The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
billgreatss
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

god is false

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 2 votes the winner is...
billgreatss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 67164
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

if nature is intended, its a machine, therefore god is false
billgreatss

Con

generally speaking sex is natural... just as an example lets say two people have sex because they "love" each other (not always the case--but lets keep it simple). if their sexuality is planned and scheduled like many relationships today is that love mechanical? whether it is or isn't dose it not still exist? I don't believe in God so I'm not going to fight you on that topic. I just see flaw in your logic...whether an invention is planned or a "happy accident" all inventions have an inventor.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

I would say its a mechanical way of being, the sex is not mechanical as my physical body is natural, but im not sure

I would say there is no such thing as mechanical sex unless my lawn mover has sex with my lawn

random is natural

im talking about the origin of nature, the cause, is it by choice, or not

the opposite of specified is random, and intent is specified

if nature is intended its a machine, doh, try again :)
billgreatss

Con

you say random is nature. I don't share the same belief. your physical body is not random. your DNA, your sleep wake cycles, every atom in your body can be boiled down to mathematical formulas and programs. If you believe in evolution or economics or politics you know that nothing is truly "random". however, that doesn't mean it cant be natural. I think the question your trying to ask is "what is nature really?" right?

'I would say there is no such thing as mechanical sex'
--there is a ton of mechanical sex your on your computer right now I'm sure you can go find some.

there are people who make it their goal in life to save endangered animals. they breed these animals in captivity and even in laboratories. they then release these animals into the "wild". all of this happens by way of intelligent design, number crunching and well thought out actions. they cant however control every move and thought of the animals. If there is a God it is very apparent It dose not control our every move and thought either.
your argument is that nature dose not truly exist because it is dictated by intelligent programming and predetermined results. but just because something is planned that dose not make it unnatural.
My point is that natural dose not mean spontaneous or random. Nature, is simply a state of being.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

I have no beliefs

random is natural, and origin is nature, anything that comes first is nature

supernature is in contrast with nature, like superman, and machine comes after nature as well

to say my body is not random is to say it is a machine, but I have life, as I can die

I don't have dna

if its not by a random cause, its not natural, as anything that is created is a machine, and machines and supernature can not exist without nature

natural sex on a computer(mechanical) driven by people driven by mechanical needs or joy probably
billgreatss

Con

You do have beliefs. You do have DNA, and random is not natural--its just about the most unnatural thing in the universe. theoretically if there was a single atom that popped RANDOMLY into existence that wasn't supposed to exist. the universe would implode on itself.

A machine is something that has to be intelligently manipulated (key word manipulated) in order to generate a desired result. Before that, it is simply a pile of "natural" materials and potential energy--not a machine.

'To say my body is not random is to say it is a machine' . that's right, it is.
having life and the fact that you can die is your state of being. that's part of what makes you natural. without life you are SIMPLY A PILE OF NATURAL MATERIALS AND POTENTIAL ENERGY.

you say that anything that is created can not be natural. then, you say natural is anything that comes first. apparently the only thing that meets both your requirements for what natural is, is God. As I said before nature is simply a state of being. If I have a mechanical leg does that make me any less natural that you? No, but the state of my nature has simply changed.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

matter can only transform, so there is no beginning and no end, only now

anything that is created or constructed is mechanical

nature is natural, machine is mechanical, my physical body is nature

I didn't choose my appearance and shape, height, all that

nature=life

without nature there can be no machine and superNATURE

order can not exist without chaos, intent can not exist without randomness, as everything has 2 sides
billgreatss

Con

You didn't choose your 'appearance and shape, height, all that' just as the machine has not chosen IT'S own characteristics. Form follows function. Nothing about you or the universe we live in is random, however random it may appear, Anslem Kiefer once said creation and chaos are one in the same--think rube Goldberg machines. What is a machine if not an extension of human nature anyway? Is it not in our nature as humans to create machines? You say everything has two sides (which I agree) but then you give one sided statements. You say nature is mechanical; you call yourself natural; you deny you are mechanical. You cornered yourself into a paradox...
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

I choose the weight and height of the machine, I make the machine

random is like each different branch of a tree springing out in directions

When I look at a tree the leaves show me chaos, when I look at a high rise building the windows show me order

tell me this, when your car breaks down, did god intend it? then god intend all your actions thus free will doesn't exist and everyone goes to hell because of gods actions

nature is natural, I can be mechanical, because Im part machine, knowledge=Machine

on the path of being predictable, a demon is riding a bicycle

belief=supernatural=future
know=natural=Now
knowledge=machine=past
billgreatss

Con

The branches of a tree are soooooo not random. On your own time you should research Fibonacci numbers and fractal patterns in nature. You look at something that is seemingly chaotic and just because you don't understand the science and math behind it you call it random--it's not! There is more order in the leaves of a tree then there could ever be on a building.

when your car breaks down its because you have a crappy car and you probably don't take proper care of it. Also, Iv said in the beginning of the debate that I am not a believer in God but I don't have a problem with religious people. You seem to have a deep issue with religion and it's probably coming from a place of frustration or insecurity. Ill pray for you
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
random is like each different branch of a tree springing out in random directions
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
only the time of now is true
Posted by BobbyPandaram 1 year ago
BobbyPandaram
I see incoherence. I see complications when simple will do.

I cannot understand how you get from an I to space = eye.
I know that I can see through space with my eye. I know that I can see whatever is enveloped in space with my eye.

Am is not time but an existence. Remember time "am" does not exist in the past but "am" existed then and "am" could not exist in the future because the future is not experienced as yet. "Am" can only be in the present. Notice "Am" cannot be used in the past and "Am" can only be predicted for the future.

"Me" is what makes me who I am. Being is what makes me what I am.

GOD bless you
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
I=space(eye)
am=time
me=being

0=nothing
1=something

3 divided by 0 is 3
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
I don't want to be rude, but why does vi_spex always state his propositions as though they are riddles? He always makes interesting subjects for debate (and sometimes redundant topics) but he always lists his propositions as though they're either math problems or a riddle.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
nature is intended?
Posted by Beagle_hugs 1 year ago
Beagle_hugs
In what way does this proposition make any sense at all? I'm an atheist and would take this debate just because it is so nonsensical, except that it is...too nonsensical.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Leo.Messi
Ya man, what Valkrin said.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
@vi_spex
Just a question: why do you keep posting the same topic over and over again as a debate? Are you expecting to win one of them, do you just refuse to accept you lost, or what? This is unclear to me.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
nja
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
vi_spexbillgreatssTied
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: Con showed the flaw in Pro's logic. Con was the only one who provided sources.
Vote Placed by ben671176 1 year ago
ben671176
vi_spexbillgreatssTied
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: Both sides had pretty bad grammar. Pro is either a machine WITH a Creator or he is a human with DNA that doesn't think he has DNA. Pro didn't even give his definition of a machine so you have to guess what he is talking about. I feel like Con used better sources because he did use sources even if they are wrong.