The Instigator
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
91 Points
The Contender
GodSands
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Please choose the topic...

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 13 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,502 times Debate No: 6471
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (13)

 

Mangani

Pro

I am sure there are many things we disagree on, and I'm tired of arguing with you on the comments sections of other debates. I would like to offer you the opportunity to debate any issue you think I would be for, and you against, or vice versa- just make this clear on your first round. Let the first round be for choosing a topic, and in R2 we can present our opening statements.
GodSands

Con

The topic (thank you for this oppitunaity) will be: The Universe has a structure and that is God.
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Pro

Thanks to GodSands for presenting this debate. Because he has presented an ambiguous premise, and I am not an Atheist, I will alter it slightly.

GodSands stated "the Universe has a structure, and that is God". In order to argue this, we will have to define God. As Pro I will be defending the statement. We will also have to define structure.

For the purpose of this debate I will define God as "Ultimate Reality". This should take away any ambiguity regarding the existence of God. The existence of any personification of God can be denied, and never proven true or false. This would make for a debate based solely on opinion, and verbosity. Because I have defined God as Ultimate Reality, neither Atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can deny his/it's/her existence. I assert that God is an acceptable proper name for Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality being that which we can never know in it's entirety, but exists nonetheless.

Universe: 1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

This is the definition we shall use for Universe.

From Merriam Webster, we shall use the following definition for structure: 4 a: the arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body. In this case, the Universe.

So the statement would read the Universe- all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole- has a structure- an arrangement of particles or parts- and that is (from or by) God- Ultimate reality.

I await my opponent's response. Thank you.
GodSands

Con

Right! I am suggesting ideas for what God looks like. No one I could not care If a cosmosigyist says the big bang occured, I never saw it. So that is out of herereeee!!!

Ok so I presented the stracture of the universe was God. What ever it may be or look like. I am still unsure what Pro wants me to say. God is a spiritural being with intelligence way beyoud anything. As God is spiritural, I want to get this across to atheists that no science can detect any signs of spiriturality. As science is used for physical descoverlys only. Ask anyone who has looked into the existence of God with out science they would say, "There is a God." But of my understanding I can not possibily understand the complexity of a God or spirit.

Ghosts: I have heard that ghosts are made up from energy from a prevous life. And the spirit is retracking the same energy flow one living person may have left behind. I am unsure on that. Not my subject. Another thing which I have been told by a person who actually was into ghosts hunting her slef at one moment in time. She said that ghosts are considered to be evil and corrupt spirits which follow and act as the once lived person which has now passed away. E.g. little girl as a ghost, is really a evil demon. All I am sure about is that spiritural activity is caused by energy from the precurser.

Since these ghosts are hard to have a belief in. Since they are rarely seen by anyone (I've never seen one, have you?) Ghost tent to hide away. As I said eariler that ghosts are actually evil demons which "scare the heck out of people". And that we as the living know so little about ghosts, could it be true that to say we do not just "die" but live on. Not every ghost can be a hoex.

God: I am unsure on how God contains the universe, either the "God holds the whole world in His hands" song. Which also links with intelligent falling. And that no matter how hard us scientists may try to descover the truth about the universe through science. I am very possitive that niether in 100 years or 10,000 years shall everyone planeting their faith in science will ever be able to have a physical truth on how the universe began (began began) As in what caused that and what caused that, intill there is not a cause to the opjective of the universe were you could simply say "It just happened". By which it would not be science. I know this is more of a outrage than God existing.

The Structure: Many people first think of God as a old father figure with a bushy beard, gray wavy hair and with bolts of lightning beside Him. This fairy tale image is not at all the case. It is mentioned a number of times in the Bible that God is a spiritural being. With no details about the spirit, we can only guess. God though mad Him self incarnit, where He came down to a bodily form as Jesus Christ. And that Gods very nature dwelled in Jesus. Jesus said "who ever has seen me has seem the Father" and "who ever knows me knows the Father". I will just say that our imagenation could not possibliy stretch to the exstant of what could look like in spirit.

So I could suggest to Pro that we could desgust what heaven and hell will be like. Sound fair? This was my original idea. But I jumped ahead abit and forgot that Pro also believed in God. I say "Game on!"....

Waiting for repliy. Take care.
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Pro

My opponent seems to stray back and forth between topics. It originally seemed he wanted to discuss the structure of the Universe, and how it is structured by God. I accepted this notion, and the debate as Pro as prescribed in my Round 1 argument.

He then suggests in R2 that he is "suggesting ideas for what God looks like". In R1 I dismissed the notion of debating the personification of God, which I believe is personal and non-debatable, but that is exactly what debating ideas for what he looks like would be. He concedes this point by calling the notions "ideas". I will not debate "ideas", as the rationality of ideas is subjective, and I will not partake in a debate based on what voters would turn into a measure of intelligence due to the known biases amongst ye members of debate.org. In other words, the voting would turn into a "who do I agree with" vote, rather than a "who's debate was more valid" or "who had better arguments" vote.

My opponent claims that God is "a spiritual being with intelligence way beyond anything". I contend that both descriptions are either unknowable and/or limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence, and irrelevant to the existence of God. I contend that since God is Ultimate Reality, all intelligence is contained within his/it's/her existence. Whether he is a "spiritual" being is irrelevant as we do not have a concrete, uniform, and universal definition for "spiritual being". My opponent also concedes this point by stating that he cannot possibly understand the complexity of God or spirit.

Ghosts: I believe there are different levels of universal consciousness, all emanating from the universe itself, or being manifestations of a conscious Ultimate Reality. I am not saying that all consciousness IS God/Ultimate Reality, rather that all true consciousness is OF God/Ultimate Reality. In other words (in the case of humans and our level of universal consciousness) what we observe, how we observe it, and what we record of our observations are all part of the whole of Universal Reality because what we observe is real- regardless of what we describe it as, or what others' opinions are of what we observe, what we observe is real in the sense that it has an ultimate reality, and is a part of THE Ultimate Reality. There has been (to our universal knowledge) no testable, and repeatable evidence suggesting the true essence of what we may label as ghosts. Rather than attempting to universally define ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. (any entity described as "spiritual", excluding God), I ascribe to the belief that other levels of consciousness exist, and whatever the true definition of these entities (if they, in fact, exist), they are a manifestation of a different level of universal consciousness. I have my own personal theories on the mechanisms of this realm of consciousness, but they are not debatable as I don't seek to convince others of my theories, rather they are formulated relative to my experience, observations, and knowledge.

I will not "speculate" as part of a debate, especially on what others believe to be the reality of these entities as I have not had their experiences, nor observed their observations. I do not believe these entities are "hard to have belief in". You either believe they exist, you believe they may or may not exist (have not made a judgment on the issue due to lack of experience or interest), or you don't believe they exist at all. I cannot agree with my opponent's assessment that they "are rarely seen by anyone", "tend to hide away", "are evil demons", etc. A lack of experience and observation cannot rationally lead to the other conclusions. I am at an advantage with experience in the paranormal because I am a hobbyist paranormal investigator, but this debate is not about my observations.

God: My opponent claims he is unsure how "God contains the universe". I don't believe God attempts to "contain the universe", and frankly, I don't even understand the statement. I don't believe God is a human, or a shape with "hands" like a person, as it would be contradictory to evolutionary thought. Humans have hands because two of our extremities they have evolved into hands. The humanization of God is due to our experience as humans, and I cannot rationally accept any human aspects ascribed to a universally superior or Ultimate Reality. I cannot comprehend the rest of my opponent's statement beyond him stating what we will never know. What we will never know is the essence of my description of Ultimate Reality, and choice to assign the proper name "God" TO that Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality, again, is that which cannot be denied by science or religion. Both are limited by our knowledge, but in the end, both are subordinate to Ultimate Reality. One seeks to explain Ultimate Reality rationally and logically through tests and measurements (science), and one seeks to explain Ultimate Reality at a more personal, romantic, poetic, and figurative level (religion). Both can borrow from each other to enhance our understandings and our lives, but neither can ever reach the level of Ultimate Reality, whether measured in knowledge or being.

Structure: I believe the structure of our galaxy is fairly obvious to those who have sought this knowledge and have the tools to observe it, and the structure of the Universe, because of it's vastness, is always being discovered, and re-explained by science. My opponent's assessment of the structure of the Universe is purely hypothetical and based on a personification of God and the Universe, rather than actual observation and science. When we speak of structure we must consider the observable before speculating on the non-observable. He, again, mentions that God is a spiritual being. He does not provide a definition for spiritual being, but if we must use the word "spiritual" I believe it would be more prudent to define God (in this terminology) as "Ultimate Spirituality". I will not speculate on the statements of Jesus, a biblical figure, as our debate is not biblical or about the bible. I do not believe you can quantify God, and this notion is contradictory to humanizing and/or incarnating Ultimate Reality. Can we speculate as to the level of ultimate consciousness Jesus may have reached as a human? Yes, but the claim that he is God is both untestable and unmeasurable in any case- whether we are theologists, scientists, atheists observing religious writing, WHATEVER- we can only speculate as to our understanding of the scriptures, but we cannot define or reach an Ultimate Reality from our own interpretations.

As for heaven and hell, I believe hell is a logical antithesis for ancient minds, the cultures and times in which it was developed, etc. to the observable heavens. We now know what the "heavens" consist of, and can make more rational assessments of the existence of heaven and hell. I won't, however, accept this as a topic of debate for the same reasons I have already mentioned. Hell is completely contained within the realm of speculation and belief, and GS is free to believe what he wants regardless of my personal judgments, assessments, observations, experiences, or beliefs.

Thank you.
GodSands

Con

This argument can not work. As, for one our beliefs are similar. Two I am having difficulty trying to understand what Pro is asking of me.

Firstly Pro If the structure of the universe is God (which it is) then that would be it. As said " I am that I am" God is God end of that. Do not suggest any other possiblities on what God is. Apart from the sourse which hold the universe in place and the reason why we are here. I do not understand where the argument comes in. I do suggest desgusting what a hell or a heaven would be like. And voters can vote from what they agree what heaven and hell is like. Who goes there and for what reasons.

I have not much to say here. And I would also say that this debate is a failure. Because I did not understand.
Debate Round No. 3
Mangani

Pro

My opponent seems to be completely confused. Though I have dismissed all his personifications of God, gave contrasting views on his statements on structure, and dismissed his heaven/hell argument as unarguable because the existence of hell was an ancient belief designed to explain the heavens with their limited knowledge, he somehow has been led to believe that "our beliefs are similar". Our beliefs are not similar at all- I simply do not empirically dismiss his personfications because I feel it is a personal choice to personify something I do not deny exists, ie. God.

I did not say the structure of the universe IS God in the sense Con is understanding and explaining, rather it is OF God. The Universe itself cannot BE Ultimate Reality, though the Universe exists withing an Ultimate Reality that is undeniable. God/Ultimate Reality is not subordinate to the Universe itself, rather the Universe is the structure in which Ultimate Reality is contained. The structure is the creation, not the creator. The structure is OF the creator.

My opponent says we should discuss what a heaven and a hell would be like. I contend that heaven is the Universe outside the atmosphere of Earth. From the moon, or from some far off planet, the Earth is also part of heaven or "the heavens". It is my belief that hell does not exist. Why, then, would I argue what it would be like? If I were to argue what OTHERS say it would be like, I would argue they say it's quite hot.

Now, my opponent would have you believe we have no contradictory beliefs. I don't see how anyone would read my statements, and not see how they are contradictory to GS's expressed beliefs in this debate, other debates, comment sections of other debates, and even the comments section of this debate. For example:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by GodSands 3 hours ago
"My opponent claims that God is "a spiritual being with intelligence way beyond anything". I contend that both descriptions are either unknowable and/or limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence, and irrelevant to the existence of God."

This is quite simply exsusable, ofcourse God will have all those present with Him as God is God. God made the universe. You would be stupid to agree with Pro here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently my opponent does, in fact, disagree with at least one point I have made. He contends that the reader must be stupid to agree with me, in effect calling ME stupid. Let's examine my statement.

My opponent claims that God is a spiritual being with intelligence way beyond anything.
-My opponent did in fact make that statement.

I contend that both descriptions are either unknowable and/or limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence, and irrelevant to the existence of God
-The description "God is a spiritual being" is unknowable if we do not have a concrete definition for what is a spiritual being. My opponent has claimed he does not have knowledge of what that truly means. My statement on the existence of God- that it/he/she is a proper name for Ultimate Reality- makes it irrelevant whether or not he is "spiritual".
-The statement that "he has intelligence way beyond anything" is limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence. What does "way beyond anything" truly mean? What does it mean to have intelligence? If God is Ultimate Reality, isn't all intelligence possible in Reality contained within the Ultimate Reality? The statement, then, is also irrelevant to the existence of God.
-Intelligence is measurable in animals, humans, and other created conscious beings. Intelligence is not measurable in the context of God because what some may consider intelligence, others may consider the laws of science, and others may, as a result, consider a lack of intelligence because a cold adherence to the laws of science may not meet their criteria for intelligence. This notion is supported by the fact that many people believe that the notion of "intelligent design" contradicts the notion of "random/spontaneous evolution". What some label as random and spontaneous, they also view as unintelligent, yet others believe evolution IS intelligent in design. Personally I do not view the creation of the entire universe in 6 days as "intelligent design", even if by some anomaly it turned out to be true. This, in my opinion, would be a completely UNINTELLIGENT design as it would mean the universe contains laws it violates with it's existence. Get it?

I await my opponent's response...
GodSands

Con

I have decided to terminate this argument. I do apolagise. Keep your arguments and once I have finished college I will return.

Reason:
Study
Time consuming
Unvaid and debate.org is a hobbie rather than a need.

Ill return to this site in the summer at some point.
Debate Round No. 4
Mangani

Pro

Very sorry to hear our good friend GodSands will be leaving the site for some time. I had really hoped for an informational debate.

Thank you.
GodSands

Con

GodSands forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
Wow! I am almost ashamed to call myself a Christian Conservative! How in the heck is Con winning? Bunch of idiots!
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
You are wrong, Godsands - as usual.

All points Pro. Now go get your voting posse and bomb this debate like a good little Creationist.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
No that who is saying that is you.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Who says you're wrong? EVERYONE
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
And the person who said that is....
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
That's because you still have faulty logic to EVERYONE.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
To you umm maybe. I will not remind you why.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Quit with your faulty logic because it ain't proving that there's a God.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Quit it with the copy cat stuff.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
This is quite simply inexcusable, of course scientists know what make the universe. The Big Bang.
You would be stupid to agree with Con here.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pisatelq 8 years ago
pisatelq
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bigg3r_trigg3r 8 years ago
bigg3r_trigg3r
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by SixSigma 8 years ago
SixSigma
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ManganiGodSandsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
ManganiGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
ManganiGodSandsTied
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:70