god can not create life, only the dead
Debate Rounds (5)
destruction=turn my back
Pro will be debating that "god can not create life because anything that is constructed or created is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature."
Pro - "God can NOT create life"
Con - "God Can create life"
Pro's logic is as follows:
The Human body = Nature = Life
Constructed or created = a machine
Therefore God can only create machines and not life.
Pro did not provide definitions....so I will.
5.“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” - John 1:1-3, Including life
4. Colossians 1:16 - "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."
Here are more: (http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...)
Now, because this is Pro's claim he must prove his resolution that "god can not create life, only the dead."
Your Move, Pro!
anything that comes first is nature
life=(is)sensory experience, as im dead without my senses=know=nature=true=matter
if any knowledge exist about god, god is necessarily true, god is believed not rememered, and not sensed
god exist, lies exist
hmm god cant intend randomness, as whatever god intends is specified, not random, god can only create machines
creation dosnt happen in reality
Pro has failed to refute any of my arguments and has not provided evidence that God cannot create life. For future rounds I ask that Pro articulate and explain his case more efficiently. While I am tired, I found his arguments quite incoherent, with no offense intended.
"machine and supernature is the opposite of nature, anything that physically exist is either natural or mechanical, and supernature is false by default, imaginary" - Pro merely believes that supernature is false by default, without actually proving it. In making his argument in round one, Pro presumed that God exists by stating that God cannot do something.
Pro also makes a FALSE claim that the supernatural is the opposite of nature when supernatural is:
"1 of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
The supernatural transcends nature, it is not opposite of nature.
Interestingly enough, the 2nd definition of Machine is: "a living organism or one of its functional systems" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Contrary to Pro's claims, a Machine is not the opposite of nature, it is merely a product of nature when either created by humans or a human life itself which consists of several parts, "
"anything that comes first is nature" - According to my argument in round one, which has yet to be refuted, God is the source of life. Also; by definition, again, the supernatural transcends the natural and you have yet to prove the supernatural doesn't exist. You merely claim it to be so.
"if any knowledge exist about god, god is necessarily true, god is believed not remembered, and not sensed" - Pro fails to demonstrate how God is not sensed, I and many other Christians claim the sensing of God's presence.
"hmm god cant intend randomness, as whatever god intends is specified, not random, god can only create machines" - Machines can also be a human being regardless of whatever it is you are trying to say here. My wife and I created a baby, which we intended, which isn't random, which is a human LIFE. Humans can do it, the God who created Humans cannot?
"creation doesn't happen in reality" - Yet, here we are talking...
Pro has failed to refute any points, and has actually refuted himself by ushering in my definition of Machine. Pro has also, many claims to support, let the viewer take note.
Pro's initial resolution: "god can not create life because anything that is constructed or created is a machine and nature is life, my body is nature"
Two definitions of Machine from two different sources that indicate that a human is a machine:
"a living organism or one of its functional systems"
Disproving Pro by his own resolution:
Where I live it is 4:00 AM and so hopefully this is clear enough for the readers:
Pro's body = an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work/a living organism or one of its functional systems = a machine = nature = life = CAN be created by God
God can create life because anything that is constructed or created is a machine, and a machine is my body, and my body is a nature, and nature is life.
Not only has Pro failed to refute my arguments, but he has refuted his own resolution.
i have no beliefs, supernature exceeds nature so its never true, if superman was real he would be natural not supernatural
god exist, lies exist
supernature is false, and nature is true, opposites
machines requires intent
supernature exist, false exist, there can be no false without true and no true without false
if you sense god you can show it.. god is imaginary
human being is nature, life is nature
a human being can be mechanical, like you can train a bear to dance
nature is random, machine can not exist without randomness, as machine is specified, not random
Pro has yet to demonstrate any evidence for his claims.
machine=match IN energy
technology=taking the knowledge i put out
I extend my arguments, vote con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: pro proving once again his own stupidity and that he cannot debate to save his life
You are not eligible to vote on this debate