God does not exist. Prove me wrong. - Page 3 - 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.

135



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @RS_master

    You can't defend the fallacy of atheism.

    1.There is no such thing as before a source

    2. There's no such thing as
    Asserting time is relative to existence, and asserting the universe always existed, when it is subject to time and as a result entropy

    Something can not be traced back to infinity while decaying or subject to entropy

    RS_master
  • @RS_master

    I'll make it simple

    1. There's no gradual decline in infinity or in a system that has always existed, the entire reason atheism and atheists are bruckheaded.
    RS_master
  • @RS_master ;

    God does not exist prove me wrong.

    Do you know how algebra works?

    How do you write 500 – (400 +11)?

    There are some people, limited as they might be who write math equations much simpler GOD. Much like a person writes Super Bowl LIV or even Chapter XI.

    What must be considered at this point is not if GOD exist per say, but does learning exist with all individuals, can everyone learn? If it is not a learning problem is it a bigger legal issue as to why a representation is not understood as clear? The reason for this is that a possible civil malpractice of some kind may be at play which can create a great harm to basic principle to which we all are guided by.

    It is a voiced grievance which allows any person to question authenticity on behalf a a general welfare. It is not a voice grievance when oppression of answer's given to question asked of anyone take place. IN GOD WE TRUST. The numbers we the people do not all know may be the light and key to see evidence to a posterity of a general welfare. The attermpt made is to only prove you wrong not teach you right from wrong.



    RS_master
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    @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.
    Your conclusion is "God does not exist".  Because you can't logically reach this statement without a premise, the statement (Being a concluding thought or idea of a premise) is referred to as a conclusion. Your premise is your reasoning or the logic behind your conclusion, the "Why" you think that way.
    "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   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;

    God does not exist prove me wrong.

    Do you know how algebra works?

    How do you write 500 – (400 +11)?

    There are some people, limited as they might be who write math equations much simpler GOD. Much like a person writes Super Bowl LIV or even Chapter XI.

    What must be considered at this point is not if GOD exist per say, but does learning exist with all individuals, can everyone learn? If it is not a learning problem is it a bigger legal issue as to why a representation is not understood as clear? The reason for this is that a possible civil malpractice of some kind may be at play which can create a great harm to basic principle to which we all are guided by.

    It is a voiced grievance which allows any person to question authenticity on behalf a a general welfare. It is not a voice grievance when oppression of answer's given to question asked of anyone take place. IN GOD WE TRUST. The numbers we the people do not all know may be the light and key to see evidence to a posterity of a general welfare. The attermpt made is to only prove you wrong not teach you right from wrong.



    @John_C_87
     I know partly algebra works. I study it. God and algebra are two different things. Is there any relationship that I am missing?
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    I'll make it simple

    1. There's no gradual decline in infinity or in a system that has always existed, the entire reason atheism and atheists are bruckheaded.








    @JesusisGod777888
    How do you prove god like this? This has no relationship with god. How does no eternal decline prove god?    
    You also used the term "bruckheaded" for atheists. You cannot prove atheists wrong yet. You cannot prove god yet. There is no proof so you are in a group just believing something and you are calling everyone from another belief "bruckheaded" when you yourself don`t have any proof. That is just being stubborn and mean.
  • RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;

    God does not exist prove me wrong.

    Do you know how algebra works?

    How do you write 500 – (400 +11)?

    There are some people, limited as they might be who write math equations much simpler GOD. Much like a person writes Super Bowl LIV or even Chapter XI.

    What must be considered at this point is not if GOD exist per say, but does learning exist with all individuals, can everyone learn? If it is not a learning problem is it a bigger legal issue as to why a representation is not understood as clear? The reason for this is that a possible civil malpractice of some kind may be at play which can create a great harm to basic principle to which we all are guided by.

    It is a voiced grievance which allows any person to question authenticity on behalf a a general welfare. It is not a voice grievance when oppression of answer's given to question asked of anyone take place. IN GOD WE TRUST. The numbers we the people do not all know may be the light and key to see evidence to a posterity of a general welfare. The attermpt made is to only prove you wrong not teach you right from wrong.



