Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    Hanson seems to be arguing against abject determinism, but is that really what Joseph believes? Are we robots?

    • 2 years ago

      @josephemcgowan & @hansoncook Great First Debate Guys!!! I liked it so much I am actually going to post a video response to your debate instead of just voting.

      • 2 years ago

        We didn't realize there was a time limit. Creating Part II now.

      • 2 years ago

        What's up @josephemcgowan & @hansoncook, welcome to QallOut!
        Great first debate, don't forget to sign up for the August tournament..

        p.s: you can choose the 'self-moderated' option next time for automatic time allocation so you don't have to time each other .. it's not exactly how you do it, but it still serves the purpose!

        • 2 years ago

          From a universal perspective not rooted solely in a singular religion, as god cannot be attributed to fitting into the confines of a religion; religion is man's method of trying to fit the concept of god into rational and explainable terms. What an individual believes concerning God, is only their individual belief and cannot ever be on par with the understanding held by of any supreme being or beings.

          That being said, in order to effectively argue whether anything happens by the decree of a supreme entity commonly referred to as "god", we kinda need to first attempt to define the indefinable.

          As god is something that few of us can effectively put into constructive and measurable terms, such leaves each of us in the complex situation of trying to have a metaphorical discussion about personal beliefs and the systemic world based actions resulting of the manifestion of that which we assume we understand concerning the element of that which we cannot put into effective and definable terms.

          As a result of this phenomenon, we are left having a discussion based in personal opinion rather than that of fact or measureable ideologies.

          It leaves something that is so near and dear to so many up to personal interpretation, and given the emotional attachment to such a concept it often leads us to be incapable of properly being able to effectively understand that which we are discussing in the first place. This isn't to say that we don't ourselves understand what we are saying. Instead, it's that from a dialogue-based rhetoric standpoint, structured in fundamental requirement of defineable terms, we are incapable of having a proper discussion as the elements needed for such to occur do not exist.

          So again, definition is needed.

          As an aspiring Buddhist and a current Taoist, my understanding of god is the universal makeup of all things existing within the universe. The collective consciousness of all matter and energy so to speak.

          If I press on my arm, I can feel myself doing so. If the Sun pulls on the earth, the earth can feel the sun doing so. Gravity is the universes way of interpreting feeling.

          Everything in the universe is either made up of matter or energy, (though there is the argument for anti-matter, and possibly anti-energy) and each serve to delegate a purpose. Individually, these components might be nothing more than the individual components of the body, but when connected form a fully functioning being.

          I would argue (from a personal viewpoint) that god is like the manifestation of the combination of all the matter and energy in the universe, much in the way how consciousness is the combined aspect of a multitude of sources in the brain and body (heart pumping blood, oxygen, etc).

          These elements act much like an ocean. Moving together, yet comprised of singular hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Singular, yet unified.

          When an object is dropped or moved within the ocean, the ocean responds by changing.

          To take the metaphor just a step further. Everything on earth is controlled (essentially) by the Sun. It affects the temperature, the weather, the growth of life, night and day, and it keeps the earth in exactly the right orbit for life to exist.

          Any change occurring within the ocean is affected, initially, by the sun. Temperature changes cause wind and currents to behave in certain patterns, which causes the migration of aquatic species to move and breed in certain fashions which in turn cause eating habits, evolution (touchy subject perhaps on here) of species adaptation, and so on and so forth.

          So in this metaphor, the Sun is the primary cause of change within the ocean, thus being to it, essentially "god", as it gives life, sustains life, affects life and so on.

          Now, in my example I compared the elements of the universe to that of the ocean, and then came back and said that the Sun was god to the ocean.

          That begs the question of what is god to the Universe? And I will go back and say that Gravity is the acting force upon these elements the same way that the sun is the acting force upon the ocean. It pulls them, changes them, causes stars to form, which then in turn have the potential to create life.

          So.. if you believe that gravity is the underlying force in our world, as Einstein did, (although he didn't view it as a force) then you can attribute gravity to essentially being God. Which, if you want to ask the question, does anything happen but by the decree of God. No. Nothing in the universe happens against the desire and/ or act of Gravity. It literally controls everything.

          And of course the question could be asked, what causes gravity.. the attraction of two or more things to and towards each other.

          I will note that defining god doesn't remove the majesty of it, it simply allows us to more effectively understand it on its terms so as to actually be able to have this discussion of whether or not anything happens purely by the decree of god.

          • 2 years ago

            Interesting thoughts from the Taoist perspective! Glad you found the topic worth a watch even if it was specifically over Christian doctrine.