The Instigator
superbowl9
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jedi4
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Christian God exists (7)

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 1 vote the winner is...
superbowl9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,100 times Debate No: 60430
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

superbowl9

Con

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real.

The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible.

Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals.

Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate.

You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments.

I await my opponent's arguments.
Jedi4

Pro

I can prove god exists nature of a postive being. Godel showed this. His proof was based on the self inforcing positive antipode via tansfintion axioms. I'll show

  • Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
  • Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
  • Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
  • Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
  • Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
  • Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
  • Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
  • Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

Now we move onto the theorem.

  • Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
  • Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
  • Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
  • Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

This proves some being is god-like. There is another evidence that shows it is the christian god (amen)

Scientists at bob jones univeserty examined the DNA code of junk DNA and tried to translate it. Lingistic professors examined the code and found

The Language in the “Junk DNA”, the DNA that scientists had for years discarded as useless, was indistinguishable from ancient Aramaic. Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script it contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse found in the bible. And at times contained direct biblical quotes.

On the human gene PYGB, Phosporomylase Glycogen, a non-coding transposon, holds a linguistic sequence that translates as “At first break of day, God formed sky and land.” This bears a stunning similarity to Gen 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Gene Bmp3 has a Retrotransposon sequence which translates to the well-known 1 Cor 6:19 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.” This is repeated over and over throughout the entire sequence of human DNA: embedded equivalent genetic code of ancient Aramaic that seems to translate as the word of god to his people. -

This is undenable proof of the christian god.

The proof is in the pudding I win

http://witscience.org...

On the human gene PYGB, Phosporomylase Glycogen, a non-coding transposon, holds a linguistic sequence that translates as “At first break of day, God formed sky and land.” This bears a stunning similarity to Gen 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Gene Bmp3 has a Retrotransposon sequence which translates to the well-known 1 Cor 6:19 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.” This is repeated over and over throughout the entire sequence of human DNA: embedded equivalent genetic code of ancient Aramaic that seems to translate as the word of god to his people. - See more at: http://witscience.org...
The Language in the “Junk DNA”, the DNA that scientists had for years discarded as useless, was indistinguishable from ancient Aramaic. Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script it contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse found in the bible. And at times contained direct biblical quotes. - See more at: http://witscience.org...
The Language in the “Junk DNA”, the DNA that scientists had for years discarded as useless, was indistinguishable from ancient Aramaic. Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script it contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse found in the bible. And at times contained direct biblical quotes. - See more at: http://witscience.org...
Debate Round No. 1
superbowl9

Con

Thanks for your arguments Jedi. I wouldn't be so certain about the win just yet though.

I have two refutations to your philosophical proof.

1. How do you make the assumption that if a property is consistent (has no logical contradictions) that it must be exemplified by something?

2. The property of being god-like could be exemplified by a fictional character, such as the god of the Bible or Harry Potter. This is consistent with your entire proof and is an alternate explanation to your 4th theorem.

So I agree that there is a fictional being who is god-like, but that's about it at this point.

As for your DNA paragraph,

DNA is not in any form of an alphabet and has nothing to do with language. When we sequence DNA in chains like GATCCTAGATCGCAGTAT, those are letters we're giving to four bases that make up the nucleotides of the DNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine). Keep in mind that we humans have also named these chemicals this, and we're the ones who made up our alphabet. I'm not going to explain DNA sequencing to you, so you can read about what I've just said about DNA and much more here[1][2].

The long and short of this is that DNA contains no inherent language; we humans have just given them codes (such as the one I wrote earlier) to represent certain bases that we invented the names for. So by changing the name of any one of these bases, the code could easily become GFTCCTFGFTCGGFGTFT.

Therefore, when a team of linguists come in and decide that this genetic code is identical to ancient Aramaic (keep in mind that the way we've interpreted this code only has four letters), which has a comprehensive alphabet and is a quite complex language[3], you can see why there'd be doubt about how they came to that conclusion.

Thus you'd think to look at some sort of write-up or description of the processes the people at ENCODE went through to find this connection to Aramic. However, Pro's source does not have any sign of this, nor does a google of the study.

So let's discard all of those fact's I've just brought up for a second and assume that human DNA actually has an inherent language (this is much the same as giving random letters to different height categories of grass blades and calling it a language), that this language happens to be ancient Aramic (derived from Hebrew, the language of the Bible. How convenient, among every other language[4]), and that there happens to be multiple Bible verses in this Aramic human genome (of which there is no evidence). Even if all these things were given to Pro (which I'm not doing), there would still be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. The human genome is extremely vast and contains many nucleotides. This means that there is quite a bit of code involved in sequencing our entire genome. So just how many nucleotides are there? In fact, there are approximately 3 billion, 200 million nucleotides in the human genome[5]. If you counted one number every second (which is quite optimistic), it would take around 96 years to count this high[6]. This leaves enough room to show that these Bible passages most likely would occur in a random sequence of letters that long, not the other way around. One would also expect to find Satan's name several times in a sequence of such a magnitude; does this mean that Satan also had a hand in the creation of the human genome?