    @John_C_87
     I know partly algebra works. I study it. God and algebra are two different things. Is there any relationship that I am missing?
    Yes, there is a simple relationship you are missing. Math is not defined always by symbols denoting the procedure that must be followed to create the result. There are simple algebra equation that had been written as a short had historically using only letters to create dates, ratio, and quantities. 
    RS_masterxlJ_dolphin_473
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;

    God does not exist prove me wrong.

    Do you know how algebra works?

    How do you write 500 – (400 +11)?

    There are some people, limited as they might be who write math equations much simpler GOD. Much like a person writes Super Bowl LIV or even Chapter XI.

    What must be considered at this point is not if GOD exist per say, but does learning exist with all individuals, can everyone learn? If it is not a learning problem is it a bigger legal issue as to why a representation is not understood as clear? The reason for this is that a possible civil malpractice of some kind may be at play which can create a great harm to basic principle to which we all are guided by.

    It is a voiced grievance which allows any person to question authenticity on behalf a a general welfare. It is not a voice grievance when oppression of answer's given to question asked of anyone take place. IN GOD WE TRUST. The numbers we the people do not all know may be the light and key to see evidence to a posterity of a general welfare. The attermpt made is to only prove you wrong not teach you right from wrong.



    @John_C_87
     I know partly algebra works. I study it. God and algebra are two different things. Is there any relationship that I am missing?
    Yes, there is a simple relationship you are missing. Math is not defined always by symbols denoting the procedure that must be followed to create the result. There are simple algebra equation that had been written as a short had historically using only letters to create dates, ratio, and quantities. 
    @John_C_87 Did you mention god? Does this have anything related to god? Is this even related to philosophy or belief?
    I have one simple answer which is no.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    RS_master said:
    @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.
    Your conclusion is "God does not exist".  Because you can't logically reach this statement without a premise, the statement (Being a concluding thought or idea of a premise) is referred to as a conclusion. Your premise is your reasoning or the logic behind your conclusion, the "Why" you think that way.
    @Vaulk
    There was no conclusion, there was only a belief. I never said for sure god does not exist. You need proof to say something for sure. Having a belief requires no such criteria.
  • RS_master said:

    @John_C_87 Did you mention god? Does this have anything related to god? Is this even related to philosophy or belief?
    I have one simple answer which is no.
    Did I mention god? No, I wrote G, O, and D ( GOD) a basic mathematical axiom you cannot interpret as God, but desperately need to, or a proof exists. as in litterally mathematic proof, this is a real proof. To you, and other god may only be a religion, however to me and a select group of historians it also is a part of freedom.  For all 500 - ( 400 + 11) = 89 exists 500 - (400 + 11)  ≠ 911. 
    RS_master
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    You can't defend the fallacy of atheism.

    1.There is no such thing as before a source

    2. There's no such thing as
    Asserting time is relative to existence, and asserting the universe always existed, when it is subject to time and as a result entropy

    Something can not be traced back to infinity while decaying or subject to entropy

    @JesusisGod777888 You used the term "fallacy" to describe atheism. You have no proof that atheism is incorrect. 

    "You can't defend the fallacy of atheism.

    1.There is no such thing as before a source

    2. There's no such thing as
    Asserting time is relative to existence, and asserting the universe always existed, when it is subject to time and as a result entropy

    Something can not be traced back to infinity while decaying or subject to entropy"

     How does this disprove no god? How does it prove god? Basically god is just a hope because you are scared the universe will be destroyed. That is all.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:

