God does not exist. Prove me wrong. - Page 2 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

God does not exist. Prove me wrong.

245



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @MayCaesar ; The Big Bang is nonsense and even if it were true, where did the matter, the energy for such a cataclysmic event find its origin?  You're grasping at straws that have no substance.

    NASA and Harvard have not a clue: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm

    The ultimate mystery is inspiring new ideas and new experiments.


    No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? As difficult as these questions are, scientists are attempting to address them with bold new ideas - and new experiments to test those ideas.


    Understanding how the universe began requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related. In physics, a theory is not a guess or a hypothesis. It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves. Einstein's theory of gravity, for example, accurately describes how matter responds to gravity in the large-scale world around us. And our best theory of the tiny sub-atomic realm, called quantum theory, makes very accurate predictions about the behavior of matter at tiny scales of distance. But these two theories are not complete and are not able to make accurate predictions about the very earliest moments when the universe was both extremely dense and extremely small.


    Some of the best minds in physics are working on a new theory of space, time, and matter, called "string theory," that may help us better understand where the universe came from. String theory is based on new ideas that have not yet been tested. The theory assumes, for example, that the basic particles in nature are not point particles, but are shaped like strings. And the theory requires - and predicts - that space has more than the three dimensions in which we move. According to one version of the theory, the particles and forces that make up our world are confined to three dimensions we see - except for gravity, which can "leak" out into the extra dimensions.


    String theory has led to some bizarre new scenarios for the origin of the universe. In one scenario, the Big Bang could have been triggered when our own universe collided with a "parallel universe" made of these extra dimensions. Scenarios like these are very speculative, because the string theory is still in development and remains untested, but they stimulate astronomers to look for new forms of evidence.


    A new window on the universe: waves of gravity.

     
    The most promising clue to our cosmic origins may be the tiny gravity waves set in motion during the Big Bang itself. These ripples of gravity have eluded detection so far, but NASA aims to look for them with the LISA mission, to be launched in the next decade. LISA technology will be so precise that it will measure the equivalent of the distance to the Moon to less than the width of a single atom. The mission will be complemented by the ground-based LIGO detector, already in operation.


    Gravity waves are important because they are the only known form of information that can reach us, undistorted, from the instant of the Big Bang itself. The different scenarios for the early universe make different predictions for the size and pattern of these gravity waves. The hope is that gravity waves will help refute or support some of these theories of the early universe. The truth is, no one knows what we'll find. This is uncharted territory – a new window on the universe.


    Is our universe unique?


    Perhaps the most unsettling and far-reaching prediction of string theory - and also of the inflationary universe model - is that the universe we live in is probably not unique. The inflationary model predicts that Big Bangs are continually taking place in other regions of space - and string theory suggests that these other mini-verses may be so different from our own that even the laws of nature and the number of dimensions of space may be different.  


    This notion - that the universe as whole may not look like the part we live in - may help explain a puzzling mystery about our own universe: Why are the constants and laws of nature just so, and not different? For example, why is the speed of light not faster than it is? Why are electrons so much lighter than the protons they orbit in atoms? What we do know is that if these fundamental laws and constants were even slightly different from what is observed, then life as we know it would not exist. (For example, atoms would be less stable, or stars and planets would not form.) Traditionally, physicists have sought some logical explanation for why the universe is as it is. But the likelihood of multiple universes raises the possibility that nature is merely playing dice: some universes have the right conditions for life, while others - the vast majority - do not.


    Nature is full of surprises, and this dialogue with nature has far to go. With every generation, the universe we observe seems to be getting larger and more wonderful. Just a few hundred years ago, the stars we see in the night sky seemed to be the limits of our universe. Then Galileo's telescope opened up the panorama of stars that make up our Milky Way galaxy of stars. A mere century ago, humanity still had not discovered that there are billions of galaxies far beyond our own. Today, we can see as far as nature currently allows - back to the moment of the Big Bang itself. Our ideas and ingenuity are conjuring a universe even larger and more varied than we had ever imagined. Is it any wonder this is a great exploration? 




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @RickeyD

    I am not "grasping at straws", as my claims are based on centuries of rigorous research by hundreds thousands scientists that have published millions peer-reviewed papers. "Grasping at straws" is when all you have to support your position with is one book from the time when humans did not know what electricity was.

    We do not need to know where everything "came from" to begin with. Maybe it did not come from anywhere, and the very question makes no sense. Science is interested in describing the observations, not in sating your curiosity with beautiful fantasy stories with talking snakes and fire-breathing dragons.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42smoothie
  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Who is Allah? Creator or Created?


    On a Bible debate forum, I am observing Post after Post defending Allah and suggesting Allah is the same god of the Holy Bible…please allow me to differentiate between Allah and Jesus Christ-Yeshua. Forgive me for the lengthy post…


    Our Creator, the God of the Holy Bible, has identified Himself in Scripture by Name as “I AM” (Exodus 3:14) and we know Him as Jesus Christ-Yeshua who is Elohim in Genesis 1 and the Living Word of God in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1.


    Allah is NOT creator but Allah is created. Allah is Lucifer who was God’s chief cherub angel in the Kingdom of Heaven, but Lucifer coveted God’s authority and dominion while one-third of the entire angelic community followed Lucifer in his rebellion to usurp God’s authority.


