Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
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
Something can not be traced back to infinity while decaying or subject to entropy
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I know partly algebra works. I study it. God and algebra are two different things. Is there any relationship that I am missing?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have one simple answer which is no.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: letters G    use of mathematic algebra   proof   letters  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 31%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: factual source    bible   humans   true facts  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: factual source 😂    bible   Christian   god  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.62  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: factual source    bible   humans   true facts  
  Relevant (Beta): 23%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: use of mathematic algebra    letters G   proof   letters  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: old method    proper outcome   letters RSM   answer  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Eternal beings    abstract objects   people   age  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
"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".
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.2  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: matter of probability    aim   unlawful premeditated killing   issue  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: unfalsifiable concept    matter of probability   aim   thing  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: common theme    days of creation   large number of Christians   Big Bang  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: common theme    days of creation   large number of Christians   Big Bang  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
"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".
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You said:
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.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: simple rule    old method   letters RSM   proper outcome  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
"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".
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sure man    rest of gods   books   God race alien  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.74  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sure man    rest of gods   people plan   people  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sure man    rest of gods   God race alien   debate  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Eternal beings    abstract objects   people   age  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.28  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: letters G    defined value   sure man   proved it.Now  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sort of evidence    Christtian      
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.68  
  Sources: 3  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: letters G    historical concept of building Date stone   defined value   sure man  
  Relevant (Beta): 43%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 4  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: historical concept of building Date stone    primitive old types of mathematicsDo   letters G   defined value  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 4  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: historical concept of building Date stone    primitive old types of mathematicsDo   letters G   defined value  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9  
  Sources: 3  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: physical evidence    evidence letters   numerical value   letters G  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: such thing    fallacy of atheism.1.There   result entropySomething   existence  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 74%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: 2nd piece of reasoning    such thing   big bang theory   JesusisGod777888 a  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra