

Exists is defined as "to be alive and real".
vi_spex

Con

where

1+1 dosnt equal 3 bro.. tree is not 2 you free

nature is not a construct, constructs are machines or intended, nature is random and nature is the opposite of machine
Debate Round No. 1
brontoraptor

Pro

It looks like Con wants a troll debate, so here goes.

-----

Con:
"1+1 doesn't equal 3"

Sure it does.

1 three + 1 zero equals 3.

1 two + 1 one equals 3.

Prove me wrong Con.

-----

Con:
"nature is not a construct, constructs are machines or intended, nature is random and nature is the opposite of machine."

Oh? Prove it.
vi_spex

Con

what is 1 three..

nature is random, machine is specified.. and machine is opposite of nature
Debate Round No. 2
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"what is 1 three.."

1 three = 3
1 zero = 0
2 fours = 8
3 fours = 12
1 three = 3
1 eight = 8
3 eights = 24

So you are wrong Con, and you have a stubby little podlike tail. You know it's true.

-----

Con:
"nature is random, machine is specified.. and machine is opposite of nature."

Nature = nature
Random = random

Nature does not = random

If machine is specified, the machine you inhabit is not "nature", but specified. To be specified, you must have a specifier.

Con has shown us that it looks like a god exists per the definitions given in round 1.
vi_spex

Con

ok so 3.. 3 what?

do you have to tell a plant how to grow?
Debate Round No. 3
brontoraptor

Pro

ok so 3.. 3 what?

3 is 1

1 is triune.

Con:
"do you have to tell a plant how to grow?"

Not if someone designed it with capabilities to do it on its own. Do you have to tell the central heat and air unit to come on each time? Nope. Why not? Because it has been commanded/programmed to do so.
vi_spex

Con

well i have no idea what you are trying to equate

plants are nature, not machines
Debate Round No. 4
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"plants are nature, not machines"

Nope. They are machines.

A Plant Has Many Parts-

Plants are made up of many different parts and each part has an important function in the growing process. These include:

-Fruit
-Flower
-Leaf
-Roots

Photosynthesis takes place and light and carbon dioxide are taken in, with oxygen released as a by-product. On the underside of leaves small openings called "stomata" open and close allowing carbon dioxide to enter and oxygen to exit.

Roots-
The roots anchor a plant in the ground and absorb water, nutrients and air. Tiny root hairs increase the surface area of the root for faster absorption. These tiny root hairs are extremely delicate and must be kept moist at all times. Larger roots are similar to the plants stem, as they transport water and dissolved minerals to the plant.

-Stems & Vascular System (Xylem & Phloem)-
The stems are the heart of a plant"s vascular system and carry water and nutrients throughout the plant. The xylem carries water and nutrients from the roots to the leaves and the phloem transports food manufactured by the leaves to the stems and roots. The stem also supports the plant and bears leaves, flowers buds, and fruits.

*

The 5 Basic Needs of A Plant-

Plants have 5 basic needs and each one of these accounts for 20% of a plants ability to grow to it fullest potential. When all needs are met, maximum growth occurs. (20% x 5 needs = 100%)
Air " 20% " temperature, humidity, and CO2 & O2 Content
Light " 20% " spectrum (color), intensity and hours of light per day
Water " 20% " temperature, pH, and O2 Content
Nutrients " 20% " composition and purity
Growing " 20% " air content and moisture content
A surprising thing happens if one of these needs is only partially met: All of these needs are negatively affected in a complex chain reaction. For example: If a plant receives only 10% of its needed nutrients, that doesn"t cause just a 10% negative impact. It creates a 10% negative impact on all of the other 5 needs as well, causing an actual 50% negative impact on the entire plant. (10% x 5 = 50%). Maintaining a proper balance of all factors that affect a plant"s health is your best assurance of gardening success.

www.interiorgardens.com/grow-plants.html
vi_spex

Con

without the fruit the tree can not multiply, without he leaves it cant breathe(i think), without roots it cant drink
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: better stated by Con

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
god exist and god dosnt exist can not be valid statements simultaniously
Posted by HeavenlyPanda 10 months ago
HeavenlyPanda
You cannot prove the absolute non-existence of something.
Posted by RedAtheist912 10 months ago
RedAtheist912
What will the contender be debating for? The non-existence of God or it does not look like God exists?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bored_Debater 10 months ago
Bored_Debater
brontoraptorvi_spexTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's stated argument was never addressed by con. Instead pro had to address unrelated topics which he provided more convincing arguments. Conduct goes to pro due to con's trollery. Sources goes to pro cause he was the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by skipsaweirdo 10 months ago
skipsaweirdo
brontoraptorvi_spexTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously had no responses to pros arguments. Pro specifically addressed each post by con and refuted their premises. Therefore I gave pro points for having more consistent arguments.the Pro also had better conduct because he engaged con respectfully, as con merely deflected pros questions or inquiries.