    As a result of Lucifer’s (Allah) attempted Coup and because the destructive presence of sin is NOT permitted in God’s Kingdom, our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua, spoke into existence the realm of Time, the Universe, Earth, mankind, at which time our Creator removed Lucifer and the rebellious angles from the Kingdom and placed them within the constraints of Time. It is here that we see the advent of Allah in the Garden of Eden who eventually manifests himself publicly via a religion initiated through Abraham, Hagar, Ishmael i.e. Islam. In close proximity in Time, we see the origin of Judaism/Christianity manifesting from the seed of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob AKA Israel.


    It is important to note that Ishmael (the genealogical genesis of Islam), the son of Abraham through Hagar, is NOT the son of promise but only Isaac born to Abraham and his wife, Sarah, did our Creator bring forth Messiah-Yeshua who died to provide mankind a pardon from death in sin and Hell. (Genesis 17:20-21)


    Why did our Creator choose to not simply destroy Lucifer and the angles for their Coup de taut?


    Lucifer-Allah is the adversary of our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua, and God is dealing with Allah-Lucifer within the constraints of Time apart from the Kingdom of God where no sin is permitted. Our God is defined as LOVE and He desires relationship with both His angelic and human creation. In order for love and relationship to manifest in purity and authenticity, one must be free to choose to love or hate; otherwise love is robotic and impotent. Understand that our Creator did not destroy Lucifer (Allah) subsequent to his rebellion in the Kingdom because had our Creator arbitrarily destroyed Lucifer and the angels that followed Lucifer in the rebellion, the remaining two-thirds of the faithful angelic creation would no longer love our Creator out of free will/volition but out of fear. True love and relationship cannot manifest in fear; therefore, our Creator spoke into existence the realm of Time, this Universe and the Earth and placed Lucifer-Allah within the constraints of Time apart from the Heavenly Realm. The spiritual struggle between our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua, and Allah-Satan is currently being played-out before our eyes constrained by the realm of Time. This cosmic struggle initiated by Lucifer-Allah can be seen in the Realm of Time as the struggle that exists today between Islam v. Israel and Allah’s hatred for the Jewish people and Islam’s hatred for the State of Israel.


    The faithful Angles in God’s Kingdom are watching the events unfold as Allah-Satan steals, kills, destroys, with impunity on this Earth and the faithful Angels will, in the summation of all things following the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ, these faithful Angles will agree with God that Allah-Lucifer/Satan must be destroyed. Satan-Allah will be confined and tormented in the Lake of Fire forever and the faithful Angles of God will agree that this punishment is just and righteous.


    All who have been deceived by Allah serve Satan unaware and they are seeking death in sin and death in Hell for their servitude of our Creator’s most prolific adversary, Allah, who is the demonic god of Islam!


    Everyone who has believed in Jesus Christ-Yeshua as Lord and entered into a relationship with God the Father by grace through faith in the Son, Jesus Christ, will spend Eternity with God in His Kingdom as servants. These faithful will be permitted to enter God’s Kingdom subsequent to death of the body because they have been redeemed and forgiven of all sin as a result of their faith in and love for Jesus Christ, the Son of God.




    ZeusAres42smoothie
  • DeeDee 3001 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    I think you picked the wrong god buddy ....repent before it’s to late Allah will not forgive for believing in your Satanic god .....

      However, the message of Islam as brought by the prophets of Allah is to worship only Allah and to avoid the worship of his creation either directly or indirectly. 
    (Read more: The True Religion)

    Say: He is God, the One and Only;  God, the Eternal, Absolute;  He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Surah 112)

       God is He, than Whom there is no other god;- Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. God is He, than Whom there is no other god;- the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to God! (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him.

    He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colors). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. (59:22-24)

     

    ZeusAres42
  • @RickeyD
    So now you are insulting me by calling me a fool? This is not how we debate. It also shows that you are probably a bit unsteady on your points if you resort to insulting the opponent.
    ZeusAres42RS_master
  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; Where did I call you a fool?  The reference to the "fool" is from the Holy Spirit...I'm only telling you what God has said in His word....

    The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) 

    If you're insulted, discuss it with the Holy Spirit.


    ZeusAres42RS_masterxlJ_dolphin_473smoothie
  • @MayCaesar

    I've argued with you and apparently you haven't realized all of your sources that you suggest are empirical are false.

    I've asked you before , explain how the big bang is possible based on Newton's law of cooling and the Stephan boltsman constant which are LAWS.

    Laws determine any THEORYs that contradict laws are invalid as THEORYs because of the laws that dictate they are false such as the big bang.

    Second, I've stated many times, 

    The Posteori Argument.

    1. That God's existence can not be demonstrated by a person who is not God.

    This has been satisfied by Jesus.

    Religion has no history of anyone performing what is defined as a miracle.

    The distinction between god's and Jesus is Jesus actually existed, satisfying the standard of reality in association as Jesus was God.

    2. Therefore, in regular arguments God's existence is considered to be based on a posteori, what God causes as associated with his existence, a quia.

    You can not argue cause or existence, without determining a cause.

    There are two contradictions with the universe having always existed

    1. Established research it began T-symmetry or time reversal symmetry

    T: t -> -t  and why the universe started with a low entropy

    2. What has always existed is not subject to change based on it's existence being defined as a constant.

    Jesus is God it's obvious.

    You still haven't answered my questions.

    You have never provided exhaustive analysis and always use the words peer-review.

    Research that disagrees with the big bang has passed peer review so it's fallacy that peer-reviewed research is valid in argument such as you've stated.

    You don't even know what a quark is, how are you arguing anything about cosmological conditions?
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:
    @MayCaesar ; The Big Bang is nonsense and even if it were true, where did the matter, the energy for such a cataclysmic event find its origin?  You're grasping at straws that have no substance.

