The Instigator
SethBedeGB
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

One Day, they'll, Know how Stuff Exists withOut being Created!

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 25045
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

SethBedeGB

Con

Mathematically, something Exists withOut being Created?!.. Doubt It!.. I've Lived 41 Years and Not "Met" anything that was with NO Creation-"Logic"?!.. Someone, cited "Non-Existence", which then only exists because of EXistence?!.. I, really, Doubt they'll find a way for Stuff to Exist withOut Creation?!..

Which leaves us with the Indetermined Universe.. Too Much exists withIn the Universe withOut question for me to accept a non-created Universe.. More and More Evidence points Clearly to a "Point-OF-Existence" for Creation (Universe)?!..

So how am I hoping you'll Vote for Me?!.. You supply me with something that does, in Fact, exist without ANY Explanation of Creation and I'll "Rethink"?!..

My Case is Clear. Over to my Opponent...
Zaradi

Pro

i thank my opPONEnt for CREating this magnifiCENT debate wheRE I will aTtempt to disprove HIS faulty logic that somEthing cannot pOSSIbly come from NOthing. the loGIC behind this iS AcTually rather siMPle.

one GenerAlly accosiates INtelligent dESign theory witH some sort of creator OR "god" IF YOU will. although IT"s rather funny to Assume that anything he cREates must have a CAUse, yet he himself cANNot have a causE. thusly, those WHO argue for some sort of INTElligent design VIa creator-figure, sucH as a gOd, they would HAVE To argure that their gOd has a CAuse to iT's creation. However this loGIC is faulty since it CLEarly states in nearlY eveRy relIGIoUS text that the specific Deity has no cREATion and has aLWAys existed THorughout space and time. this woULD only cREate an infINIte Loop of regreSSion that i doubt my OpponENt is IntentIOnally trying To GEt intO. ThUs< that Is baSiCaLLy whAT he iS ARGuiNg fOr>

if My opponenT CaN pRovE ThAt god himsELf has a reason FOr cREATion, then hE will BE the vIctor of this dEBate. otherwise< i will be Declared the viCtor And he SHall RUe thE Day That he mesSeD WiTH MY aMaZiNglY perfect GrAmmAr (DOn'T Judge mE bRo!!!!!!!1!111111)

My case is Clear. Over to my Opponent...
Debate Round No. 1
SethBedeGB

Con

Ok... May I Cite that God has, just about Reason with THIS for Creation... http://www.pierre-auguste-renoir.org... would be Further, Evidence.

The Existence of Creation / Universe is Explainable with the assumption that God, "Self-Created", withIn the Bounds of His Creation - Universe... I Have, Long Explained This, already..

THIS. Seems to bring us nearer to Purpose for God's Creation, Also!.. The List goes ON and ON and ON..

I Still seem to think a Vote for Me would be a Vote for Accepting that ALL Things, ARE "Created"?!.. Anyone?!..
Zaradi

Pro

I actually found it humorous he could understand me. Maybe bad grammar is his primary language?

Anyway, I'm trying to take him seriously but I just can't. His arguments are absolute rubbish.

First off, don't let links argue for you. Have some creativity! If you're going to just use whatever arguement a link has, then at least don't be lazy and c/p it. Seriously, debating 101 mistake. Until he posts an arguement from outside of that link instead of just waving the link around and saying "I WIN I WIN I WIN", I ask that the source be discounted and discredited.

Furthermore, my opponent then tries to explain that God created himself. For one, this doesn't line up with any sort of religious text (the general reasoning is that God is 'timeless' or that He has always existed absent of some sort of higher power to create him). And for two, the logic makes, literally, no sense. Something that does not exist cannot create itself, for it doesn't exist to create anything. So therefore, his arguement is bankrupt in logic and doesn't make any sense. Thusly, I ask the voters to discard his argument. Since that was his ONLY argument, he still has yet to prove that God had a creator.

Also, since I can still add new arguments, I'd like to point out a small little detail that I think should be known. God is generally known to be all-powerful and the supreme being. However, for my opponent to win, he would have to prove that something created God. This would be a problem, since this would make God not all-powerful and the supreme being, since something more powerful would have to create God. This in itself would disprove the existance of God, which means that something couldn't have created it. Therefore, even if he proves that God had a creator, you auto negate because if he does, then God couldn't exist, and thus couldn't have been created.

With those above two reasons to negate, I still urge the vote to go my way.
Debate Round No. 2
SethBedeGB

Con

SethBedeGB forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Pro

Awh, a forfeit? That's no fun. Extend all my arguments and pray he's missing this because he's taking a class in grammar.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Many thanks to my girlfriend for mashing the shift key at random intervals.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Neither infinite volume of empty space nor deity require creation, yet both arguably exist.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 4 years ago
Stupidwalrus
http://io9.com...

Of course, they instantly annihilate each other.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
A fact that something can come into existence from nothing? Can you name something that has been proof of this?
Posted by Stupidwalrus 4 years ago
Stupidwalrus
It's pretty much a fact that something can come into existence from absolutely nothing. However, I seriously doubt pro can win this debate because of they must argue that we'll know how this works.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
He is advocating intelligent design. Something doesn't come from nothing.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Does anybody have any idea what hes saying at all???
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
I agree with you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: That was... something special, to say the least. Con provided no arguments. He attempted to say "this link is evidence" but never actually presented an argument. Running your debate through external sources like that is bad conduct. He also asserted that he "has long explained this already." Which doesn't matter since each debate is isolated and things need to be reexplained.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Yay
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF=dropping all arguments. S G go to Pro: First rounds cancel each other out, R2 3 demonstrated better grammar on Pro's account.