The Instigator
Dreamtime
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

You are god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 37969
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Dreamtime

Pro

The argument as to how the universe was created is flawed. The argument is always about whether a single Supreme Being (one God) created the universe, or it was created through unintelligent random coincidences. We are supposed to pick one argument or the other. (Creation vs evolution. Big Bang vs God working hard for six days and then resting, etc. etc.) Neither of these argument are true. The truth is each of us are Gods, and this universe is not something that was created at some time in the past, but is a manifestation of being created NOW, moment by moment. This thing we call REALITY is what we AGREE it is and nothing more. We are like projectors that project our ideas for other people to see. If they agree, and enough people agree, our ideas become reality. This is easy to see if, let's say, someone writes a book. He gets a publisher to agree that it's good. They sell it, and enough people agree to buy it, then the REALITY becomes that it's a best selling book. But this same mechanism applies to EVERYTHING that we perceive in the physical world. What we perceive is what our minds have projected and what others agree with. So, creation isn't a product of a Big Man in the sky, or the product of random motion, started by a Big Bang. The universe is what we perceive NOW and what we perceive is what we are mentally creating. You and I are the Gods that are creating this game here and now.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent claims that we are the gods and that we shape reality with our thoughts. I take the opposite position that we are not gods and that we do not shape reality with our perceptions/thoughts.

Concerning the origin of the universe, I don't subscribe to any of the three theories my opponent provided. That is to say, I remain agnostic on the matter of the origin of the universe. However, I'm fully against the belief that we are the gods and that we draw reality with our perceptions.

Due to the nature of the debate, the burden of proof is solely on my opponent. I, therfore, have to wait for him to provide evidence and proof for his main argument...

My opponent's main argument is the following, "The universe is what we perceive NOW and what we perceive is what we are mentally creating. You and I are the Gods that are creating this game here and now."

I await my opponent's response...
Debate Round No. 1
Dreamtime

Pro

Thank you for the debate.

We"re going to have to take this one step at a time. First, we have to define God. The very general definition I"m using is, God is a supreme being and creator of the universe. My argument is that we are all Gods.

For a being to be the creator of the universe, I contend that God cannot be of the universe. The fabric of the material universe is matter, energy, space and time. So, God, to be the creator, must be separate from the material universe, yet He is able to influence the material universe. God is non-material and spiritual in nature. This concept fits just about all other concepts of God in our history.

So the first objective is to show how each of us is not of the material world, but separate from it.

A spiritual being is also not constructed of matter, energy, space or time. This being is separate from the physical world. In essence, per my definition, a spiritual being is God. I contend that each of us is a spiritual being. We are the thought-makers, the decision makers, the awareness and the personalities. But we are not of the physical world. We are separate. How do I prove the existence of this completely invisible, separate, not material thing?

Have you ever thought a thought? Do you know that your thoughts exist? Of course you do. But do they exist in the material world? Show me a thought that exists in the material world. You can"t. Today there are microscopes powerful enough to view and isolate every part of an atom. Yet they cannot detect a thought. No one has ever measured or weighed a thought either. Why? They are not physical things.

You know thoughts exist because you have them all the time. You can see the manifestation of a thought. You can have the thought that you want an ice cream cone and then go out and buy one. But the cone is not the thought. The cone is the manifestation of the thought. Everything ever created by human beings came from these invisible, intelligent things called thoughts.

I once asked a brain surgeon that, in all his operations, had he ever once encountered a thought, had he ever seen one? No. Yet, you have to admit YOU create thoughts, don"t you? So there"s the proof right there that an awareness and intelligence exists that is not of the physical universe but can influence it -- influence matter, energy, space and time. That intelligence is you. You are the creator of thoughts.

You could argue that "my brain" creates my thoughts. I would argue just by using the term "my brain," you are admitting that you, the thought maker, are not your brain. You are admitting that the statement, "my brain" suggests that there are two things. There"s YOU and the BRAIN. In other words, the brain is not something you are, but something you HAVE. You wouldn't refer to yourself as "Computer." You'd say my computer. You are operator of the computer, not the computer. You are the invisible operator of the brain, or mind.

Just by using the words "my brain" you are admitting that you are intelligence SEPARATE from the brain. See, if the brain was you and was your thoughts then you couldn't say "my brain." You would simply refer to yourself as Brain. You would say "Brain will take you to the movies tonight." Rather than "I will take you to the movies."

The "I" you refer to as you is the spiritual being that thinks thoughts, but is not the brain. You are not of the material world, you the thought creator.

Here"s something you can do. Close your eyes and get a picture of a horse. Can you see the picture? Now ask yourself. WHO is looking at the picture? The WHO is you " the creator of the picture. Does that picture exist in the material world? Where? A brain surgeon has never seen a mental picture or a memory either. Yet you create and see pictures and memories all the time. Don"t you? Brain surgeons carve up brains . Why can"t they see a memory? Because memories and thoughts are not material, they are invisible things created by the spiritual being that is you.

If a thought is NOT made of matter, then it follows that the thought creator, YOU, cannot also be made of matter. You are the thought creator. You are not your body.

This is the first part of my argument, that is, that intelligence exists outside the material world that can influence the material world, and that intelligence is you, the spiritual being. Next, I"ll show how you and I and each of us not only creates our world with our thoughts, but create the entire universe.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

To win the debate, Pro has to prove his main argument beyond reasonable doubt. He has not done this so far. He has not even attempted to explain it.
...


A- Refutation of the Introductory Argument

Pro provided his first premise or introductory argument in the previous round, while leaving his actual argument to the end. I shall respond thoroughly to his actual argument when he presents it. However, for now, I would like to show how even Pro's introductory argument is built on shaky grounds and full of major problems.

1- Pro bases his whole introductory argument on the Cartesian Dualism which isn't a supported theory to begin with, or one I will take for granted. Pro has to prove that there is a separation between the mind and the body, or else his whole argument is being built on a baseless assumption. True, thoughts are abstract. However, abstract is not equivelant to immaterial and existing in an immaterial realm.

2- Pro makes a false assumption that the physical world is purely material, when we know that the physical world itself is partially material and immaterial[1].

3- Pro says that God needs to have an influence on the physical/material universe. This is a baseless assertion and non-sequitur fallacy. God could be indifferent to the physical universe altogether.

...

Pro's introductory argument is severely flawed and based on hazy grounds. I shall expand my refutation more if my opponent insists on defending it.



A- Refutation of Pro's Main Argument

1- Assume I am a God as Pro defined me: "The very general definition I"m using is, God is a supreme being and creator of the universe."

2- Assume I have the ability Pro gave me: "The universe is what we perceive NOW and what we perceive is what we are mentally creating. You and I are the Gods that are creating this game here and now."

3- Here is a phrase: "Me thinks I'm a weasel."

4- If I perceive that phrase as "Me thinks I'm a cloud" and use my mind to change it...

a- If the text changes from "Me thinks I'm a weasel" to "Me thinks I'm a cloud", then Pro is right
about me having such ability and being a God.

b- If it doesn't, then Pro is wrong to say that I can alter the course of reality like a supreme being.
What supreme being is unable to change a five-word sentence stored in a database on a computer
server? If I couldn't do that, what kind of intentional modification can I do to the world?

If Pro doesn't offer an explanation that (1) Solves this problem and is (2) Supported by evidence that proves it beyond reasonable doubt, then I win the debate because the burden of proof is solely on my opponent to prove his claim. I merely took the position of an agnostic on discussed issue in Round 1 and Pro didn't object to that.

I wish my opponent the best of luck.

[1] adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1937ASPL....2..189S
Debate Round No. 2
Dreamtime

Pro

Dreamtime forfeited this round.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Opponent forfeited without presenting his actual argument, even though I provided a counterargument for it in the previous round based on what he said in his opening statement.

Anyhow, the end. Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DhuiLim 3 years ago
DhuiLim
We are on the material universe dude, do we create the universe? Or u think that universe is just an imagination?
Suggestions for instigator:
Read more biology books
Read religious books (Buddhism so far I knew provides scientific information about humans)
Ask HOW and WHY before making an imaginary fact
Posted by Cluckelite 3 years ago
Cluckelite
"Can you weigh a thought?" No, a thought is the result of a succession of neurons being fired in your brain to provide a suitable response to a stimulus. These neurones are changed and built relative to your experiences and thus allow the vast diversity of character and adaptation which separates us from computers; apart from this the brain is a computer. A thought is not a tangible object nor does it need to be, it is a process. I have never weighed a run, nor have I weighed my looking at something. I thus found Pro's argument too annoying to finish.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
DreamtimeNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
DreamtimeNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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: Pro was equivocating on the words "create" and "God." Con pointed out the conflicts in the multiple definitions Pro was attempting to advance, and that won arguments. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit. Note that Con did not advance any arguments after Pro forfeited, so the forfeit didn't advance arguments, but Pro had already lost.