    NASA and Harvard have not a clue: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm

    The ultimate mystery is inspiring new ideas and new experiments.


    No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? As difficult as these questions are, scientists are attempting to address them with bold new ideas - and new experiments to test those ideas.


    Understanding how the universe began requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related. In physics, a theory is not a guess or a hypothesis. It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves. Einstein's theory of gravity, for example, accurately describes how matter responds to gravity in the large-scale world around us. And our best theory of the tiny sub-atomic realm, called quantum theory, makes very accurate predictions about the behavior of matter at tiny scales of distance. But these two theories are not complete and are not able to make accurate predictions about the very earliest moments when the universe was both extremely dense and extremely small.


    Some of the best minds in physics are working on a new theory of space, time, and matter, called "string theory," that may help us better understand where the universe came from. String theory is based on new ideas that have not yet been tested. The theory assumes, for example, that the basic particles in nature are not point particles, but are shaped like strings. And the theory requires - and predicts - that space has more than the three dimensions in which we move. According to one version of the theory, the particles and forces that make up our world are confined to three dimensions we see - except for gravity, which can "leak" out into the extra dimensions.


    String theory has led to some bizarre new scenarios for the origin of the universe. In one scenario, the Big Bang could have been triggered when our own universe collided with a "parallel universe" made of these extra dimensions. Scenarios like these are very speculative, because the string theory is still in development and remains untested, but they stimulate astronomers to look for new forms of evidence.


    A new window on the universe: waves of gravity.

     
    The most promising clue to our cosmic origins may be the tiny gravity waves set in motion during the Big Bang itself. These ripples of gravity have eluded detection so far, but NASA aims to look for them with the LISA mission, to be launched in the next decade. LISA technology will be so precise that it will measure the equivalent of the distance to the Moon to less than the width of a single atom. The mission will be complemented by the ground-based LIGO detector, already in operation.


    Gravity waves are important because they are the only known form of information that can reach us, undistorted, from the instant of the Big Bang itself. The different scenarios for the early universe make different predictions for the size and pattern of these gravity waves. The hope is that gravity waves will help refute or support some of these theories of the early universe. The truth is, no one knows what we'll find. This is uncharted territory – a new window on the universe.


    Is our universe unique?


    Perhaps the most unsettling and far-reaching prediction of string theory - and also of the inflationary universe model - is that the universe we live in is probably not unique. The inflationary model predicts that Big Bangs are continually taking place in other regions of space - and string theory suggests that these other mini-verses may be so different from our own that even the laws of nature and the number of dimensions of space may be different.  


    This notion - that the universe as whole may not look like the part we live in - may help explain a puzzling mystery about our own universe: Why are the constants and laws of nature just so, and not different? For example, why is the speed of light not faster than it is? Why are electrons so much lighter than the protons they orbit in atoms? What we do know is that if these fundamental laws and constants were even slightly different from what is observed, then life as we know it would not exist. (For example, atoms would be less stable, or stars and planets would not form.) Traditionally, physicists have sought some logical explanation for why the universe is as it is. But the likelihood of multiple universes raises the possibility that nature is merely playing dice: some universes have the right conditions for life, while others - the vast majority - do not.


    Nature is full of surprises, and this dialogue with nature has far to go. With every generation, the universe we observe seems to be getting larger and more wonderful. Just a few hundred years ago, the stars we see in the night sky seemed to be the limits of our universe. Then Galileo's telescope opened up the panorama of stars that make up our Milky Way galaxy of stars. A mere century ago, humanity still had not discovered that there are billions of galaxies far beyond our own. Today, we can see as far as nature currently allows - back to the moment of the Big Bang itself. Our ideas and ingenuity are conjuring a universe even larger and more varied than we had ever imagined. Is it any wonder this is a great exploration? 




    You are always using reference from the book made from "gods" disciples. I need a scientific evidence. Name me one reason why to trust the bible which is NOT from the bible.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  

    RickeyD said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; Where did I call you a fool?  The reference to the "fool" is from the Holy Spirit...I'm only telling you what God has said in His word....

    The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) 

    If you're insulted, discuss it with the Holy Spirit.


    What do you mean? Psalm (14:1) That is part of the bible. I am not saying I do not like the bible but I am asking you to give me one reason why I should trust the bible not from the bible. "Gods" disciples book will OBVIOUSLY say god exists. I know in the bible god talked through Peter. How do you know that event was real? That question is related to the first one. Here is another question. How is the reference from the bible real?
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @RS_master ; The Scriptures are the only Truth you will find in this life where our Creator explains ORIGIN, Meaning of life, morality, our destiny. If you deny the Scriptures  and the Covenant of Grace established within, you will die in your sins and die a second death in Hell (John 8:24). This is a very good reason to trust the Scriptures. I suggest you perform an exegesis of the "Gospel of John" and the "Book of Romans" and at least make an informed decision concerning your eternal destiny. Don't die in spiritual ignorance and don't die in Hell without knowledge of why.

    If you doubt the Bible's veracity, prove it wrong.  I have walked my Lord for 27-yrs and I found His words irrefutable and His love and faithfulness to be true. You are missing out on the great love known to mankind!






    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 804 Pts   -  
    Neopesdom said:
    @RS_master ;Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.

    In christianity we live by faith, not by proof. 

    Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

    Name anything which cannot be held on "faith". 

    Anything that can be used to support any claim is worthless.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:

    RickeyD said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; Where did I call you a fool?  The reference to the "fool" is from the Holy Spirit...I'm only telling you what God has said in His word....

    The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) 

    If you're insulted, discuss it with the Holy Spirit.


    What do you mean? Psalm (14:1) That is part of the bible. I am not saying I do not like the bible but I am asking you to give me one reason why I should trust the bible not from the bible. "Gods" disciples book will OBVIOUSLY say god exists. I know in the bible god talked through Peter. How do you know that event was real? That question is related to the first one. Here is another question. How is the reference from the bible real?
    This says name me one reason you should trust the bible without giving evidence. This clearly shows you were not paying attention to the speech I said. Where was your evidence from?... The bible :| Where did I NOT tell you to get your evidence from? the bible.  The bible will obviously say you should trust it because the bible wants you to trust it like a normal human would hence to prove why you should trust it you need other sources to prove the bible true.
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD I forgot say in the comment above that if you cannot find sources of proving the bible true except for the bible then you have proved that it is  bible is not factual because the bible will OBVIOUSLY say it is true and you have to find reliable sources to prove the bible.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 804 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    @RickeyD I forgot say in the comment above that if you cannot find sources of proving the bible true except for the bible then you have proved that it is  bible is not factual because the bible will OBVIOUSLY say it is true and you have to find reliable sources to prove the bible.
    I don't disagree with your conclusion about the Bible, but how you arrived at it is a faulty: the absence of sources validating the Bible does not make it false - it is the contradictions, scientific absurdities, logical impossibilities, ignorance, misogyny, etc, that makes the Bible extremely unlkely to be the product of the god it claims and false/wrong in all these ways.
  • @RS_master

    It is a category fallacy to ask about the cause of Gods existence
    , that by definition is the cause of human existence,as
    If the cause of God's existence is our own. 

    You're question is illogical and illogically assumes that human existence is an effect, that requires a cause, which requires it's own.

    The concept that everything relates to it's own cause , is the basis by which a natural cause ultimately refers back to it's own cause and leaves the only reality, that God's existence is absolutely nescesarry.

    You can't logically assert that a natural cause that is subject to the standard of it's own cause is a cause that relates to human existence, 

    As it's own existence would be limited to the condition of the existence of an infinite chain of causes.

    An infinite chain of causes is a fallacy as a result of exhausting the possibility that something's own existence requires another and eventually runs into the logical problem, that unless something exists that requires no cause,nothing would
    ever begin to exist.

    It becomes plainly evident that
    Human existence requires a cause that is

    Not-naturally limited
    Is not subject to decay and is
    not subject to a beggining

    Everything that is in existence because of the cause is effected by 

    Laws and
    Time

    Considering that matter is effected by time it's implausible to assert matter has always existed because it results in decay


    To assert that existence as an effect, is only related to the effect, not the cause, assertd
    nothing begins to exist and no such requirement would relate to human existence which is obviously fallacy, for the simple reason children are born,not spontaneous.

    A spontaneous cause is fallacy because it asserts that existence requires no cause and asserts nothing begins. Thats observationally fallacy in the material world.


    You're stuck on what
    Comes into existence,
    Based on what has no beggining and only Yahweh,  had no beggining .



    Human existence had a beggining

    God's ( Jesus Christs)  existence had no beggining

     A natural cause can not exist  based on the limit of natural phenomena.

    A cause by definition in the sense in which it applies to human existence is not related to the extent by which existence is related to God's own existence.

     The question assumes
     that human existence, somehow dictates the requirement for God's own existence.

    Human beings think conditional to their existence

    And that existence determines origin, that is related to each and every cause.

    The context that outlines human existence only ever occurs when satisfying the condition of requiring a cause.


    You're  failure in logical deduction

    Anything subject to physical or natural laws is subject to the extent of the physical and natural laws and requires a cause for it's own existence.

    God exists and Jesus is God.
    RS_master
  • Something effected by time has not always existed, case and point that there is no such thing as a natural cause.

    You've been proven wrong God Jesus Christ exists.
    smoothie
  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ; There are no contradictions; the Bible is not a science book; the "Source" for all Scripture is God the Holy Spirit. If you reject the Scriptures and you reject the Subject of the Scriptures, Jesus Christ, you will die in sin and lose your soul in Hell. God the Father will NOT permit your unrepentant sin to enter His Kingdom subsequent to the death of your body (Revelation 21:27); therefore, if you reject Jesus as your Mediator for your sin, you have no hope!  You must be "born again."


  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -  
    @RS_master ; It's not difficult. You will either believe what the Holy Spirit has provided you in the Scriptures and thereby find life by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as YOUR Lord and Savior - or - you'll deny the Scriptures and deny Jesus as Lord and lose your soul in Hell. Without Jesus as Lord to mediate your sin, you will die in sin and not see life in God's Kingdom. The "choice" is yours to make.

    “There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.” Adrian Rogers


    Jesus warned...



    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 804 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @ RickeyD 
    Born again? - yep, been there, done that. I've since examined those beliefs and found them orphaned by evidence. So, suffice to say, I have no fear of burning in hell. Did you have anything other than fear to offer in support of your diety?
    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    It is a category fallacy to ask about the cause of Gods existence
    , that by definition is the cause of human existence,as
    If the cause of God's existence is our own. 

    You're question is illogical and illogically assumes that human existence is an effect, that requires a cause, which requires it's own.

    The concept that everything relates to it's own cause , is the basis by which a natural cause ultimately refers back to it's own cause and leaves the only reality, that God's existence is absolutely nescesarry.

    You can't logically assert that a natural cause that is subject to the standard of it's own cause is a cause that relates to human existence, 

    As it's own existence would be limited to the condition of the existence of an infinite chain of causes.

    An infinite chain of causes is a fallacy as a result of exhausting the possibility that something's own existence requires another and eventually runs into the logical problem, that unless something exists that requires no cause,nothing would
    ever begin to exist.

    It becomes plainly evident that
    Human existence requires a cause that is

    Not-naturally limited
    Is not subject to decay and is
    not subject to a beggining

    Everything that is in existence because of the cause is effected by 

    Laws and
    Time

    Considering that matter is effected by time it's implausible to assert matter has always existed because it results in decay


    To assert that existence as an effect, is only related to the effect, not the cause, assertd
    nothing begins to exist and no such requirement would relate to human existence which is obviously fallacy, for the simple reason children are born,not spontaneous.

    A spontaneous cause is fallacy because it asserts that existence requires no cause and asserts nothing begins. Thats observationally fallacy in the material world.


    You're stuck on what
    Comes into existence,
    Based on what has no beggining and only Yahweh,  had no beggining .



    Human existence had a beggining

    God's ( Jesus Christs)  existence had no beggining

     A natural cause can not exist  based on the limit of natural phenomena.

    A cause by definition in the sense in which it applies to human existence is not related to the extent by which existence is related to God's own existence.

     The question assumes
     that human existence, somehow dictates the requirement for God's own existence.

    Human beings think conditional to their existence

    And that existence determines origin, that is related to each and every cause.

    The context that outlines human existence only ever occurs when satisfying the condition of requiring a cause.


    You're  failure in logical deduction

    Anything subject to physical or natural laws is subject to the extent of the physical and natural laws and requires a cause for it's own existence.

    God exists and Jesus is God.
    You only believe in something if you know why.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • God does not exist. Prove me wrong.

    Does the number 89 exist to you?

    Does everyone in the world count in the same language. No.

    Who created GOD (89) quiet a few numbers of people, places, and things bear GOD  as their single value is judged by GOD.

    We could just say four, fours and a point of lesser idevigaual value made with a pair in two five.

    A person might just as well ask who created the stars in the night sky. For science as fact knows there is more the 88 stars.

    RS_master
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 I do not understand the relationship with this topic theology and 89. I do not understand your argument as it makes no sense or logic.
  • Here are how things are from my point of view:
    Humans, for the longest time, could not explain the phenomenon that they experienced around them like what causes storms or night and day, what stars are and why trees grow.  Due to their limited means of finding explanations for these things, they then started believing that something is intentionally causing and creating these things, and if I can splash some water, maybe there's someone out there that's making it rain, if I can make a shelter, maybe there's someone out there that's making these mountains.  Thus, they create gods as explanations for these things, now whether some guy just made a fictional story and soon people started taking it as truth, or whether it was some guy who believed what he was saying was true has yet to be figured out, but it was one of the two, and this is something that we see even to this day.  For me, I think the creation of the bible came about because some guy named Jesus strolled into town, called himself the messiah, some people believed him and decided to write stories surrounding him as a character, and then more and more people joined the religion and it just continued to grow from there.

    Whenever I see people try and explain why their religion is justified or is the "correct" religion, they point towards things like their religious texts, and how their religious texts explain that they are correct, but that's like me pointing towards a book I wrote that specifically says in the text that I am the creator of Pac-Man and that Toru Iwatani is just lying, despite there being a lot more evidence backing up Iwatani as being the actual creator of Pac-Man, that evidence isn't exactly substantial.  Another problem I see is the multiple contradictions between real-life science and what is found in religious texts, a lot of individuals say that you shouldn't take the texts literally and that they instead have to be interpreted in multiple ways, and they could very well be right, but at the same time, I could pick up A Study In Scarlet and explain how I interpreted the text in a way that explains how Sherlock Holmes is actually just Loki in disguise.

    I admit that I'm not exactly the best debater when it comes to this topic of discussion, and there may very well be many fallacies with the arguments that I've made and points I've brought up and that there is a religion out there which is the correct one, but with the evidence I've seen, I am of the mindset that there is no God or heaven (despite how awesome that would be) and that they are all just old stories that have been taken to whole new heights

    ***Something I want to make very clear though is that I respect all religions out there that are not violent in nature, and that you should all too, regardless if you believe in a religion or not, it is not okay to attack somebody for their religious views, if they are peaceful, and aren't radical or extremists, leave them be.  Let's all try and make the world a better place, regardless of religion or lack there of.***
    Happy_Killbotsmoothie
  • RS_master said:
    @John_C_87 I do not understand the relationship with this topic theology and 89. I do not understand your argument as it makes no sense or logic.
    The problem might be it makes to much sense, to easily. 

    Do you understand algebra and how letters like a, b, and c are used for numbers in equations, those equations being fixed provide an answer created as a result of math procedures, both with complex and simple principles and rules?
    RS_master
  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -   edited December 2019

    Prove God does not exist. Negate the logical fallacy, I dare you...negate “fallacy of the universal negative.”



    smoothie
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @RickeyD
    Dawkins was right. We can't prove there isn't a god, we can just prove that it is exceedingly unlikely that there is one, and present alternative, and more realistic, models of creation.
    RS_masterJesusisGod777888smoothie
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD Are you saying science is wrong? Are you saying theories and science should be separated? Christianity is a theory as there is no evidence proving or disproving it. Science is the source mainly used to prove theory. Science is never wrong because science is the truth of nature
    JesusisGod777888
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    I will prove that god does not exist, right after you prove that Elves, flying fire-breathing dragons and Jedi do not exist.

    Actually, the god is far less likely to exist than any of these. Nothing in biology prevents Elves or fire-breathing dragons from emerging somewhere in the Universe as a result of the evolutionary process, and Jedi can arise as a result of scientific breakthrough. God, however, seems to contradict basic physical laws, so...
  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ; That's my point, we can't prove that Elves, flying fire-breathing dragons and Jedi do not exist because we're unable to search the vastness of the Universe for confirmation one way or the other. Explain how the presence of the Moon, the Stars, the Earth, the complex human genome manifest void design and a Designer. Show me documentation explaining empirically how matter was formed.

    You're a liar, you intuitively know our Creator exists but you love your perversion, your aberrant lust more than Truth. You will reap what you sow!



    smoothie
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    I am writing a thesis currently exploring just that: how heavy elements in the Universe were formed. I am afraid you will not be able to process the explanation, however, given your lack of basic physics knowledge. But I can point you in the right direction: it was a result of mostly weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions between elementary particles and atoms.

    I do know that the Creator exists, named Aphrodite, but she really is more of a Procreator. You will not get to know the meaning of the term though, as the heretic you are! Aphrodite does not share beds with religious prudes.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 716 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ; Where did the "mostly weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions between elementary particles and atoms" find their origin?  I ask again, what has your god of sexual immorality done lately? Created anything? Walked among us? What has Aphrodite done, atheist? LOL ?


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 3343 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD When has your god ever created anything or walked among us?

    Do you know that or were you told that, and accepted it without question?

    Everything that is created in the universe exists because of emergence. We do not know at this time for sure what is at the base of reality to make everything the way it is, and to say or even suggest that we do understand everything is intellectually immature. You can never learn anything unless you first accept that there is something you don't know.

    You think you know that there is a god, but you really don't know that, you just blindly and ignorantly accept it based on faith. You think that it is intuitive to believe this, because you are to close minded to even consider that maybe it isn't intuitive at all, but rather it is learned, or in your case trained.

    I say trained because I do not think you have the cognitive power to truly think critically, and on account of you spent your life first in the Marines and then in the police so you probably never had to. To to reason your way out of trouble you clung to the only thing worked in your life, the mask for your insecurity and the opium for your weak, anxious, fearful soul.

    In about a century or so, religion will make up only a small minority of the human population, we have been on that trajectory for a few decades now and with the rise of the internet it has picked up significant speed. People are leaving their ancient fictions for truth, not stories. In the future, people will prefer reality to fairy tales, because they will not waste time worrying about fairy tales instead of solving their problems.

    The world will be better for it.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RS_master said:
    Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.

    It is very relevant to proving GOD exists. Algebra is a know process used by the public that shows the history of interchanges made between numbers for letters. The mere objection of pertinence on this basic level means there is an obstruction of basic fact collection in the area of reason. It is not just an argument of debate and should be considered officially a reply to your possibly rhetorical question. Want to know the real threat of issues concerning technology on the level of what is seen by today standard. It makes the once simple idea of destroying evidence much more complicated and complex undertaking.


  • WheelmanWheelman 17 Pts   -  
    @RS_master Does government exist? If you can prove government exists then you might be able to prove God exists. 
    RS_master
  • @Wheelman ;

    That works in a very interesting way.
  • @Wheelman
    Please explain? How can proof of a government prove the existence of God? In my mind they seem to be two unrelated topics. What connection have I missed?
  • There is also something that should be made perfectly clear. Asking if GOD can be proven as real while meaning can a person have their God proven as real are not the same public grievance.

  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @Wheelman What has the government got to do with god? Am I correct in stating that  they are 2 different topics hence they are irrelevant to eachother?
  • @RS_master ;

    No your not correct all governments are modeled after GOD when it is an axiom and not religion in basic principle. Holding that burden let's us know the weight of truth.
  • @RS_master

    Science has always been wrong, that's the exact problem with the entire discussion.

    First you have no knowledge of basic genetics,

    That genes charecterized by random change never structure moron.

    On an actual scientific basic, the human genome was a complete failure that wound up costing 3 billion dollars with 47 percent of the human genome having no discernable charecteristic.

    Scientists don't know about genes.

    Second, the centromere the actual nucleaus of genes , was examined and scientists have no idea how genes create proteins.

    Logically if you have no idea how genes produce the very building blocks of biology you can not make any determination about

    1. How genes sequence

    2. How life developes

    On that basis alone you can not even suggest evolution as a possible theory that has any genetic potential.

    If that were bad enough scientists could not determine how Chromosomal segments attach to other Chromosomes.

    If you have no idea how genes attach you can not sequence them and make no analysis about genetic sequences.

    No animal species genome has ever been fully sequences either.

    There were 250 overall gaps that remained in the sequence further dictating that gene gene sequence is completely an impossible task.

    As far back as the 13th century scientists suggested evolution on the scale that animals could grow out of the ground like plants and the entire scientific community researched the possibility and determined it was false

    Evolution has simply been a theory with large edits that are not linked to any observation in any field of biology , has no basis and is suggested without any observation other than the assertion that since animals exist on the planet and share similar features that dictates animals have evolved.

    Science stupidly asserted the earth was hollow, that life existed on the sun, and has failed in any explanation regarding the existence of life.

    Medical experts and modern medicine isn't even truly relatable to the scientific community although science trys to claim it as a scientific achievement to relate it to ideas that are not scientific.

    First your argument is complete fallacy, because you have no understanding of science at all whatsoever.

    From the beggining of the world God's existence has been proven, by simple observation.

    Second Jesus was a person who was God.

    You can't simply ignore that Jesus was God and a person and assert that anything contradicts his existence. It's not logical, it's irrational imagination to suggest evolution is plausible.

    I've posted it many times, that based on scrutiny and logic evolution is not plausible, and as a theory if it is contradicted by known laws it could not logically be possible.

    You don't side step Jesus, biology, physics, and the natural world and assert the possibility of something that is clearly false because of what is perceptably known.

    Darwin's tree is enough to invalidate the entire concept because of it's logical failure.

    You can't not assert

    That animal species that share the same original ancestor that have evolved, are no longer observable when all animal species adapt to their enviroment.

    The fact human beings exist, alongside every known animal species dictates all animal species, even those that have transitioned should be completely observable on the basis of if evolution was true, and it's not.

    No transitory species exists between all animal species or human beings that is observable, in fact, the differences are so large, and the biology of each organism is so different that there is no possible way to biologically relate any species of animal to an entirely different organism , evolutions false.

    The last most Ludacris examination is that bacteria and virus have a short half-life making evolution completely impossible.

    Most bacteria live for a period of 24 hours and most viruses live for about a week. The way in which bacteria and virus subsist is off of a living host.

    Evolution doesn't have billions of years to occur , it's probability is reduced to a 24 hour period to a week worth of rapid genetic changes all without a food source.

    Your completely retarted if you don't understand God Jesus Christ exists and that evolution is completely false!


    smoothie
  • Lastly no one that existed in the beggining of the world has documented anything that is evidence of evolutionary change, and modern scientists as a result can not claim anything that happened in the beggining of the . There is no evidence, scientifically that has evaluated anything that existed 4 billion years ago.

    Nothing in genes
    Nothing on the planet
    And no documentation from the beggining of the world

    So it's entirely to even suggest that a jelly fish turned into a whale or vertebrate, when 

    No jelly fish has ever been obersved to to do so

    And there is no data from the beggining of the world to assert that something happened that is completely unknown to scientists as IF it happened.

    How do you assert what happened in the beggining of the world when

    1. There is no data, documentation, or reference

    2. You did not exist in the beggining of the world

    The time that separates the origin of the world and the knowledge of the world's origin is not available to scientists

    Everything in the entire scientific community is a theory based on accelerating molecules and causing them to collide to separate into their most basic particles and how the hell does that even explain the cause of existence? 

    Scientists don't know and that's the problem when they assert they do.

    Atheists and scientists all at some point say

    No one knows

    And research hasn't caught up

    If you don't know and research hasn't caught up you're just an ignorant , person who is explaining a completely bs excuse for choosing not to understand Jesus exists and is God and that your entirely theory is an attempt to contradict the very reality that exists.

    You people have BRICKS for heads and are challenging God.

    You try to bring God down to your level as if it's possible to dethrone him.

    Someone tried that, got his kicked, was made the laughing stock of the spiritual realm, was condemned the first second he tried and is going to be destroyed at the appointed time and the jackasses name is satan, so instead of hiding behind colorful words and hoping you can dethrone God by researching molocules you should realized, the combined human intelligence of the entire existence of human kind to it's end is never going to be able to even step into an arena with God and scale to measure anything.

    The problem is you don't even know enough about Jesus to be scared of him or you'd shut your mouths.
    smoothie
  • DeeDee 3001 Pts   -  
  • To even begin to examine the lack of logic associated with evolution makes it obvious that it is imaginary thinking by some of the worst degrees of a lack of intelligence which can't even provide a logical coherant explanation consistent with reality.

    Science asserts :

    Evolution occurs when  heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift. ... This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation."

    So let's break that down and make it obvious and apparent why this is illogical.

    1. If genes are inhertied by organisms that lack the genes they inheret
    ,Genes are not subject to spontaneous generation

    However

    2. If evolution is based on inherited traits or genetic mutations that must be inherited, it invalidates the concept they must be inherited for evolution to occur

    As the statement suggests not all genes are

    1. Inherited
    2. Exist within the same species of organism

    However,
    Because it asserts all mutations occur in organism are different than the original Genes of the organism
    , it's obviously fallacious.

    How does an organism develope genes or genetic differences it does not oroginally have?

    The lack of understanding is based on how genes develope or structure.

    In fairy tail land, genes can arrange chemical base pairs to create an  infinite new number or amount of chemical
    chains ( alchemy) where the product is divided by the summ of it's parts and lead can become gold, a

    all that's how gold got here and steel is evidence that chalk becomes gold.

    However in reality,b
    base pairs are themselves chemical compounds which limits what they can produce based on the total reactivity or combination of base pairs that exist

    chemical chains are only as complex or only ever chemical compositions of what is combined, they don't have infinite values

    that result in millions of possibilities but limited outcomed.
     in, whatever combination of base pairs are arranged, in a  whatever cparticular order 

    Second it's a massive jump to assert electric charges, positive or negative, in the case of non living matter, can somehow result in biological life ( ambiogensis) now your on a new level of because there is no biological activity in rocks.

    In BS land, amino acids and proteins are simple magical properties that when arranged in different orders create longer hands or big feet

    But in reality, proteins develope in the same exact way that makes their development possible, and donesnt account for gentic variables that dont exist.

    It logically defies all rationality, and any relationship between genes that somehow exist in an organism that don't exist in another
    That these genes come out of a process that requires they are ingerited

    or that multiple organisms expierience the exact same mutations

    Considering,  that if multiple organism expierience the exact same mutations, genes would not have to be inherited

    It dictates that no gene must be inherited that any genetic sequence expieriences change

    So either genes expierience the exact same mutations, which if they did no organism would need to inherit anything, or different mutations,  

    Logically, if only genes specific to an individual organism expierience mutations, than any mutation they are paired with in an organism, through procreation, that has expierienced a different mutation , would completely effect the offspring,to such an extent of change that it would share all genetic traits of the original organism ,

    The mutations unique to the organism that passed it on and the organism that passed on its own genetic traits, would exist in organisms that share the traits of their parents


    Why is evolution false?
     
     because the human genome is almost exactly the same in all humans, minus a small amount of differences.

    A lack of difference determines a lack of decent, and since human genes are identical determines they have not descended from anything else but human beings 

    You'd expect to see the millions of differences in all human genes that are responsible for ever animal on Earth but there's only similarity when you assert humans have undergone millions of genetic changes while inherting and sharing all of the genetic traits or charecteristic s of a common ancestor?

    If evolution occured it would be gentically observable in two forms.

    1 The genes of the entire biological ancestry of the original organisms dna, paired with the existing genetic differences of a species 

    2. In genetic traits observable in a genetic sequence that are spontaneously generating differences within an organism

    The problem with your mutation concept is that conjoined twins, people without a limb, or people with poor eyesight don't resemble any transition of losing features of losing features
    As in a scientific magazine where
    an organism as it's falsely depicted, in a drawn science diagram w,

    Where an ape
    is losing hair or standing erect.


    To assert transitional changes start structuring an organism differently, where visible changes occur that benefit an organism, fall flat in the face of any organism that actually has a genetic mutation where their jaw, is entirely displaced and doesn't allow for them to feed and overtime that trait is going to be passed on and you get a crocodile.

    I don't even think you rationalize how much changes would effect survivability rather than enhance it.

    Second an enviroment is asserted to be responsible for what type of evolutionary change must occur in order that an organism survives.

    Scientists always start out with some B's fish living with other fish's who change over time.

    First why are scientists starting with a fish to assert how fish evolve, or why are scientists starting with an ape to assert how it evolved.

    Instead why aren't they started with a diagram where a single celled organism is floating in water that is 12000 degrees Fahrenheit and explaining how the organism developed a shell made if magma, over millions of years and then dieing because the earth cooled off.

    You don't assert an originally hot or cold enviroment developed a species with traits to survive it's enviroment that by the time the changes occured the enviroment so vastly changed it no longer could survive in the enviroment!


    you'd have to bypass a step in logical deduction, that traits are not associated with any biological origin other than an organism itself

    To suggest traits occur as tangents in the biology of an organism, by means of natural selection ,invaludates that these traits would even require to be passed on and suggest they occur by a biologically process that isn't even regulated .

    It's suggesting biology is it's own origin.



    Or that these traits would require some fairy tail force to sequence them in a way that biologically developed an organism so it can pass them on

     so that offspring would have these traits, as if all offspring arent subject to the exact same changes without inherting the traits,

     so by manner of reason traits do not have to be inherited, the exact problem with the assertion of an original ancestor

    How could any original ancestor evolve without inherting traits?

    Science asserts mutation allows for traits to be passed on in the event of reproduction, while asserting traits develope outside of reproduction

    If everything evolves it does not need to possess traits that it genetically is capable of producing

    Second it's illogical to assert that evolution can occur whether or not heretible differences are rare or common as all differences would have to be rare if they are not common or shared

    To assert the traits result from a process that is not random ,t
    Asserts every genetic change is intentional, on behalf of how genes structure,

    Natural selection has been invalidated because of research that has evaluated that methyl tags only select genes that are consistent within a genetic sequence

    To even assert that genes are aware of all processes that occur biologically, or structure, to change an organism biology, does not explain that genes have any means to cause change within the confines of genetic Charecteristics that they have or don't.


    There is no magical pot that genes dump anything into to create some subset of genetic information that did not exist that can be used as if genes can throw proteins into a mixing pot and run out of there with a new building blocks.

    Genes work in a structured manner consistent with whatever genetic details they have.

    It's far fetched to say that because proteins are distributed in a certain way in all organisms and organisms develope , that somehow their development is based on tangents of a pair of genes that lack consciousness but somehow can escape their parameters to change a molecular structure.

    It should be apparent if genes lack consciousness than their activity is rigid.

    You don't go from 0 to a million starting with the quantity zero. Zero is not a degree of application.


  • DeeDee 3001 Pts   -  
    @JesusisGod777888

    ***** To even begin to examine the lack of logic associated with evolution

    Evolution is fact , you think “logic” is believing a man called Jesus “resurrected” because a book which includes a talking snake , a talking donkey and a magical garden called Eden says so 

     ****makes it obvious that it is imaginary thinking by some of the worst degrees of a lack of intelligence which can't even provide a logical coherant explanation consistent with reality.

    If that’s the case please present your peer reviewed papers that destroy the theory?  What’s that? Oh yes you’re right not one peer reviewed paper had being published that discredits the theory why’s that do you think?
    SkepticalOne
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.
    What's the premise for your conclusion?
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk Where did I say I have a conclusion? I do not have any conclusion. I believe their is are 2 intelligent forces  (one of negativity and the other on positivity) but where did I say I have a conclusion? The forces bit, that is my belief.
  • @RS_master ;
    At the beginning of the forum. " God does not exist. Prove me wrong." 
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    I made this debate so of course I am going to try to prove myself right. I do not want to prove myself wrong. I am defending atheism.
    JesusisGod777888
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch