You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'
Debate Rounds (5)
This is a direct challenge to you MagicAintReal.
You started a debate 'Life On Earth Was Created By God'
You asked for acceptance of this definition
god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
You installed yourself in the Con position of this debate and argued from science on this subject.
When asked what your definition of God was about, you were unable to explain it.
How can a person ask for proof about something that they themselves have not considered and referenced.
What is/is not a being, MagicAintReal ?
The resolution is that, I don't know what the word "god" signifies, yet I continue to demand proof.
I agree that I continue to demand proof of god, but I reject that I don't know what the word "god" signifies.
If anyone were to check the debate in reference, one could see that I provided a significance, or definition, of god.
I defined god using the Google definition:
god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Also, god can have many definitions depending on who you ask, so for the debate I had instigated, I was willing to let my opponent define god in their image.
Also, I can demand proof of any truth claim, that is to say, in my debate, the claim was that not only god created life, but that god himself is the creator of the universe.
These are truth claims, and as such, demand proof, regardless of the defined constituents.
So, I do know what god signifies. Usually, it signifies an agent in the creation of the universe. It can also mean a supreme, or superior thing that exists. In some aspects, god can be a superhuman or some kind of spirit.
"When asked what your definition of God was about, you were unable to explain it."
Not only was a definition provided for god, but I wasn't even asked about my definition of god. I was asked about my definition of "being."
Because the debate had already been accepted, my provided definitions of god were agreed on by my opponent, and these questions being asked by Pro were outside of the debate; I didn't really feel the need to elaborate on one word in one part of one of my definitions.
Pro continues to complain:
"How can a person ask for proof about something that they themselves have not considered and referenced."
Because the proof is about life creation which, in my profession as a science teacher, is something I have referenced and considered.
Regardless, I referenced google's definition of god. I have considered this definition. I can demand proof, because "god" is being used to make a truth claim about reality. Truth claims require proof.
So, Pro's question, "What is/is not a being, MagicAintReal?" is irrelevant to the resolution that "I do not know what the word god signifies."
Pro conflates the word "being" with the word "god."
I don't know what the word "god" signifies?
Check my sources.
This is a hole that is completely of your own making, MagicAintReal.
Allow me to present your work to you.
You start a debate: 'Life On Earth Was Created By God' where you take the Con position.
Then You ' defined god using the Google definition:
god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.'
Your argument within this debate states that
MagicAintReal :'Life on earth most likely originated by way of abiogenesis.'
which you describe as
MagicAintReal: Abiogenesis is the fact that organic compounds can come from inorganic compounds.
I ask you: Is 'abiogenesis.' a 'being', MagicAintReal?
MagicAintReal: 'No, theories are not beings. They are constructs. While constructs may be contingent on beings, they need not be beings themselves. Energy I agree exists, but it's not a being, because "being" in the definitions implies creation ability; energy doesn't create it exists and adds work to matter.'
Now you say that
MagicAintReal: 'So, I do know what god signifies. Usually, it signifies an agent in the creation of the universe. It can also mean a supreme, or superior thing that exists.'
Let me get this straight.
God signifies an agent in the creation of the universe. OK!
Life on earth most likely originated by way of abiogenesis. OK!
God definition includes reference to 'the supreme being creator.' OK!
Abiogenesis is a theory and not a being. OK!
Does this mean that abiogenesis is the cause of creation but that it is not a being because it is a theory but that you want proof for a God who is a being who did cause creation.??
You are 'all over the shop' on this and you prove this by embarking on your debate with a haphazard notion of what the word god actually signifies within your own cerebral space. You couldn't care less what god arrived at your door. You were ready for them all .
You state:*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as Pro and Con both agree.
You had accepted the above definition already even though you hadn't a clue what it entailed. IMHO
Pro concedes the debate:
"You defined god using the Google definition:
god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
Pro agrees that I defined god thus refuting the claim that I don't know the significance of god.
Pro continues to concede by quoting me:
"God signifies an agent in the creation of the universe." to which Pro replies, "Ok."
So, not only do I know what god signifies, Pro agrees with my definition of god by saying, "ok."
Pro asks some weirdly worded irrelevant to the resolution question:
"Does this mean that abiogenesis is the cause of creation but that it is not a being because it is a theory but that you want proof for a God who is a being who did cause creation.??"
Abiogenesis is an explanation for the origins of life on earth.
It is not a being, because it is a theory.
I want proof for god with regards to truth claims (origins of life/universe).
God is defined as a being who caused creation, but obviously I reject that creation was caused by god.
Pro continues to concede:
"You are 'all over the shop' on this and you prove this by embarking on your debate with a haphazard notion of what the word god actually signifies within your own cerebral space."
So Pro agrees again that I have a meaning of god in my cerebral space.
Also, this notion of god is also supported by other definitions, so what's the problem here?
I reject the resolution, because Pro agrees that I not only provided a definition of god, but that I have a definition within my "cerebral space."
We're done here. This may just be a debater who is slightly obsessed with me, and is harassing me for no real reason.
I have defined god proving my knowledge of the word, and Pro has agreed to the definition in this round. We're done here.
because "being" in the definitions implies creation ability;
Life on earth most likely originated by way of abiogenesis
Abiogenesis is a theory and not a being
I said at the very start of your debate that it was a game of 'Guess what I am thinking about' and I hope that others will concur with this assessment. All the amateur dramatics that you can muster will not change my opinion on this but it is refreshing to see that old debate stable, ie the ad hominem rear it's ugly head. Sure I'm a stalker , that's it.
MagicAintReal: 'This may just be a debater who is slightly obsessed with me, and is harassing me for no real reason.'
Pro, you have massive issues with a particular word, in a particular definition, of a particular concept, in a particular debate that didn't involve you, and has successfully been executed and voted on. Yeah, the fact that you keep harassing me about something so trivial lends itself to obsession.
Furthermore, you've wasted readers' time with YOUR dramatics.
When you quoted me in this round, your quotes demonstrated NOTHING...yep nothing.
My quotes show that abiogenesis explains how life likely originated, and that abiogenesis is not a being...whoopty doo.
Why is this indicative of "guess what I'm thinking?"
So what if google and my definition of god use the phrase supreme being?
To me, by providing definitions AND the chance for people to change them before the debate should highlight that I'm not playing a game of "guess what I am thinking," rather I'm allowing other definitions of god to flourish if need be for the debate.
You're acting like I didn't provide definitions, and just expected people to guess what I'm thinking. Well, I provided a well supported definition, and allowed people to change it if need be.
Pro, did I provide definitions for god?
Then we're done here, because that shows that I do know the significance of god.
MagicAintReal states:,'' in a particular debate that didn't involve you,'
Surely the debate was 'public' and open to all Debate.org members to comment on. Is this correct?
MagicAintReal states: 'Furthermore, you've wasted readers' time'
How do you know this?
MagicAintReal states: 'So what if google and my definition of god use the phrase supreme being?'
Do you not think that this might be significant?
MagicAintReal asks: Pro, did I provide definitions for god?
Are you implying that the provision of a definition is indicative of a person being aware of it's parameters. You just wanted to 'kick a can down the road. It might be a Coke can, a bean can or a Billy can. What is it about 'God' creating the world(not) that you wish to reveal to our readers who's time is apparently 'not for wasting'.
"Are you implying that the provision of a definition is indicative of a person being aware of it's parameters."
No, I'm implying that to demonstrate, in a text-based online debate, that you know the significance of something, supplying a definition is a massive indicator of awareness.
Furthermore, the resolution says that I do not know what the word god signifies.
I have shown what god signifies with a google definition, repeatedly, which speaks to my ability to accurately identify and locate the concept and apply it in relevant cases such as the coherent debate about god creating life where both the voter and debater were able to reach a consensus on my definition of god from which my successful refutations emerged.
I know what god means, and I continue to demand proof for any truth claims that involve god.
Perhaps something disturbing about Pro's insinuation is that I "just wanted to kick a can down the road."
Pro, you got me all wrong.
I'm a teacher; I wish to educate people on basic principles of science that actually aren't complicated, though they sound as such. These principles are proven useful in god debates, because some of these people have seriously never encountered this information before and truly believe that it doesn't exist; I'm about showing them that.
When people see their beliefs challenged in such a factual way, they tend to remember the facts really well. This rings true with students who have expressed contention with scientific concepts that I teach; they do really well on tests about evolution.
I wasn't kicking a can, I know what god signifies, and I wasn't trying to play a game of "guess what I'm thinking"
For some people god is a being/entity/existence, for some people it just represents the creation of the universe, and for some it's both.
I reject the resolution.
Oh, and here's some cool history on the word god.
Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (cognates: Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse gu", Gothic gu"), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cognates: Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke."
MagicAintReal states: 'Pro, you got me all wrong.
I'm a teacher; I wish to educate people on basic principles of science that actually aren't complicated, though they sound as such. These principles are proven useful in god debates, because some of these people have seriously never encountered this information before and truly believe that it doesn't exist; I'm about showing them that.'
At last some clarity on this impasse. Your noble intention was to teach through debate. This explains why you cared little as to what God knocked on your door. Is it me or is the attitude as expressed in the above quote, 'slightly condescending'. The principles of science are not 'simple' in any way, shape or form unless you wish to preach your version of same. I will not pursue this further.
I am not hear to teach, I am here to reason and debate. You did not engage with any of my questions at any time.
You did not set any real parameters for the descriptive noun 'being' except to describe it as something that must have 'creative potential' . Is 'chance' a being? Has it creative potential. Surely your 'abiogenesis.' possesses creative potential. You insist that this is not a being. Why? What aspect of being is it without within your elaboration of same?
I thank you for your participation on this debate thread. I would accuse you of 'littering' with your generic God thread thingy, except for the fact that your intentions were to 'help'. I accept this declaration as truth. Good Luck
The principles of science are simple, and that's why I became a science guy. What sounds like clunky verbiage is actually simple observations of reality, down to the quantum level. I've made a career out of taking otherwise complex concepts and simplifying them for students with short attention spans.
Along with educating, I am also here to reason and debate, and I have engaged all of your ridiculous questions; your questions are objectively ridiculous given their post hoc value.
Chance does not have creative potential; chance doesn't create because it is a construct of mathematical probabilities.
Abiogenesis has EXPLANATORY potential not CREATIVE potential; do not conflate.
Who would have thought a google definition would inspire such revolt?
I know what the word god signifies...resolution rejected.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: So... I'm lost on what Pro was trying to argue here. He concedes the debate almost immediately and then spends some time being very upset with Con for not being logical while presenting some of the most baffling logic I've ever seen. He then argues that abiogenesis is an agent with creative potential, but a) that has no bearing on this debate, b) it comes late, appearing for the first time in the last round, and c) Con gives a good response to it, stating that it's explanatory and not creative. I think this was just Pro's attempt to vent frustrations with what he perceives as illogic in Con's thinking. The problem is that it's very difficult to prove that someone doesn't understand a concept, especially when you grant that they provided a good definition of it. Pro, you had the burden of proof, and you dropped it every chance you got.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate