The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Musical Creativity (Composing) comes from God.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 948 times Debate No: 24708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Ha HA!.. Yeah, Right?! Musical Creativity comes from God!.. HiLARious!.. I Reckon!.. Well I Could ask where ELSE it comes from!. I Could, also, Cite my OWN?!.. Let's See?!.. JUST, possible?!..



God -- a Judeo Christian god


My opponent offers no logic. He just merely states that who else would this power come from. Science may be able to hold the answer. Many people learn skills by doing. Experiences. This is known as learning by doing, experimentation. All experiences leads to some type of learning (1). Many studies indicate that music skill is built in our DNA (2). DNA is not always set, and can evolve. Evolution is proven as over millions of years small amid its of DNA change (3). Evolution of skills through DNA does not require god, neither does learning theory from experiences. My opponent has the bop in this debate.


C1: God can't be the reason if he is powerless

"God allows himself to be edged out of the world and onto the cross. God is weak and powerless in the world, and that is exactly the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us." – Dietrich Bonhoeffer (4)

C2: God can't play a role if he does not exist


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus (5)


I am on my phone and don't have the BOP so I was brief. Vote CON

Debate Round No. 1


SethBedeGB forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My Computer was down so I now return for Round 3... I, refute that DNA or Skills "Empowerment" are Sufficient to Create, true, Original Music.. I've, NEVER met a Composer (mySelf Included) who did not relate, at least some of their Skill to God.. Perhaps I was Hasty in apportioning ALL The Skill to God but my argument that SOME of ALL Compositional Skill is from God still Stands whatever the result of this vote because it is Certain.

Whatever happens to this argument, YOU go and FIND me a Composer; "Worth-their-Salt" who would Deny God in EVERY aspect of their Music-writing lives and "Worlds"?!.. Challenge you to find me one. One who inSists that God plays NO part WhatsoEver in their ability with Tunesmanship-making of Music.. Just, Try!... I await, Eagerly :-.....



My opponent goes based on bare assertions and personal experience that cannot be verified. But, as stated, DNA is the man factor in all talents and perceptions (sound, taste, etc). Everyone has different ears, which is especially important in this debate. The ability to hear certain tones in music is essential as you can tell if you are making any mistakes and can later correct them. It also means you could have better talent in hearing music then "quoting it" later. Good ears can also be created through practice, though sometimes natural.[1] None of that "requires" a god, though it does seem like an easy answer.

Being able to hear some pitch, though, is an inherent liquidity in humans. Many people are names tone deaf as they lack the ability to differentiate different pitches. It is usually caused by genetic impairment or brain damage.[2]

My opponent also has argued he does not have musical talent based on genes (based on the grammar I guess you are not the writer...) and that it is given to him later in life. Well if he gets it later in life could it not be based on nurture like nurture can create good ears for music? My opponent has the BOP, and has not provided valid evidence to argue it was god. All of my opponents arguments could be rebutted simply by saying there is great medical evidence musical talent is innate,[3] and that all for my opponents arguments can be explained by nurture (nurture is needed for the nature to thrive).

[--My opponent conceded--]

The resolution states musical creativity comes from god. Alright... Well that implies a few things:

1. God created ALL of the talent
2. God exists (argument dropped, therefore conceded and refuted)
3. Science has no answer to the question (proven it has an answer)

My opponent changes his view saying god did NOT create all of the talent, therefore he concedes the debate under his own terms.

[--Find one composer who says god plays no role--]

Lol, easy enough. All I have to do is find an atheist composer. An atheist cannot believe god played a role because he does not exist to play the role. Nothing would no have an impact on something. Wikipedia has a list of over 100 people that are atheist involved in music, many composers.[4]

Challenge was taken and completed...

==>Why to vote CON<==

1. My opponent dropped all of my case, therefore conceding it to me. It is now 100% correct, and if god does not exist or god has no power he is incapable of making people have talent.
2. My opponent has abysmal spelling and grammar.
3. I showed nurture can explain my opponents case, and music talent is innate; explained by science not god.
4. My opponent had a forfeit, therefore I deserve conduct
5. I had sources, my opponent did not, therefore I get source points

Easy vote... 7-0 in favor of CON.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 1dustpelt 6 years ago
Learn some grammar Pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Pro FAIL if serious.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument rested primarily on the idea that most composers would admit to some help from God in their musical creativity. Not only was this an argument from popular opinion but Con's PoE argument against the existence of God was conceded. Therefore the God part of the God origin was not defended and Con wins by default. Sources to Con for using them, conduct for forfeit, and S/G is obvious.