CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Not really, I proposed that the term "god" is metaphor that refers to a trusted being (or group) that does exist, and that it can not logically refer to a non existent being.
I don't disagree. What do you think is being referred to when people speak of god? I think it's typically an excessive trust relationship they have with someone or some group. Do you disagree?
When most people speak of God they are speaking of a supernatural being regarded as the Creator of the Universe, and not simply a metaphor. No one here is disputing that metaphors exist.
Without having to admit the poorly defined terms "supernatural" "creator" and "universe" you could poll people who admit the existence of god and I'd wager they would invariably state that god is a being who deserves unwavering trust. I think god is more clearly and logically defined as a worshiped being.
If you want to make a valid argument it would have to look more like this:
1. God is an unwaveringly trusted being
2. only beings that can communicate are beings that are unwaveringly trusted
3. Non-existent beings are not beings that can communicate
4. God is a being that can communicate
5. ergo, God is not a non-existent being
.
.
.
.
The premise/conclusion in italics are those that you left out, but were implied by your argument. This is a valid argument form, but most atheists would contend premise #4, and possibly premise #1.
He does communicate to other people. When He answers Christians that prayed to him. I have seen God communicate to me when He answered it to me. There are many different ways that He can communicate with people such as reading the Bible and then you realize that is what you prayed for and also if a pastor is preaching a sermon and you realize that is what you prayed for.
If god is a metaphor for them, then they are not god.
This could help convince me to change the word "metaphor" in the description to "label" or "title". I'll grant that a title that describes something is only a reference to that something, and not the thing itself.
Patently false. I have had great trust in dogs that were unable to communicate.
Whats patently false is your belief that dogs are unable to communicate.
We are taking about an entity of which there is no objective evidence.
There is no such thing as objective evidence. Without an observer exercising their interpretation and judgement skills, evidence itself does not exist.
People think it exists and thin they communicate with it.
If you are admitting that people communicate with it, you are admitting that "it" exists. Which is the point you can't communicate with a non-existent being.
Your first point destroyed the proof all on it's own. if god is a metaphor the those entities are not god. Goes downhill from there.
The "map is not the territory" realization, or the realization that the words we use to describe things are not the things themselves, shouldn't lead to a lack of belief in the territory, or that something real is not being (albeit perhaps inadequately) described.
So your argument is only that trusted people exist
Not only do trusted people exist, but individuals who are uncritically trusted exist. Uncritical and unwavering trust shapes my understanding of what worship is and worship is essential to what I think a god is. People seem to want me to only think of god in terms I cannot logically support. Can you understand why I refuse?
Not everyone who is unwaveringly and uncritically trusted is thought of as a god, but the term god does not need to exist for the practice of worship to exist and flourish. Since I think god most generally is thought of (by those who admit god's existence) to be unquestionably deserving of unwavering trust, this trust and who it's given to is what I think of while considering what gods are.
how is this a proof of God?
If anyone becomes convinced by my argument:
1. That beings that do exist are worshiped.
2. That a being that does not exist cannot be worshiped
3. That god is a term especially appropriate to what's going on during worship
Then I have proven the existence of god to them.
Talking to God is not difficult, getting him to talk back.....now, that's the tricky part.
I've got controversial opinions about prayer too. If your tendencies aren't too strongly dismissive. :)
2. That a being that does not exist cannot be worshiped
3. That god is a term especially appropriate to what's going on during worship
Premise #2 is false. You can in fact worship something that does not exist. Quetzalcoatl I think most would agree is a non-existent being, and also a worshiped being.
I've got controversial opinions about prayer too.
And what are those? Should I expect personal anecdotes?
this isnt proof for a god. it's just equivocation. why not start with evidence for a god? either way, your argument defeats itself. most of the most trusted beings we know are just ppl. not gods.
I am not doing any equivocation, I am talking about what a god is in reality. I can hardly argue about the qualities of a non-existent being. You might enjoy doing that, but you aren't being logical when you do. Face it.
My argument isn't self defeating, it's poorly considered.
1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that. its not up to others to disprove it. you have provided no 'proof of god'. you havent even provided evidence of a god. you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god. you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'. taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe) and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents, then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison. now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being. if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?' this really makes no sense. why call 'respected beings' god? is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true? "parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such? you know what? nevermind.
1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that.
Ok anything that can be discussed exists at least as a term. God exists at the very least as a term. So unless you disagree with that statement, you agree that god exists. The next step is to determine what is being referred to by the use of that term.
its not up to others to disprove it.
No one has to respond at all. But what objection can you give to the statement, "God exists at least as a term?" Unless you can give a reasoned objection, I'll note your agreement with it and move on.
I'd like to start with a logical definition of god instead of attempting to discuss things that don't exist.
you havent even provided evidence of a god.
Why bother try unless we can agree on the meaning of the word god?
you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god.
I'd love to see you support that assumption with what you call evidence. I'd say that in order for a being to qualify as a god it must be considered worthy of unwavering trust. Find someone to disagree with that in the general population of the modern world and I'd be surprised.
you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'.
I am unable to accept an illogical definition of the word. So if I am to use the word at all in good conscience, I'm should be able to define it logically. A great number of other people such as yourself, may not mind using an ill-defined word, but I do.
taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe)
Here you go again claiming to know what most people think and not presenting evidence. Let's not muddy the waters by introducing additional poorly defined terms. We need to create a series of agreements and begin our dispute from where we first disagree.
and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents
No I said most trusted. And here I clarify that I am talking about individuals who are worshiped or afforded unwavering trust.
then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison.
I am looking for someone to take the time to respect my point of view and challenge me. Not dismiss me. Challenge me. If you aren't equipped or willing so be it, and I'll do my best to make it clear if that is the case.
now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being.
That's right. I think doing so is retarded.
if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?
The habit of worship exists. It's impossible to worship a being that doesn't exist. Worshiped beings are what's being referred to by the use of the term god. Argue against the logic or slink away, it's your choice.
this really makes no sense.
That's the neat thing about polite debate, you can ask for clarification. And there's nice respectful people like me who won't try to make you seem stupid they'll just explain themselves.
this really makes no sense.
There's a difference between respecting someone and worshiping them, I'll explain it if you promise to quit misrepresenting what I said.
is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true?
I fancy myself as one who likes to challenge popular misconceptions. If by the way, I am challenged and can refine my thinking, all the better.
parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such?
Worship is useful early on, but it's a habit to outgrow. :)
you know what? nevermind
If you didn't want me to mind you wouldn't have responded. You should examine the disrespectful habit that underlies such pointless comments. I may not be a super genius, but I'm not an idiot. I know that such statements are made to say "This guys perspective is not worth considering" And it's insulting.
when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept? if not , i have no idea what you mean. but if you do, are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'? because this type of argument has already been defeated. concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.
lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god. 'god', generally denotes a supernatural being. so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist. metaphors exist. you have to do all kinds of calisthenics to transform a being that is known for hurling lightning bolts and parting seas into "a group of beings worthy of trust'. there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities. so no. we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.
you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.
thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.
when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept?
It's a term that can represent a wide variety of concepts. Rather than talking about which are most popular, I'd prefer to address the concept you maintain in your mind about what god is.
are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'?
Please treat me as an individual and don't try to stereotype me. I didn't find the articulations of what is referred to as the ontological argument very convincing or compelling myself.
this type of argument has already been defeated.
I'm sure there's a number of people who disagree, so it hasn't been completely defeated.
concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.
I'll argue that with you if you don't think it would be a waste of time.
"An imaginary problem is a real problem" ~atypican
lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god.
I suppose that lots of ppl receive false teachings through communication with such a ppl, and when asked they'll say they learned it from god. The lessons aren't coming from nowhere.
'god', generally denotes a supernatural being.
If you want to use the word supernatural I'll expect you to define it logically. Are you sure you want to digress in that way just yet?
so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist.
Everything exists. Well described or not.
there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities.
How about a being that is regarded as being worthy of lifelong unwavering trust, and is considered incapable of error.
we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.
I think you would you agree that god is an imaginative construct.
you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.
Yeah I have. And it really bugs me that so many atheists accept and use the definition of god thats offered by them. Lets talk in terms of what is.
thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.
We can do our own scriptural interpretation. I hope you don't think I am being dishonest. I am just looking to refine the way I think and express my thoughts. If you want to help sweet, if not I understand.
well thats just it. i don't think you're being dishonest, i simply have no idea what point you're attempting to make or what model you're attempting to use to do so. i have no idea what argument you're making, what proof you're offering or whether or not i should even take this seriously. i have no idea what you're saying. thats where i started and I'm still there. in fact after reading the replies of others, i still have no idea what's actually being discussed, here.
The problem of theism is not a believing in non existent entity problem it's an excessive and uncritical trust in (worshiping of) existing entities problem.
Declaring atheism does not make one immune to the problem of worship. Modern atheism doesn't amount to much more than constantly reiterating "I don't believe in fairies"
no argument here. i guess youre comparing theistic worship to blind trust in ultimate authoritarians, who you acknowledge as simply ppl that theists dishonestly refer to and defer to as 'god?'
i also assume that youre saying atheist hold scientists and certain philosophers in such high esteem that they simply accept any claim they make, as 'fact'? making scientists and certain philosophers the same kind of ultimate authoritarians?
the problem there is that theists encourage blind acceptance and denounce critical analysis. whereas atheists discourage blind acceptance, and encourage critical analysis, scrutiny,peer review, scientific enquiry, etc,.
anyone who holds faith as a pathway to ultimate understanding, has no grounds to question any 'ultimate understanding' gained through the faith of another. even if its contradictory to his own ultimate understanding found through faith. because doing so invalidates his own conclusions and the methodology used to reach them.
no atheist would ever have this problem if he remembers that anything can and should be scrutinized.
It actually depends on which conception of "God" you are talking about. However, this argument still does not hold any water. In traditional Abrahamic religions, God is said to be a maximally great being, if he exists. What this means is that God is believed to be an actual rational moral agent and not a mere metaphor. Thus, it is obvious that if "God" here refers to the Judeo-Christian God, then premise 1 is false. If the premise is false, the argument is invalid and therefore, it doesn't prove the existence of God.
Even if you were to refer to God in the pantheistic sense, it still fails as the pantheistic "God" refers to nature. It thus is a metaphor for nature, and not "a person or group who is trusted".
It actually depends on which conception of "God" you are talking about.
I am talking about the one that exists because worship exists.
However, this argument still does not hold any water.
I am happy to read your thoughtful challenges
In traditional Abrahamic religions, God is said to be a maximally great being, if he exists
Most high is another way of putting it, I said in the debate description "most trusted" (until I changed "most" to "unwaveringly") because I see the practice of worship as involving great (Plenty often excessive) trust.
What this means is that God is believed to be an actual rational moral agent and not a mere metaphor.
And I suppose only an actual agent can be worsiped.
Thus, it is obvious that if "God" here refers to the Judeo-Christian God, then premise 1 is false.
It's referring to an individual or group that is worshiped.
If the premise is false, the argument is invalid and therefore, it doesn't prove the existence of God.
True. If you can show me how the premise is false, you'll be doing me a favor.
Even if you were to refer to God in the pantheistic sense, it still fails as the pantheistic "God" refers to nature. It thus is a metaphor for nature, and not "a person or group who is trusted".
I'm not referring to god in the pantheistic sense. I am referring to the type of gods invloved with the tradition of worship.
I am talking about the one that exists because worship exists.
I think this is perhaps where the flaw in the argument lies. Just because it is a fact that people worship (or worshipped) something, it doesn't mean that that entity (or group of entities) ought to be worshipped. In order to prove that some entity (I use the singular here for simplicity, but note that it includes the idea of a group of entities as well) is worthy of worship, one must show that there are properties that makes the entity worthy of worship and rational moral agents are obliged to worship that entity due to the property (or properties) that it possess.
You won't get any arguments in support of worship from me unless you succeed in dislodging a very deeply held belief of mine. I equate worship with excessive trust.
According to the OED, worship refers to "To honour or revere as a supernatural being or power, or as a holy thing; to regard or approach with veneration; to adore with appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies." The OED also defines trust as "To have faith or confidence; to place reliance; to confide."
The mere idea of worshipping an alleged maximally great being, however, implies the worshipper would have some reason to trust that being. If the person does not have any reason to trust that being, then that being ought not to be worshipped.
In summary, what I am saying is that one cannot derive ought facts from is facts. In other words, premise 1 of your argument doesn't necessarily hold true unless you have good reasons to show why something ought to be worshipped.
I've reiterated and rephrased and been redundant :) a few times, so in the interest of clarity please copy/paste premise 1, then I'll try again to understand how it depends on a well informed "ought to be worshipped" judgment.
This question is a very common one in studying the philosophy of religion. To answer this question, one must first understand that theism is a cluster of 3 main views:
1. God exists.
2. God is maximally great and the Creator.
3. Rational moral agents are obliged to worship God.
This idea of obligation to worship is central to traditional theistic beliefs. One cannot be considered a theist if he/she does not believe that they have an obligation to worship God. This obligation to worship God implies that God is the proper object or worship. In other words, there are good reasons to suggest that one ought to worship God. All you have asserted in the first premise is that some humans do worship God. But just because it is a fact that some people worship a God (or Gods. Like I said, singular for simplicity), it does not necessarily imply that one ought to worship a God.
I never said it did, and I agree with you that the premise doesn't necessarily imply it. I'll go further and say the premise doesn't imply an ought at all. Are you thinking I am a theist? I'm not. Perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about theology. Do you think that even atheists have the intellectual equivalent of a theology?
I never said it did, and I agree with you that the premise doesn't necessarily imply it.
Yes, I do understand that you didn't say it at all. And no, it is not that the premise doesn't necessarily imply it, it is that the premise should not imply it at all. That is the main point of my discussion.
I'll go further and say the premise doesn't imply an ought at all.
And thus, if the premise doesn't imply that rational moral agents ought to worship any entity, then there is no proper object of worship. If there is no proper object of worship, either God's existence is unknown to us or that there is no God. However you look at it, this fails as an argument for God.
Are you thinking I am a theist? I'm not.
No, I don't think so. I am merely refuting the argument you have presented. Whether or not you are a theist does not affect my view of the argument.
Do you think that even atheists have the intellectual equivalent of a theology?
I don't think so. But atheism perhaps is itself a thought tradition in philosophy.
If there is no proper object of worship, either God's existence is unknown to us or that there is no God.
I think thats a false choice argument.
I don't think so. But atheism perhaps is itself a thought tradition in philosophy.
Indeed but I am thinking about a core principle that rules out certain intellectual activity that is absolutely regarded as something one ought not take part in. A ruling logic. I'm sure I could clarify...its late going to bed.
There is some nuance here that may require some digging to clearly flesh out. But for the sake of argument, if god is defined as a worshiped being, I don't think that worship being improper would invalidate that definition, or somehow disprove their existence.
I didn't say that God is defined as a worship being. I said that God is believed to be a being worthy of worship, i.e. a proper Object of worship. Thus, it is not that worship is improper, the reason why I suggest that theism is unjustifiable is because we are not obligated to worship any God, since the burden of proof is on the theist to prove beyond reasonable doubt why (1) such a God exists and (2) the God is worthy of worship.
As I am atheist, I don't think there is being worthy of worship. This doesn't mean I can't realize that others judge differently and that the beings they worship do exist.
But you're committing the genetic fallacy here. Just because they're a theist, or at least they believe they are, it doesn't mean that what they say is true. What you have said is basically that the existence of God(s) is entirely arbitrary. This is going backwards.
Yes, I understand the distinction. I sacrificed technicality for the sake of clarity to the layman here. However, I'll take note not do so in the future.
