CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:97
Arguments:82
Total Votes:100
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (77)

Debate Creator

atypican(4878) pic



Argue against this proof of god(s)

1. The term god refers to a worshiped being

2. A being that does not exist cannot be worshiped

3. Gods exist as long as worship exists

 

 

 

--Old debate description is below--

God is a title/label for a being or group of beings that are unwaveringly trusted.

(I would say in many cases excessively trusted)

Only beings who communicate can be trusted.

A non existent being cannot communicate.

 

The initially posted debate description was edited as follows :

1. "metaphor" was changed to "Title/Label"

2. "most" was changed to "unwaveringly"

Add New Argument
5 points

Congratulations you've just proven that metaphors exist.

atypican(4878) Disputed
2 points

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.

Do you disagree with any of that?

iamdavidh(4871) Disputed
5 points

You can do that with anything.

A unicorn is a can opener.

Can openers exist.

Unicorns exist.

3 points

God doesn't communicate

A being that does not communicate is not to be trusted... nor are those who trust in this untrustworhty individual

or

"raining cats and dogs" is a metaphor

it doesn't rain cats an dogs

metaphors are a backwards ass way to prove something

:p

Srom(12206) Disputed
1 point

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.

2 points

I do not understand the question .

atypican(4878) Clarified
1 point

What question ?

1 point

She wants you to put it in a way for her to understand it because she doesn't.

1 point

Ismalia. Is god someone you unwaveringly trust?

Do you know anyone who admits god exists that doesn't think god is deserving of unwavering trust?

Sitara(11101) Clarified
1 point

I trust God no matter what because He is so good to me. Is that what you wanted to know?

2 points

God is a metaphor for a being or group of beings that are most trusted. (I would say in many cases excessively trusted)

Then what is this being or group of beings? If god is a metaphor for them, then they are not god.

Only beings who communicate can be trusted.

Patently false. I have had great trust in dogs that were unable to communicate.

A non existent being cannot communicate.

Um. Okay.

We are taking about an entity of which there is no objective evidence. People think it exists and thin they communicate with it.

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.

atypican(4878) Disputed
2 points

Then what is this being or group of beings?

People who are extremely trusted.

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.

Bohemian(3870) Disputed
1 point

People who are extremely trusted.

So your argument is only that trusted people exist, how is this a proof of God?

If you are admitting that people communicate with it, you are admitting that "it" exists.

Talking to God is not difficult, getting him to talk back.....now, that's the tricky part.

1 point

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.

atypican(4878) Disputed
1 point

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.

nahga(81) Disputed
1 point

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.

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".

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

Bohemian(3870) Disputed
1 point

If the premise is false, the argument is invalid

No, not quite.

INVALID ARGUMENT- A deductive argument where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises

VALID ARGUMENT- A deductive argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from premises

SOUND ARGUMENT- An argument that is both Valid and has all true premises.

UNSOUND ARGUMENT- An argument with false premises.

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.

1 point

Oy vey! I knew what he meant .

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.

Example: i worship a flying spaghetti monster.

I can only worship a flying spaghetti monster if a flying spaghetti monster exists.

Therefore the flying spaghetti monster exists.

atypican(4878) Disputed
1 point

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.

1 point

How is number 2 true in any way? This is one of the most stupid things that I have ever read...

1 point

1. The term god refers to a worshiped being

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.

A person is going to believe what he or she wants to believe.