The Instigator
SethBedeGB
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

To Say that God, Is a Scientist is NOT, then, to Say He is Not, Spiritual!..

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 9 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,503 times Debate No: 21990
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (9)

 

SethBedeGB

Pro

Well, I'm expecting the Argument to be Simple that God is ALL; There is an, Awful lot of Science so God IS a Scientist and NO Scientist can, enTirely explain All The events of the Chilean Miners' of 2010; thereby evidencing God as something, TRULY Spiritual?!.. However, the Con arguer will, presumably, NOT accept that God exIsts in the First Place so should I include a caveat that defines God in this case as the Creation-power of The Universe; thereby "Encompassing" the Argument stated above... Either way, the gnit-picking of this Site will, presumably, TOTally Not allow me to state the bleeding obvious point that is Clearly Set out in The Title.. So Ho, Hum... Make your OWN Minds up about a V. Simple Statement?!..
imabench

Con

I dONt KNow whAt LANGUAgE tHE PRO is trying TO SpEAK in......... I DOnt Know Why HIs GRAMmar and CApiTALIZatiON is SO BAd, RigHT NoW IM typing WiTH mY LITTle BroTHer HittING THe CapS LOCK key WHIle I tYPe......

BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd.

I WIll NOw saY A LOt of worDS likE the Pro SAid thAT arE Not CoHerant OR ReLAtEd In AnY WAy

GOD, JaPANese SusHI, ChilEAN MIners, KONy 2012, Mitt ROMney MAsturbATES to His MONey, RIck SanTORUM HAT es GAys, NEWt GINgriCH is A MAn whoRE, COMmon SenSe, SPIRituAL, MEAN girLS WAs a GReat movIE, CHarlIE ShEeN is WInninG, SCientOLOgY, GoD, ThirD TESticle, WIkiPeDIa LIeS,

ThE PRo MAKeS BAd DEBateS, VOte Con!
Debate Round No. 1
SethBedeGB

Pro

Losing The "Plot", a little, Here?!.. I Guess this is More, someone, basically, with MONEY who is taking up "Con"?!.. I would've, thought that the argument was stated effectively, enough, NOT to warrant this Response?!.. I'll read the comments now and see if anyone has, appropriately, Sensible contribution to this Debate?!.. I'll, Welcome your opinions as to whether my Case is really something that questionable?!.. I, Still, would've thought the Above was "Fair comment" to The Majority?!.. More Opinions; are people, "Talking" about This a little?!..
imabench

Con

The Pro's response to my argument is a little like this -->

Now then, My opponent clearly does not understand what the point im trying to make is, so let me put it in a language he may understand.....

The question really revolves around the quantitative introspective approach to this conundrum which is summarized partially by the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept and the third law of Dynamic Responsiveness. The Quantum Cosmological Differentiation summarizes how the supposed conflict between early neolithic polytheist religious beliefs combined with the eventual evolution to a monotheistic one at a time preceding the scientific advances of the Morphological age of humanity could potentially cause confliction in the argument that there is a clear and single path to the conclusion that there is a resolution to the creator-endeavor paradox (A). The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness on the other hand argues that due to the existence of large objects with a mass greater than or equal to the mass of the star Sirius despite the existence of a black hole within the immediate orbit of the sun, then a force exists that would explain this science defying what would normally happen (B) within the orbital path of Sirius and the black whole. The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness is often used to explain why the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation paradox exists, however it does not explain why the laws (C) of one solve the paradox presented in the other since the given laws of both equations are completely contradicting and self defeating (D)....

To explain why these two can go together there is only one argument that can explain how these two theories (E) could co-exist in the same argument despite having contradictory laws. The thesis describing how Contradictory Laws and their co-existence is possible due to the existing explanations regarding other real world paradoxes (F) within the solar system that can be resolved down to a few basic principles and then reapplied to other paradoxes to explain their functionality. In the paradox described above the best, but not only, paradox that can be easily related (G) to the paradox posed in the quantum mystery that exists within the geographical coordination system in the north eastern hemisphere of Earth known officially as Area 7684, or as civilians refer to it, the Bermuda Triangle. This paradox isnt really a paradox according to common definition, however the logic and phenomena that is known about it can be used and applied to other paradoxes that the Pro has asked to be answered. What is known about the Paradox behind area 7684 revolves around sporadic magnetic field change, randomization of weather systems contrary to the long term climate that is in place within the region, the unusual manipulation and disruption of data transferred between satellites in geo-synchronized orbit and systematic reception stations on the ground. All of these phenomena deal with a force not yet understood but is also observed elsewhere in other common paradoxes that have been identified by the astrological community which have been found in the depths of the universe. This force can be used to answer the question posed by the Pro in round 1 along with a few other paradoxes that also exist. This force can be related back to the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept because these unusual forces can help explain the scientific paradox posed between the evolution of monotheistic ideologies and its confliction prior to the morphological advancement of science, and the original explanations for the natural conception of all things around us that could not be explained by early religious beliefs provided by clergy members of religious systems of the ground gods and sky gods. See the early beliefs about the origin of all matter were crude at first, and as time evolve so did the explanations for why things occurred even as scientific knowledge of how everything works slowly trickled into realization that became accepted by humanity. However in the period prior to the morphological age of science, religious belief held superiority over scientific explanation since scientific explanation was in its most basic form for an extended period of time. However when the morphological age arrived science began to quickly outpace what was commonly held belief and accepted knowledge of the origins of the world. These conflictions between deeply held belief and scientific explanation continued for years as science began to become more and more advanced and explanation and explanation held by religious clergy of a multitude of both monotheistic and polytheistic religious systems were debunked or proven contradictory to evidence (H). Now if you take this process and combine it with the existing paradoxes seen in multiple forms, and the explanation of the forces behind both of these that are not completely understood or remotely explainable at the atomic or chemical level, and you can now use those forces to answer the first part of the question given by the pro in round one.

However this only PARTIALLY answers the question given by the Pro, for all my arguments up to this point have only been regarding the physical antidotes to the issues his question addresses. To answer the faith based confusion often brought on by the possibility of using the rules of a paradox to defeat a paradox in itself naturally raises questions that conflict with ones own personal beliefs. The faith based questions that may have arisen yourself can be answered by the idea that all that does exist at one time existed before but does not exist anymore, and what exists today is only a different version of what existed before. So to clarify any natural conflictions currently colliding between ones own faith and the scientific explanations can be solved by the fact that what once was, is no more, and that what is now, is based off of something that once was. This paradox can be summarized under the 14 principles of the Thadaeu Thompson Equation which states that 1- there is what exists, 2 - what exists around us is seen by us, 3 - what is seen by us is believed by us, 4 - what is believed by us must be understood by us for us to have peace with it, 5 - for something to be understood it must be theoretically be proven true, 6 - for something to be proven true its basics must be understood, 7 - if the basics cannot be understood but can be explained, it can be believed, 8 - if something is believed but then be proven otherwise, confusion can be inflicted, 9 - with confusion comes conflict, 10 - such conflict cannot be easily remedied, 11 - the natural laws of unexplained and complex logic behind paradoxes exist, 12 - these laws in their basic form can solve other paradoxes, 13 - these paradoxes that can be explained can solve previous conflicts, 14 - therefore these logical truths can solve conflicts between beliefs and contrary sciences. Therefore the question given by the Pro can actually be solved fairly quickly if you take several known sets of laws, theories, and concepts, use them to define some of the basic functions that exist within paradoxes, use what can be obtained from these basic functions and apply them to other naturally occurring paradoxes, and thus use these basic truths and basic functions to answer questions similar to the one that the pro has created this resolution to debate over.