    @John_C_87 Did you mention god? Does this have anything related to god? Is this even related to philosophy or belief?
    I have one simple answer which is no.
    Did I mention god? No, I wrote G, O, and D ( GOD) a basic mathematical axiom you cannot interpret as God, but desperately need to, or a proof exists. as in litterally mathematic proof, this is a real proof. To you, and other god may only be a religion, however to me and a select group of historians it also is a part of freedom.  For all 500 - ( 400 + 11) = 89 exists 500 - (400 + 11)  ≠ 911. 
    @John_C_87 GOD and 500 - 400 - 11 or 500 - (400+11) has no relationship with this random GOD concept. The GOD concept is nonsense. You may not like my way of going about it but I do not appreciate your explanation or method. The GOD concept, the 500 - (400+11) concept and god have no connection.
  • @RS_master ;
    It is literally a mathematic proof of GOD. (Proof of GOD!) Surprisingly quick and simple to establish for anyone and I can only  imagen it must be very upsetting to someone, to anyone who is insistent publicly no said proof exists. Are you one of those people who insist real proof of god cannot exist?
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;
    It is literally a mathematic proof of GOD. (Proof of GOD!) Surprisingly quick and simple to establish for anyone and I can only  imagen it must be very upsetting to someone, to anyone who is insistent publicly no said proof exists. Are you one of those people who insist real proof of god cannot exist?
    @John_C_87 What is the term GOD? What does it mean? The term has nothing to do with god.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 663 Pts   -  
    I hate God so much, because he is worse than a goddam rapist. God can burn in his own hell, if he thinks I will EVER forgive him, for giving me a miserable, goddam life.
  • @RS_master ;

    You can now honestly say having passed 51 years old you have been given a reply, not just told GOD exists also given a proof to keep as your record, issued to you to verify the claim. A mathematic proof, if you would like to be educated in detail and not just given proof there may be a cost applied to the lesson.

  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    The letters G,O,D have no relation with god and 500 - 411=89.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    I forgot to say @John_C_87
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    RS_master said:
    Vaulk said:
    RS_master said:
    @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.
    Your conclusion is "God does not exist".  Because you can't logically reach this statement without a premise, the statement (Being a concluding thought or idea of a premise) is referred to as a conclusion. Your premise is your reasoning or the logic behind your conclusion, the "Why" you think that way.
    @Vaulk
    There was no conclusion, there was only a belief. I never said for sure god does not exist. You need proof to say something for sure. Having a belief requires no such criteria.
    Your post says "God does not exist". It doesn't say "I believe God does not exist". The statement "God does not exist" is in fact a conclusion...despite what you want it to be. In debate, regardless of what you "Feel" or "Think", an argument consists of three parts, a premise, inference and a conclusion.  So my question still remains unanswered, how did yoi arrive at the conclusion (As stated in your post) "God does not exist"?

    "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_master said:
    The letters G,O,D have no relation with god and 500 - 411=89.

    The letters look Identical as they are identical is a relation. God and God, GOD and GOD, god and god. The proof that connects the letters and the proof that connects the numbers to each letter is not the same part of evidence. The use of mathematic algebra is just the fastest and easiest way to make the point of evidence exists in this matter that established beyond reasonable doubt god exists. You do not like the god found to exist, Why, because it does not support the principle of a no evidence.  
    RS_master
  • @Neopesdom dont use the bible to justify if God is real, the bible is not a factual source and was made by humans and not an all knowing being.  It's so when Christian's try to use the bible to prove somthing, it has no true facts.
  • @RS_master it's so funny how theise Christian's try to prove god using the bible as a factual source
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom dont use the bible to justify if God is real, the bible is not a factual source and was made by humans and not an all knowing being.  It's so when Christian's try to use the bible to prove somthing, it has no true facts.
    @RS_master it's so funny how theise Christian's try to prove god using the bible as a factual source
    Łåśåğñūt I would not say that because then you are disrespecting 33% of the world. I would just say that I do not think the bible is true and the reasoning for this is in my previous posts.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    The letters G,O,D have no relation with god and 500 - 411=89.

    The letters look Identical as they are identical is a relation. God and God, GOD and GOD, god and god. The proof that connects the letters and the proof that connects the numbers to each letter is not the same part of evidence. The use of mathematic algebra is just the fastest and easiest way to make the point of evidence exists in this matter that established beyond reasonable doubt god exists. You do not like the god found to exist, Why, because it does not support the principle of a no evidence.  
    @John_C_87 What is the meaning of G, O, D? What does it stand for? Can`t I use any other random letters like RSM?
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    RS_master said:
    Vaulk said:
    RS_master said:
    @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.
    Your conclusion is "God does not exist".  Because you can't logically reach this statement without a premise, the statement (Being a concluding thought or idea of a premise) is referred to as a conclusion. Your premise is your reasoning or the logic behind your conclusion, the "Why" you think that way.
    @Vaulk
    There was no conclusion, there was only a belief. I never said for sure god does not exist. You need proof to say something for sure. Having a belief requires no such criteria.
    Your post says "God does not exist". It doesn't say "I believe God does not exist". The statement "God does not exist" is in fact a conclusion...despite what you want it to be. In debate, regardless of what you "Feel" or "Think", an argument consists of three parts, a premise, inference and a conclusion.  So my question still remains unanswered, how did yoi arrive at the conclusion (As stated in your post) "God does not exist"?

    @Vaulk That is just the title of the debate. The aim for you is to prove it right and my aim is to defend it. I do not have any conclusion but I am trying to defend the statement (God does not exist) everyone else is trying to prove wrong because I created this debate. 
  • @RS_master ;
    I'm not really here to teach you about the mathematics required to understand the axiom. Only introduce proof, a very old method in math that has both been simplified and made much more complex over years and ratio of time. It is rude however to avoid answering your question while I have an answer to give..


    The letters RSM can be placed in the existing axiom already the result is as follows. 1,000 - (80 + 70) a proper outcome is 850, while a improper outcome of RSM is 1,150
    RS_master
  • SpotSpot 22 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.
    You would have to know everything about the universe to come to that kind of conclusion. Since you don't know everything, your claim cannot be supported. Eternal beings do not need a creator since they are eternal. Some people believe that abstract objects (like numbers) are eternal as well.
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk That is just the title of the debate. The aim for you is to prove it right and my aim is to defend it. I do not have any conclusion but I am trying to defend the statement (God does not exist) everyone else is trying to prove wrong because I created this debate. 
    The issue here is that it cannot be proven in any way on either side.  Whether God does or doesn't exist is honestly a matter of probability or likelihood.

    so let's start here: I pose the question to you: Is Murder wrong?

    Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


    "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".


  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 1563 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    Vaulk said:
    @Vaulk That is just the title of the debate. The aim for you is to prove it right and my aim is to defend it. I do not have any conclusion but I am trying to defend the statement (God does not exist) everyone else is trying to prove wrong because I created this debate. 
    The issue here is that it cannot be proven in any way on either side.  Whether God does or doesn't exist is honestly a matter of probability or likelihood.





    @Vaulk you're half right. The idea about God existing does not rest on probability as it is an unfalsifiable concept; this idea cannot be tested, nor can probability or even possibility be determined. One thing is for certain though, and that is that God does exist as a concept in the minds of multiple people.


    "Tip: Once you aknowledge that you're wrong about somthing and can admit it you're a step closer to actually being right!"  - Bo Bennett, Logically Fallacious: The ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies
  • DevilsAdvocateDevilsAdvocate 12 Pts   -  
    A common theme throughout this post is disproving or proving The Big Bang or Evolution. Neither of these are relevant because The Bible is somewhat figurative there is a large number of Christians that believe in God, The Big Bang, and Evolution. They believe that God was the Big Bang. They also say that Evolution is real because God's 7 days of creation is not a literal 7 days and the reference to Adam is talking of mankind because in Hebrew Adam is the word for mankind.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    A common theme throughout this post is disproving or proving The Big Bang or Evolution. Neither of these are relevant because The Bible is somewhat figurative there is a large number of Christians that believe in God, The Big Bang, and Evolution. They believe that God was the Big Bang. They also say that Evolution is real because God's 7 days of creation is not a literal 7 days and the reference to Adam is talking of mankind because in Hebrew Adam is the word for mankind.
    By this do you say that God is just a metaphor for the forces of nature?
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @Vaulk you're half right. The idea about God existing does not rest on probability as it is an unfalsifiable concept; this idea cannot be tested, nor can probability or even possibility be determined. One thing is for certain though, and that is that God does exist as a concept in the minds of multiple people. 
    The idea of God existing isn't what probability applies to, the probability is established indirectly towards the opposing hypothesis.

    If evolution is proposed as the opposition then because evolution is unfalsifiable as a concept and because it cannot be tested, measured or otherwise observed and doesn't follow the scientific method then we can assign a probability that evolution as a means to answer "Where did life come from" is not the answer.  

    Likewise if we draw down to the very last detail of any concept of how life began...we ultimately arrive at the conclusion that, at some point, an intelligent being must've been responsible, hence the idea of intelligent design.  Richard Dawkins himself admits to evidence and therefor the possibility of intelligent design.

    Starting about the 3:15 mark.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgWl4OqAH6I

    Full video here:

    "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".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    Evolution theory does not deal with the question of where life came from; it deals with the question of how life evolved when it already was around.

    Yes, we do not have a very good theory explaining how life came to be stochastically (although we do have computer models showing that it seems to be possible, but no hard evidence to test them on). This does not mean that we cannot have a lot of information on how life evolved over time.

    It is similar to how you can study many things about brain in such sciences as psychology or neuroscience, without understanding how brain came to work the way it does. The origin of something is not always necessary to know to be able to study that something.

    You are incorrect that we ultimately always arrive at the conclusion that life had to be intelligently designed. First, there is zero evidence to suggest that this is the case, and second, by your own logic you now have to explain where that intelligent being came from, and you enter an endless loop in which every creator had to be created by something above it (and no, "It has always existed" is not a valid answer, because, again, there is no evidence of this being true).

    You seem to be committing the "nirvana fallacy" here, setting absolutely unreachable standards for science, but being okay with creationism based on some simplified reasoning despite lack of any evidence whatsoever. You expect science to know absolutely everything there is to know about history of life on Earth, but creationism knowing absolutely nothing is acceptable, because of... what exactly?
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @TKDB ;
    You said:
    “Forcing” Religion On Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    I do think that teaching a child to identify with their parents' faith is child abuse. The phrase 'Muslim child' or 'Christian child' annoys me so much, because no child can be Muslim or Christian as they are not old enough to make their own decisions about the world. If they knew all the science, then they could make their own decisions about which religion, if any, they choose to believe in. And yet the child's parents are shielding the children from the facts and instead brainwashing them with a belief that the kids do not choose. This makes me so angry. How could the parents do this? Of course, they are doing no wrong. They instead adhere to a tradition that is incredibly hard to leave. And I do think that parents who treat their kids a certain way are harming them. They are causing their children to think less rationally from a very young age, leaving them less set up for life. How can parents say that they love their children more than anything in the world when they "educate" them in this way?

    I take a moment to rebut your point about children eventually evaluating their parents' teachings. If they have been taught in a certain way for their entire lives, they are much less likely to reject their parents' teachings.

    I conclude that teaching a child to identify with their parents' faith is child abuse, and that parents are forcing their religion on their children by teaching them a specific religion.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;
    I'm not really here to teach you about the mathematics required to understand the axiom. Only introduce proof, a very old method in math that has both been simplified and made much more complex over years and ratio of time. It is rude however to avoid answering your question while I have an answer to give..


    The letters RSM can be placed in the existing axiom already the result is as follows. 1,000 - (80 + 70) a proper outcome is 850, while a improper outcome of RSM is 1,150
    @John_C_87 I have a few rebuttals to make.How do you know R`s proper value? In one equation it can be 0.03 and in the other 69836 so there is no proper value. You have to define why R is 1000. Secondly, where did you get the minus and brackets from? If you are using algebra you should know the simple rule that when numbers are next to each other you have to multiply them. Finally, how can RSM represent a number? They are random letters. Only in algebra when there is an equation following it defining each value it represents a number. The values are not defined and you have given random numbers for letters with no  proof. Why is R 1000 and not 3001.83276. The same applies with GOD.
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts   -   edited January 7
    MayCaesar said:
    @Vaulk

    Evolution theory does not deal with the question of where life came from; it deals with the question of how life evolved when it already was around.

    Yes, we do not have a very good theory explaining how life came to be stochastically (although we do have computer models showing that it seems to be possible, but no hard evidence to test them on). This does not mean that we cannot have a lot of information on how life evolved over time.

    It is similar to how you can study many things about brain in such sciences as psychology or neuroscience, without understanding how brain came to work the way it does. The origin of something is not always necessary to know to be able to study that something.

    You are incorrect that we ultimately always arrive at the conclusion that life had to be intelligently designed. First, there is zero evidence to suggest that this is the case, and second, by your own logic you now have to explain where that intelligent being came from, and you enter an endless loop in which every creator had to be created by something above it (and no, "It has always existed" is not a valid answer, because, again, there is no evidence of this being true).

    You seem to be committing the "nirvana fallacy" here, setting absolutely unreachable standards for science, but being okay with creationism based on some simplified reasoning despite lack of any evidence whatsoever. You expect science to know absolutely everything there is to know about history of life on Earth, but creationism knowing absolutely nothing is acceptable, because of... what exactly?
    Evidence that Evolution theory does in fact deal with the question of where life came from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

    Essentially, "Abiogenesis" - the chemical process by which simplest life emerged from inanimate beginnings, is a fundamental mechanism for biological evolution.  If you remove abiogenesis from the equation then answers to critical questions become unsolved and the theory of evolution subsequently falls short. 
    • If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?
    • If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?
    • If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?

    Even assuming a fully naturalistic abiogenesis, the above questions cannot be adequately answered unless a specific conception of abiogenesis is used as the basis.

    This is why and how Evolutionary theory deals directly with the question "Where did life come from".  To this end, you are wrong.


    Secondly, the commonly drawn conclusion that life had to have been intelligently designed is not one of my own but never-the-less is correct.  Richard Dawkins (The Father of Western Atheism) is on the record admitting that intelligent design is not only a possibility but explains in detail exactly how you can use reason, evidence and logic to draw that conclusion.  I've already posted the video and specified the section of video where he explains it.  

    You're incorrectly asserting that my statement regarding intelligent design is based on no evidence and furthermore that I'm somehow a creationist or that I'm "Ok with creationism".  Something I've never said.

    In The Design Inference, mathematician William Dembski explicates the logic of design detection. His work reinforces the conclusion that the specified information present in DNA points to a designing mind.

    Dembski shows that rational agents often detect the prior activity of other designing minds by the character of the effects they leave behind. Archaeologists assume that rational agents produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. Insurance fraud investigators detect certain “cheating patterns” that suggest intentional manipulation of circumstances rather than a natural disaster. Cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those carrying encoded messages, the latter indicating an intelligent source. Recognizing the activity of intelligent agents constitutes a common and fully rational mode of inference.

    In conclusion, intelligent design is detectable with science.  Physicists have recognized the "Fine-tuning" of our universe since the 1960s and further theorizing has only resulted in more evidence of intelligent design or a "Designer".  There also is no written standard that states "If you can't pinpoint or accurately identify the origin of that design...your theory must be false"  Being able to identify intelligence behind a design also does not create an immutable responsibility to explain the origins of the designer.  If this were the case then abiogenesis and subsequently the entire theory of evolution would be wrong as it's currently written.


    "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".


  • UtkarshJhaUtkarshJha 12 Pts   -  
    Ah!!! its so wonderful to see soo many people talking about this! I have not read any of them ! :P but I can surely say this much, if you don't know who created god, that does not mean he does not exist! Also I'm pretty sure man created the rest of gods we talk about in books, but that does not mean there is something out there we don't know rit? For all we know maybe there is a God race alien? Lol that would be funny!
  • Ah!!! its so wonderful to see soo many people talking about this! I have not read any of them ! :P but I can surely say this much, if you don't know who created god, that does not mean he does not exist! Also I'm pretty sure man created the rest of gods we talk about in books, but that does not mean there is something out there we don't know rit? For all we know maybe there is a God race alien? Lol that would be funny!