I rest my case about the DNA and await my opponent's response.

Sources:
1. http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.loc.gov...
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
6. http://www.infoplease.com...
Jedi4

Pro

Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
superbowl9

Con

Extend my arguments.
Jedi4

Pro

Hmm the two refutations he gives dont seem like refutations. Instead they are questions.

1. It is not an assumption. It is what the argument shows. Existence is a positive property, if a being with all positive properties exists and if that isnt incoherent, then that being must have existence. It will only work with a being that has all positive properties.

2. Wrong. Harry pooter can have some other positve property. A unicorn can be even more colorful or harry pooter even more powerful. They cannot be in space since they can have a more positive property of being bigger. Any being must have all possible positve properties and cannot gain any more.


DNA such as GAT,ect may be made by humans. But linguists were investigation the code of the DNA not what scientitis describe it as. Everything has an inerent code. DDO may not seem ot have some inergent laungage but you can get into the website and discover it does. DNA is similar. DNA contains information, no scientist would deny this [1]. This information is the language. When translated we find it contains parts of the bible.

Out of millions of letters why and how would there be a passage of the bible? The scientists inspected all different parts of the DNA. It is highly unlikely that we would find anything other than a word or two. Because there yare so many paths the letters can go. Do we really think cuns argument refutes mine because he says "Sall random brah". You can say the same about any argument for atheism. you can refute any argument like that.

"Sall random Brah".

I rest my csae

[1] http://www.nature.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
superbowl9

Con

I'd like to note that neither Pro nor Godel defined "positive property", but in the way Pro used the term I have to assume that he's talking about good attributes.

REBUTTAL

1&2: Pro has not answered my question about how he came to the conclusion that all positive properties must be exemplified in real life.

Being fictional is a positive property, so wouldn't this god also have to be fictional?

3. It doesn't matter if William Shakespeare or Richard Dawkins translated this DNA, the question is how did they do it? How would you take four "characters" and translate them into an extensive alphabet? We don't know, because there's no sources or methodology shown by the website. This makes it impossible to validate the experiment. Also, this is truly random. Make a sequence of 3 billion characters with four characters as possibilities. You'll be able to pick out any combination you'd like from it. Try it. I'm not going to retread my arguments once again, but you've done virtually nothing to offset them.

In summary, Godel's convoluted, mystical proof is arbitrary, contradictory, and semantical, and Pro's DNA "evidence" has no procedure to support it, nor does it stand up to even a basic amount of knowledge or scrutiny. This is a clear Con vote.
Jedi4

Pro

Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Also I need to add that the "code" or such of DNA is a common misunderstanding between people not knowing of DNA research or such.

There is no linguistic property to DNA, it is just a sequence. We describe it using the letters because that's what we do for everything. We describe the cells neurons as such because we need a name to describe it.

Saying DNA is a "code" is what scientist have done to describe how DNA works, not to literally say that someone programmed it, or that it implies a programmer, but to express things in a linguistic form so that people could understand that if such sequence is used, a result will happen..
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
The sad part is that if you can't verify existence, godel's argument only argues possibility. It's not concrete proof the Christian god or any God exist.

You could also extend the argument to proof that the christian god is not all good or that other god's are too.

The logic used is not inherent, you have to go through a looot of steps, even then the verifying of existence(THE BIGGEST PART) is not there.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Pro, you kind of have to explain your premises. You did not explain or substantiate any of the premises of the Godel proof
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
I know right, I was looking at it for about an hour and trying to sift through all the unnecessary stuff. I still don't completely understand it.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Not Godel's over complicated, convoluted, modal logic Rube-Goldberg proof -,-
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Okay, that clears a lot up.

Thanks.
Posted by Jedi4 2 years ago
Jedi4
Bowl is like a bowl of weed when you about to smoke a bong or a pipe full of weed (a bowl of weed).

I did not know about the superbowl because I am not american.
Posted by Jedi4 2 years ago
Jedi4
It relates to axiom 5. A God-like being has all positive properties and necessary existence is a positive property.
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Jedi,

I've been trying to decode your philosophical argument for about an hour. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't really understand it too well. I don't really get where theorem 4 came from. I'd also like to verify that this entire philosophical argument applies to the entire universe in general. Thanks.
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Wait, what?
Do you mean like pot weed? 'Cause no, it's like the superbowl. Y'know, that big football event that happens every year? Also, how did you get weed? Bowl =/= weed, and even if it did, I'd say the superbowl would be the more obvious choice to go with.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
superbowl9Jedi4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Jedi used an overcomplicated argument without explaining it properly. Then Pro went on to misunderstand DNA, at a fundamental level.(the absolute first level actually, labeling). Con did a decent job, but since Pro's arguments weren't even explained and the BoP was on Pro, Con's work wasn't that hard.