So summarizing all my arguments to this point, I placed letters at strategic points in this argument where letters represent all the arguments I have brought up. Using the syllogism below I will condense my arguments down to the bare facts to illustrate the point i am making

If A then B
If B then C
If C then not D
If Not D then maybe F
If E the G
If G and A then D
Since D is real then so is H
H is real, therefore F is actually real despite D existing at the same time C does

I hope that answers the Pro's question.
Debate Round No. 2
SethBedeGB

Pro

I'm Ready for the, Totally "Repeating-my-argument", "Phase".. To Suggest that Creation exists suggests that some force Created It as nothing Has, in fact, been found that is In Existence withOut Creation.. The "Usual", Definition of "Creator" of Creation is, at least in Christian "Language"; "God".. Or Allah, etc. etc.. I Would Firmly contest that Creation "Exists"; my Senses do NOT Deceive me and I have "Woken-up" to a Brand New Day for 41x365 days (approx) and been able to "Identify", "Creation" in Each and Every One of Them!

So I am, "Confident" that Creation Exists and would, EmPhatically put the "Usual" "Term" of Creator of Creation as the Pronoun "God"?!.. People who are "Sure" that Creation does, NOT, in Fact, "Exist" Cannot Vote, therefore, for God as the "Usual", "Applied" Creator of Creation!..

Dad often asks, Who Created God, then?! My answer is that God Created the (Venn Diagram), Universal Set and then placed himself "Within" This Set around the moment of Universal Creation.

But this is not the Entire point of my argument, ANYway.. I am Terming, for the sake of this argument the term "God" and shall place Him as Creator of Creation (which he IS) but for the terms of THIS Debate the argument is that, THIS, Creator is BOTH Scientific and Spiritual (referring to my initial post as God defined as Creator of Creation)..

To Sum up the Vote is, in fact, whether the Originator of Creation (which I, firmly, Term as God) IS, in fact, both Spiritual as MUCH as Scientific so the Vote depends on an acceptance of both a place for Science AND Faith within the Creation-(God)-Initiation of Creation.

Is this Clear?!.. To Vote for me, you Simply have to accept that God (termed as THE Creator) IS, Both a matter of FAITH and "With" an Element of Science.. THAT is All!.. I Am simply ploughing for a Vote for God as Both a God of Faith And Science and Embracer of Both and Other Philosophies, too!... Ok?!..
imabench

Con

Pro has not produced a single coherant arguement and has not met his BOP,
I went into intricate detail to answer the Pro's question successfully and he has simply ignored my arguments.

Vote Con ;D


Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
I was the first judge to vote con using con's spelling :D i will go down in history!!! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Posted by TeaForTheParty 5 years ago
TeaForTheParty
Oh, WOW! I would have appreciated a warning for this debate... "If at work where mirth management is necessary, please postpone reading for a more appropriate time." I was fighting SO HARD not to laugh! That's too bad too, cause I do enjoy a good laugh :) I will most likely favorite this debate so that I may re-experience the undeniable hilarity for this undoubtedly preposterous debate in a more congruous time.

PS. Congrats, imabench! I've never seen anyone use so many impressive words to describe so much nothing. Or was it something...? Hmm...
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
And this debate now enters history in its rightful place...... As one of the biggest trolled debates ever
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
There xD
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Alright people, vote away ;D
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Pro still hasn't responded xD
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Lol geez I'm still laughing.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Omg I lol'd so hard reading this.
Posted by johnnyboy54 5 years ago
johnnyboy54
You deserve a medal Imabench
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Yes!!!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was incoherent and his style and grammar interfered with reading the debate. Pro did not meet the of proof. Con wasted the reader's time with irrelevancies, in that quantity it's a conduct violation. Noob sniping.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
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 dId noT mAkE sENs3 At aLl!
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
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: CoN GeTS AlL PoInTs BeCaUsE hE hAD De BeSt GraMMar.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: EaSy VoTe CoN PrO hAd nO CaSE Or ReFuTaTioNs aNd PrO dOeS NoT UnDeRsTaNd HiS OwN aRgUmEnT
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: ...Seth needs to examine his argument a bit more...
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
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: most hilarious troll debate I've seen, imabench clearly deserves points in all categories
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. I love reading some of Imabench's debates. Anyways, I couldn't make any sense out of what Pro was posting. Con at least trolled in a manner that I could understand.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Successful troll successful.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
SethBedeGBimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously won here. Refuted all of pro's arguments and presented his own, if they were highly trollish. I give pro conduct because, fvck, you were fvcking trolling him the entire debate Imabench! I can't just give you conduct!