    The forum is stating GOD does not exist. However, the same forum is only trying to prove religion does not exist…for them as shared belief. People give names to children, places, and events. Not all events take place because they are the fruition of humanity. At the point which people plan a person, place, or event as it’s realization.


  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @UtkarshJha ;UtkarshJha said:
    Ah!!! its so wonderful to see soo many people talking about this! I have not read any of them ! :P but I can surely say this much, if you don't know who created god, that does not mean he does not exist! Also I'm pretty sure man created the rest of gods we talk about in books, but that does not mean there is something out there we don't know rit? For all we know maybe there is a God race alien? Lol that would be funny!

    There is no proof that god exists and that`s what the title of the debating is about. It is unlikely that god exists. The debate is asking you to prove me wrong and the statement: God does not exist wrong. What you are trying to do is prove god right and not the reasoning wrong.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    Spot said:
    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.
    You would have to know everything about the universe to come to that kind of conclusion. Since you don't know everything, your claim cannot be supported. Eternal beings do not need a creator since they are eternal. Some people believe that abstract objects (like numbers) are eternal as well.
    @Spot Who said there are eternal beings? Assuming eternal beings are true... they do not need a creator but what about non - eternal beings. Why would they need a creator? They form in the same way hence you are proving god wrong.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    Ah!!! its so wonderful to see soo many people talking about this! I have not read any of them ! :P but I can surely say this much, if you don't know who created god, that does not mean he does not exist! Also I'm pretty sure man created the rest of gods we talk about in books, but that does not mean there is something out there we don't know rit? For all we know maybe there is a God race alien? Lol that would be funny!

    The forum is stating GOD does not exist. However, the same forum is only trying to prove religion does not exist…for them as shared belief. People give names to children, places, and events. Not all events take place because they are the fruition of humanity. At the point which people plan a person, place, or event as it’s realization.


    @John_C_87 I do not see why you are trying to prove the letters right. Here is what you said for the last 2 or 3 pages:

    First of all something involving 89(no relation).

    The you bring out the letters G, O and D saying they have a link with 89.

    I ask about RSM and you say it means 1150 missing out that in algebra when letters are next to each other it means multiplication, you put in brackets from nowhere and you gave the letters a defined value of what they mean in reality when nobody proved it.

    Now you say I am proving the letters and not god.

    Does this make sense?
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 663 Pts   -  
    What sort of evidence, do you need, to be a Christtian?
  • RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    Ah!!! its so wonderful to see soo many people talking about this! I have not read any of them ! :P but I can surely say this much, if you don't know who created god, that does not mean he does not exist! Also I'm pretty sure man created the rest of gods we talk about in books, but that does not mean there is something out there we don't know rit? For all we know maybe there is a God race alien? Lol that would be funny!

    The forum is stating GOD does not exist. However, the same forum is only trying to prove religion does not exist…for them as shared belief. People give names to children, places, and events. Not all events take place because they are the fruition of humanity. At the point which people plan a person, place, or event as it’s realization.


    @John_C_87 I do not see why you are trying to prove the letters right. Here is what you said for the last 2 or 3 pages:

    First of all something involving 89(no relation).

    The you bring out the letters G, O and D saying they have a link with 89.

    I ask about RSM and you say it means 1150 missing out that in algebra when letters are next to each other it means multiplication, you put in brackets from nowhere and you gave the letters a defined value of what they mean in reality when nobody proved it.

    Now you say I am proving the letters and not god.

    Does this make sense?
    Yes, You do not have a historical concept of building Date stone and primitive old types of mathematics.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    Ah!!! its so wonderful to see soo many people talking about this! I have not read any of them ! :P but I can surely say this much, if you don't know who created god, that does not mean he does not exist! Also I'm pretty sure man created the rest of gods we talk about in books, but that does not mean there is something out there we don't know rit? For all we know maybe there is a God race alien? Lol that would be funny!

    The forum is stating GOD does not exist. However, the same forum is only trying to prove religion does not exist…for them as shared belief. People give names to children, places, and events. Not all events take place because they are the fruition of humanity. At the point which people plan a person, place, or event as it’s realization.


    @John_C_87 I do not see why you are trying to prove the letters right. Here is what you said for the last 2 or 3 pages:

    First of all something involving 89(no relation).

    The you bring out the letters G, O and D saying they have a link with 89.

    I ask about RSM and you say it means 1150 missing out that in algebra when letters are next to each other it means multiplication, you put in brackets from nowhere and you gave the letters a defined value of what they mean in reality when nobody proved it.

    Now you say I am proving the letters and not god.

    Does this make sense?
    Yes, You do not have a historical concept of building Date stone and primitive old types of mathematics
    Do you have any other proof of God? This one does not make much sense and is quite hard to understand. Have you got anything else?
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    Ah!!! its so wonderful to see soo many people talking about this! I have not read any of them ! :P but I can surely say this much, if you don't know who created god, that does not mean he does not exist! Also I'm pretty sure man created the rest of gods we talk about in books, but that does not mean there is something out there we don't know rit? For all we know maybe there is a God race alien? Lol that would be funny!

    The forum is stating GOD does not exist. However, the same forum is only trying to prove religion does not exist…for them as shared belief. People give names to children, places, and events. Not all events take place because they are the fruition of humanity. At the point which people plan a person, place, or event as it’s realization.


    @John_C_87 I do not see why you are trying to prove the letters right. Here is what you said for the last 2 or 3 pages:

    First of all something involving 89(no relation).

    The you bring out the letters G, O and D saying they have a link with 89.

    I ask about RSM and you say it means 1150 missing out that in algebra when letters are next to each other it means multiplication, you put in brackets from nowhere and you gave the letters a defined value of what they mean in reality when nobody proved it.

    Now you say I am proving the letters and not god.

    Does this make sense?
    Yes, You do not have a historical concept of building Date stone and primitive old types of mathematics
    Do you have any other proof of God? This one does not make much sense and is quite hard to understand. Have you got anything else?
  • It is a method to collect physical evidence that allows any person to set a reasonable account of GOD and how it then can be used. It is not hard to understand it is quite simple really it is the application of mathematic principles that become frightening as the complex can be used to create a vast number of technologies.
    1. We have evidence letters are used as numbers. 
    2. We have evidence that the letters G,O,D have numerical value. 
    3. We have evidence that letters set in a row according to value establishes a new value.
    4. We have evidence that a value of 89 has substance and worth in many societies even if written as GOD.
    5. We have evidence that much more complex religions exist then GOD.

    https://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_89_average_equal_to_in_a_GPA
    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=historic+numbers+written+as+letters&qpvt=historic+numbers+written+as+letters&FORM=IGRE
    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=date+stones+on+buildings&qpvt=date+stones+on+buildings&FORM=IGRE

    The reason behind the transition to all numbers and not the use of letters is the complex nature of the system itself.  

  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 663 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    You can't defend the fallacy of atheism.

    1.There is no such thing as before a source

    2. There's no such thing as
    Asserting time is relative to existence, and asserting the universe always existed, when it is subject to time and as a result entropy

    Something can not be traced back to infinity while decaying or subject to entropy

    I agree with you.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    You can't defend the fallacy of atheism.

    1.There is no such thing as before a source

    2. There's no such thing as
    Asserting time is relative to existence, and asserting the universe always existed, when it is subject to time and as a result entropy

    Something can not be traced back to infinity while decaying or subject to entropy

    I agree with you.
    @YeshuaBought You are just trying to avoid explanations.
    @JesusisGod777888 a) Your 2nd piece of reasoning is wrong because the big bang theory suggests the universe dd not always exist.
                                       b) Your 1st point does not make sense.
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