CreateDebate


Debate Info

16
12
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:28
Arguments:28
Total Votes:28
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (13)
 
 Disagree (11)

Debate Creator

atypican(4874) pic



God either exists, or the term god is unintelligible.

If truths can be understood about god, then god exists. If not, then god is an unintelligible term.

Agree

Side Score: 16
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 12

I'll agree with that generally; if god does not exist in any way, the term is unintelligible.

But it's a useless distinction, because 'existence' need not be concrete; even to an atheist, such a thing as the concept of god exists; even if there are no actual gods, it is still a generally understood concept even among those who reject any concrete existence of such.

We have numerous terms for things that only exist conceptually. We don't have unintelligible terms for things that neither exist concretely or conceptually- rather, we don't have terms for those at all.

Side: Agree
1 point

I'll agree with that generally; if god does not exist in any way, the term is unintelligible.

God bless you sir! :)

But it's a useless distinction, because 'existence' need not be concrete; even to an atheist, such a thing as the concept of god exists; even if there are no actual gods, it is still a generally understood concept even among those who reject any concrete existence of such.

The point is to move past questions of: "does god exist", to questions of: "what does god exist as?"

We have numerous terms for things that only exist conceptually. We don't have unintelligible terms for things that neither exist concretely or conceptually- rather, we don't have terms for those at all.

right

Side: Agree
Atrag(5445) Clarified
1 point

The point is to move past questions of: "does god exist", to questions of: "what does god exist as?"

Is be interested in debates like that. I guess I'd approach it as a sociological question...

Side: Agree

If someone believes in God, nothing can take his/her Faith away.

Side: Agree
2 points

If truths can be understood about god, then god exists.

God is nice and God is strong. God exists.... Thats not a good argument.

If not, then god is an unintelligible term.

I don't know about the tiny speck of dust three billion miles away from here, but that doesn't mean that 'the speak of dust' is an unintelligible term..

Side: Disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

You have made it clear that you don't understand the argument. IF it's possible to make any true statements whatsoever about god, then god necessarily exists. If not, then the use of the term god is utterly meaningless.

Side: Agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

I understand the argument. 'If' designates a conditional. I gave the conditional antecedent conditions, namely giving true statements about God being nice and strong. This means, based in modus ponens, that God is real, from your conditional.

Side: Disagree
1 point

There are no "truths" about god, yet people regularly profess intelligible understandings of god. The idea of god may remain unfounded while still being within the realm of comprehension.

P.S. It is possible I am misunderstanding the argument. Please correct me if this is in fact the case?

Side: Disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

There are no "truths" about god

If I assume this to be the case, I can't intelligibly use the term god.

people regularly profess intelligible understandings of god

Like this? : God is an anthropomorphic metaphor used to express one's highest ideals.

The idea of god may remain unfounded while still being within the realm of comprehension.

Do you think god is something more than an idea?

P.S. It is possible I am misunderstanding the argument. Please correct me if this is in fact the case?

It's just going to boil down to semantics again...I'll save you the frustration :)

Side: Agree
Jace(4706) Clarified
1 point

If I assume this to be the case, I can't intelligibly use the term god.

I believe this remains up for debate. Without more explanation, I cannot really understand why you think this is true.

Like this? : God is an anthropomorphic metaphor used to express one's highest ideals.

Sure, although I had the more common "God is an omnipotent being who loves me and hates sin" sort of understanding in mind. My point was that the idea can be comprehend as an idea, and independent of its actual existence.

Do you think god is something more than an idea?

No.

It's just going to boil down to semantics again...I'll save you the frustration :)

Noooo.... not the semantics! ;)

Side: Agree
1 point

My natural reaction here is disagreement, but I would like to note that I do acknowledge I could agree to your statement depending on the definition/line at which you define unintelligible.

To our knowledge, unicorns and vampires do not exist. However, I understand the term to a certain extent when someone uses it. I have a general understanding of the creature they are referring to. However, since the creature is not substantially established, the appearance and behavior of these creatures as claimed by the second party, can be different than what I had originally understood.

So I would still say at this point, they're still generally intelligible terms, just not in depth.

Side: Disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

My natural reaction here is disagreement, but I would like to note that I do acknowledge I could agree to your statement depending on the definition/line at which you define unintelligible.

To talk intelligibly in a conversation about god, it's necessary to assume that true statements about god can be made. If god has no existence whatsoever, making a true statement about god would be impossible.

To our knowledge, unicorns and vampires do not exist.

As anything more than...

However, I understand the term to a certain extent when someone uses it. I have a general understanding of the creature they are referring to.

I'm sure you understand what unicorns and vampires are well enough to discern whether they are imaginative constructs or actual creatures

So I would still say at this point, they're still generally intelligible terms, just not in depth.

How about: A term is intelligible only insomuch as we are aware of what it refers to?

Side: Agree

Either flying purple unicorns exist, or the term unicorn is unintelligible. See how that works?

Side: Disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

Some things (such as perhaps flying purple unicorns) exist solely within the imagination and/or as literary devices. If we do not first assume that truths can be understood about these type of things, we cannot intelligently discuss them.

Side: Agree
1 point

Don't get me wrong: I believe in God. I just think your argument is cest stupide. By your logic, either unicorns are real or the term unicorn is unintelligible. The mere existence of a word does not make the idea it describes legitimate.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Nonsense

Side: Disagree
1 point

You're using the term 'exist' in a meaningless way. Everything that we can find the truth about 'exists'. This includes ideas and fictions and by talking about it you make them 'exist'. An fghatomalooma exists. It exists as an idea I have just created. One truth about the fghatomalooma is that I just created it.

However, as everything 'exists' your meaning of 'exist' is not common ans you shouldnt be surprised when people that havent studied philosophy dont follow you. People debate about the existence of god meaning as something that is all powerful and the creator of the world.

Side: Disagree
1 point

You're using the term 'exist' in a meaningless way. Everything that we can find the truth about 'exists'. This includes ideas and fictions and by talking about it you make them 'exist'. An fghatomalooma exists. It exists as an idea I have just created. One truth about the fghatomalooma is that I just created it.

However, as everything 'exists' your meaning of 'exist' is not common ans you shouldnt be surprised when people that havent studied philosophy dont follow you.

I agree

People debate about the existence of god meaning as something that is all powerful and the creator of the world.

Do you think perhaps "all powerful creator of the world" is a misleading way to describe god?

Side: Agree