Right, and I actually raised a similar objection, though it's buried in the replies so most probably haven't seen it. And I don't know if you noticed, but there is also an implied premise that many of the other debaters here have missed, and it took me a little while to find it.
The implied premise is: "God is a being that can Communicate"
Without this premises his argument doesn't work, and it's the easiest premise to dispute.
I think that it is definitely true that the premise does seem to assume that. I think that even by the three premises given above, it is clear that the argument has no merit at all.
A message or two ago, you weren't acting as if you regarded the argument as being clearly with out merit. A comment such as "I think this is perhaps where the flaw in the argument lies." displays doubt about your ability to clearly expose a flaw.
By all means expose the flaws. I am here to be shown the error in my thinking.
Perhaps you can help make it clear to me, by asking pointed questions and establishing a set of undisputed logical premises. I'm prepared to take the time to be held accountable. Even if no one else will commit to building a logical argument from the ground up, I will.
As I have said, to prove that God (in the theistic sense, of course) exists, one must establish beyond reasonable doubt that he is the proper object of worship and that rational moral agents are obligated to worship God. Your argument merely assumes that to be true without any supporting arguments to prove that it is true.
My argument doesn't assume that it's proper to worship or that anyone's obligated to worship. Merely that worship occurs and that therefore gods exist.
God, if you go by the traditional theistic definition, is the proper object of worship. This necessarily means that any rational moral agent is obligated to worship God, if he exists.
If you do not assume this is true, then you are attacking a straw man. However, even if you do, you are also begging the question because such an assumption is based on evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
Thus, no matter how you look at it, your argument is invalid.
God, if you go by the traditional theistic definition, is the proper object of worship.
I don't go by it, and I wonder why any atheist would.
If you do not assume this is true, then you are attacking a straw man.
I do assume that the definition you provided above is the traditional theist definition. AND FURTHER I think only a theist could go by such a definition.
I am arguing with you and I'd prefer not to argue against a stereotype or strawman. So tell me what you (not the traditional theists) think god is?
However, even if you do, you are also begging the question because such an assumption is based on evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
That comes across as rather nonsensical but here I go responding anyway..
How my assumption (that you have indeed given the traditional theistic definition of god) would make you think my argument (which is that what gods are are real people who are worshiped) is begging the question is to put it mildly, unclear to me.
Thus, no matter how you look at it, your argument is invalid.
A statement like that is evidence that you completely trust a judgment you've made to be infallible.
You almost seem to admit in your argument that this communication isn't actually coming from God but from one's imagination. If that's the case, then you are refuting your own argument.
The communication is coming from "what god really is" which is an intellectual construct (based on personal interpretation of events and messages) that's regarded as infallible.
My definition of god might be in need of refinement, but I think it's more rational than an alternative that refers to a supposed non-existent.
How can you address a problem while claiming it doesn't exist?
Ah but an individual CAN communicate with themselves can they not? Messages are sent from one part of the body to another, are they not?
Do you disagree that prayer is a form of internal self dialog? Do you disagree that what is regarded as god is actually an element of a persons personality that is mistakenly judged to be infallible?
The unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives.
if god is the unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives.
and The unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives is still happening
God is a metaphor (or title/label) for a being or group of beings that are most trusted.
(I would say in many cases excessively trusted)
Only beings who communicate can be trusted.
A non existent being cannot communicate.
If it wasn't so late at night, I'd probably get it.
So, you're saying that the word 'God' is a metaphor, and that since people who use the word 'God' use the word, then he has to exist, since if he didn't, the word wouldn't relate the metaphor?
I probably just didn't follow that properly because I'm tired.
The flying spaghetti monster is a function of your own personality, (and exists as least as such) an imaginative construct that you pay too much attention to if your claim to worship it was honest.
2. A being that does not exist cannot be worshiped
3. Gods exist as long as worship exists
This argument is based on false logic. What perpetuates a worshipped body as being anything other than a concept? I can worship a giant mech that consumes nebulas in the farthest reaches of the galaxy. Its obviously not there just because someone believes it is.