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.
Ok, just to be clear, I don't believe in "God" per se, I just think that there is a higher power. There's just too many unexplained phenomena out there for me to not even contemplate the possibility of something beyond our understanding or science. The human race has always debated the truth about their existence and religion is always saying "My god/s are better than your god/s" or "Your god/s are false" when they themselves cannot provide solid proof for the validity of their belief system. So it's pointless, really, to make the argument "God doesn't exist" or "God does exist" because the fact is that WE DON'T KNOW. People want science to prove everything, but science is limited to what resources, creativity, and mindset we have available. Just decades ago, science "proved" that every race and ethnicity except European whites was an inferior population. Now, we understand that was an extremely false belief. Science has proved and disproved itself over and over again throughout history, so trying to use a flawed system to disprove another flawed system is incredibly stupid. I believe that we misunderstand what is supernatural, because we constantly try to shape it to the limits of what we can understand. Isn't the whole characteristic of "God" the fact that he is beyond human comprehension? So a summary: If you can't prove something without it being disproven, then you obviously misunderstand it.
In order to even begin to logically deal with and discuss the subject of god, we must assume that there is something to which the term refers. If assuming that God exists is begging the question, then so too would assuming that something we call the universe exists, wouldn't it?
It's ok I made my point. I suspect that you get it but won't concede. If you think it's ok to assume "the universe" exists. as opposed to say infinite multiverses, I won't try to convince you otherwise.
It's ok I made my point. I suspect that you get it but won't concede.
You made a logically flawed point, and questioning my intellectual integrity doesn't help any.
If you think it's ok to assume "the universe" exists. as opposed to say infinite multiverses, I won't try to convince you otherwise.
The claims that "the universe exists" and "infinite multiverses exist" are not mutually exclusive, in other words, it is possible to believe both without any contradictions.
These exchanges would go a lot smoother if you would stop making assumptions.
Explicitly, my point is this. If the word god is to be used logically in a conversation, IT MUST BE ASSUMED that there is (at least) a valid subject to which the term refers. We don't necessarily need to make assumptions beyond that. Hence, we can reasonably debate details of the nature of god, but not whether or not god exists. For if god doesn't exist in any way shape or form, the term is certainly and hopelessly unintelligible.
You raise the objection that assuming god to exist is "begging the question" and since I understand that we create labels for referencing common generalizations we make about our experience, I thought "the universe" would be a prime example of the same type of properly basic assumption. Why do you suppose we can have intelligent searching discussions aimed at improving our understanding of the universe, but we rightly reject propositions like "the universe may not even exist"? I argue that it's just as reasonable to assume that god exists as it is to assume that the universe exists. Your charge that my logic begs the question is true, however it seems to me that fundamentally, all logical frameworks rely on assumptions that similarly "beg the question". If you disagree can we please have that debate?
questioning my intellectual integrity doesn't help any.
Sure it does, it helps keep things interesting. Besides, offense doesn't really exist; Or more appropriately, it's just imaginary RIGHT?. Don't concede any of my points if you don't want to, I can take it.
The claims that "the universe exists" and "infinite multiverses exist" are not mutually exclusive, in other words, it is possible to believe both without any contradictions.
So like I can have a unicycle with infinite wheels? :)
These exchanges would go a lot smoother if you would stop making assumptions.
If I didn't type them up I couldn't get them challenged.
Universalism describes "what transpires" as a unified "whole" or "all", as a singularity. In doing that, assumption of a beginning and an end is necessarily involved. Therefore a universe, by definition, cannot be infinite. I see no reason to assume there is "an entirety" of what may be experienced, do you?
Multiversalism proposes a multiplicity as opposed to a singularity and isn't necessarily restricted by "closed system" think.
Universalism describes "what transpires" as a unified "whole" or "all", as a singularity. In doing that, assumption of a beginning and an end is necessarily involved.
This isn't what I asked for.
Therefore a universe, by definition, cannot be infinite.
I wouldn't know as you have yet to present a definition of universe.
Multiversalism proposes a multiplicity as opposed to a singularity and isn't necessarily restricted by "closed system" think.
Again, this isn't what I asked for.
I attempt to engage in discussions with you because you display a type of modern sudo-philosophical world view that has, in my observation, become increasingly popular. By having discussions with you, I intended to understand this view and locate what I hope is a single logical error for the purpose of easily correcting those I encounter in the future. Your insistence of making assumptions about my position, disregarding definitions, and refusing to stay on topic has made this an increasingly laborious activity, with no real progress to be made. On July first I will be happy to engage in further discussion with you, but up until that time I will spectate as others attempt to demonstrate your errors in logic. Hopefully at a later time we can have a productive conversation, but now is not that time.
I mistakenly thought that what I shared would give you insight to my point of view concerning this supposed singularity we call the universe. We think of some things as finite, meaning that they have definite boundaries. Other things such as reality, existence itself, or (depending how you understand the word) universe, are often supposed to be infinite. My position is that if reality is infinite, then it's improper to describe as a discrete unit or singularity.
It's either appropriate to view reality as a unified whole (the universe) that has a beginning and an end, or as countless unending expanses (multiverses).
So heres the definitions you requested. These are my words, which reflect my understanding.
Universe: Reality described as a singularity (assumes boundaries)
Multiverse: Reality described as a multiplicity (allows for the possibility of infinite reality)
I attempt to engage in discussions with you because you display a type of modern sudo-philosophical world view that has, in my observation, become increasingly popular.
So long as you think my interest in philosophy is not genuine, I am not interested in engaging you. If you are not willing to assume that I am here to improve my thinking on some things, and help others to do the same when I can, please don't bother to engage me.
Your insistence of making assumptions about my position, disregarding definitions, and refusing to stay on topic has made this an increasingly laborious activity, with no real progress to be made.
I make assumptions based on how I interpret what you say (everybody does that). I am forthright about the impressions I get from reading what you have to say, and I expect you to correct any false assumptions I make when you notice them. If that's too much intellectual labor for you then find someone less challenging to debate with.
Here is a list of what I gleaned from that last paragraph of yours in italics.
1. You wish to discredit me by calling my world view "sudo-philosophical"
2. You aren't looking to engage in challenging discussions. You are looking for easy repeatable scripts you can use to "correct others".
3. You jump to the conclusion that "no progress can be made" to avoid the effort it takes to develop a deeper understanding.
here's something I almost edited out...
Universe: A postulation first of a supposed "all", then that "all" is reasonably regarded as one
Multiverse: Postulation that the idea of a single universe may be illusory
If God, in fact, does not exist, wouldn't the statement 'God is misunderstood' still hold true in respect to theists?
As such, wouldn't that stance require a lesser burden of proof than 'God does not exist?'
Even if God does not hold any concrete existence, God still exists as a concept; considering God to hold a concrete existence when God is merely a concept would certainly seem to be a misunderstanding.
If God, in fact, does not exist, wouldn't the statement 'God is misunderstood' still hold true in respect to theists?
Individuals can misunderstand the concept of the Christian god, but because the Christian god hasn't been demonstrated to manifest in reality, it's definition cannot be a misunderstanding, because it is accurate by definition.
As such, wouldn't that stance require a lesser burden of proof than 'God does not exist?'
My position is that it is impossible for the definition of a concept to be a misunderstanding. The impossibility of the Christian god to not exist hasn't been demonstrated, so on one side we have something that is impossible, and the other we have something that is possibly possible. Even if it was demonstrated that the Christian god exists, that would only put the two claims on equal footing, both impossible.
Even if God does not hold any concrete existence, God still exists as a concept; considering God to hold a concrete existence when God is merely a concept would certainly seem to be a misunderstanding.
The concept and whether soemthing that matches that concept manifests in reality are two different things. Any attempts to include that the concept manifest in reality would have to be demonstrated. If it isn't demonstrated, and the concept was demonstrated to not manifest in reality, then the concept was inaccurate with regard to reality, but not misunderstood.
Individuals can misunderstand the concept of the Christian god, but because the Christian god hasn't been demonstrated to manifest in reality, it's definition cannot be a misunderstanding, because it is accurate by definition.
This debate is not specifically about the Christian God; look at the context that the term 'God' is used in, and the actual title of the debate. The 'Christian God' represents an understanding of the term 'God' that is fundamentally different than, say, 'Odin.'
My position is that it is impossible for the definition of a concept to be a misunderstanding. The impossibility of the Christian god to not exist hasn't been demonstrated, so on one side we have something that is impossible, and the other we have something that is possibly possible. Even if it was demonstrated that the Christian god exists, that would only put the two claims on equal footing, both impossible.
Does the concept of 'Odin' reflect the same concept of 'God' as does the concept of 'Yahweh?' Or are they both called 'Gods' using completely different definitions and understandings of what the term 'God' means? In that respect, is professing the concrete existence of either God not a misunderstanding of what the term 'God' means in respect to the other? We have so many differing concepts of what God is that such cannot be said to have an objective definition at all.
The concept and whether soemthing that matches that concept manifests in reality are two different things. Any attempts to include that the concept manifest in reality would have to be demonstrated. If it isn't demonstrated, and the concept was demonstrated to not manifest in reality, then the concept was inaccurate with regard to reality, but not misunderstood.
Please explain to me how something being inaccurate with regards to reality is anything other than a misunderstanding.
This debate is not specifically about the Christian God;
I can't be blamed if people use the proper noun "God", which refers to the Christian god, when they should be saying "a god" or "gods". I can only reply to what is presented to me. The noun "god" isn't capitalized.
Does the concept of 'Odin' reflect the same concept of 'God' as does the concept of 'Yahweh?' Or are they both called 'Gods' using completely different definitions and understandings of what the term 'God' means?
They both fall under the same definition of "god", much like how humans and dogs both fall under the same definition of "mammal".
Please explain to me how something being inaccurate with regards to reality is anything other than a misunderstanding.
The concept of any given god is completely separate from it manifesting in reality. I understand the concept of Bigfoot, if I believed that Bigfoot existed, but if it was demonstrated to not exist, the concept of Bigfoot didn't change, I didn't misunderstand the concept.
For all the arguments I presented in my last post, you can't easily replace "Christian god" with any other god, or just the generic noun "god". I didn't base the arguments on the Christian god specifically, I was only trying to address your argument as it was presented.
I can't be blamed if people use the proper noun "God", which refers to the Christian god, when they should be saying "a god" or "gods". I can only reply to what is presented to me. The noun "god" isn't capitalized.
'God' isn't being capitalized as a pronoun in the debate choices; it's the first word of each line. Even if these aren't complete sentences, capitalizing the first word of one of the choices is common practice here. Due to the words placement, the specific god in question is not defined simply by the capitalization.
They both fall under the same definition of "god", much like how humans and dogs both fall under the same definition of "mammal".
Can you provide a definition of 'God' that is applicable to both Odin and Yahweh?
The concept of any given god is completely separate from it manifesting in reality. I understand the concept of Bigfoot, if I believed that Bigfoot existed, but if it was demonstrated to not exist, the concept of Bigfoot didn't change, I didn't misunderstand the concept.
Bigfoot, Yeti, and Sasquatch all describe different understandings of the same concept. If the 'bigfoot' understanding was proven to be true in manifest reality, 'Yeti' and 'Sasquatch' could be said to be misunderstandings of that concept. How, exactly, can you dismiss actual existence in manifest reality as a property of a concept? Language exists only to communicate concepts. There is a fundamental difference in meaning when a term is used if the individual in question assumes the concept to be applicable to manifest reality or not. A Christian using the term 'god' is communicating an entirely different concept than an atheist using the term 'god.' One or both of these is ultimately a misunderstanding based on faulty premises and/or investigative methods. Both concepts cannot be an accurate representation of objective reality.
I was referring to every instance of the word "god" being capitalized in your rebuttal, not the debate options.
Capitalizing 'god' also does not always refer to the Christian God, but rather is a generalization when referring to various Gods as an individual entity for the sake of simplicity; the context of my statements should have been sufficient to indicate that I was not speaking specifically regarding the Christian God.
A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
I'm going to drop 'deity' from the definition as it amounts to a tautology. This definition is just as applicable to superman; it's not specific enough.
If we could demonstrate that Robo-Hitler does not exist, what part of the concept did you misunderstand?
That is not a concept- this statement makes the assertion that the entity 'Robot-Hitler' exists, in respect to manifest reality. If 'Robot-Hitler' was known to exist, then the concept communicated by the term 'Robot-Hitler' would be quite different than the concept communicated should 'Robot-Hitler' be assumed to be a fictional character.
Capitalizing 'god' also does not always refer to the Christian God, but rather is a generalization when referring to various Gods as an individual entity for the sake of simplicity;
I would be happy to concede this point if you can demonstrate this claim, otherwise it isn't really relevant to this debate.
the context of my statements should have been sufficient to indicate that I was not speaking specifically regarding the Christian God.
I missed that, my apologies.
I'm going to drop 'deity' from the definition as it amounts to a tautology.
Agreed.
This definition is just as applicable to superman;
I'm not aware of Superman being worshiped, but if he was then I would agree he might qualify as a god, although by "superhuman" it may be referencing "supernatural", which Superman isn't, if I'm correct about him being an alien, and not supernatural.
it's not specific enough.
I would be happy to consider your alternative definition.
That is not a concept- this statement makes the assertion that the entity 'Robot-Hitler' exists, in respect to manifest reality.
This is exactly my point, whether something that matches the concept manifests in reality isn't part of the concept.
If 'Robot-Hitler' was known to exist, then the concept communicated by the term 'Robot-Hitler' would be quite different than the concept communicated should 'Robot-Hitler' be assumed to be a fictional character.
Agreed. Once something that matches a concept is shown to manifest in reality, the concept is then directly tied to that entity and any changes in the understanding of the entity are applied to the concept. When there is a concept that doesn't have anything matching it manifesting in reality, the concept can't be misunderstood because the concept is correct by definition.
I would be happy to concede this point if you can demonstrate this claim, otherwise it isn't really relevant to this debate.
Capitalism of the word 'god' is pretty common amongst English practitioners of monotheistic religions. This is not limited to the Abrahamic religions; another example is Sikhism. Writings such as 'The God Problem' (can't locate a link at the moment, may edit it in later) also capitalize it and use it generically rather than deal with specific individual gods from various mono or polytheistic religions. But as you said, it's not really relevant to the debate.
I'm not aware of Superman being worshiped, but if he was then I would agree he might qualify as a god, although by "superhuman" it may be referencing "supernatural", which Superman isn't, if I'm correct about him being an alien, and not supernatural.
What does alien mean if not 'life that did not arise on earth?' Most, if not all religions assert their god(s) to be living, so wouldn't that make every god an alien? As for lack of worship... have you ever been to a comic convention? And for a more literal version...
This is exactly my point, whether something that matches the concept manifests in reality isn't part of the concept.
...
Agreed. Once something that matches a concept is shown to manifest in reality, the concept is then directly tied to that entity and any changes in the understanding of the entity are applied to the concept. When there is a concept that doesn't have anything matching it manifesting in reality, the concept can't be misunderstood because the concept is correct by definition.
But when we're talking about the concept of 'god' we are not talking about one concept- we are talking about numerous concepts that individuals link to the same word. As such, whenever two individuals who hold different concepts of 'god' are using the term, each is misunderstanding 'god' in terms of the other persons concept. The concept of 'god' as spoken by a Christian is fundamentally different from the concept of 'god' as spoken by an Atheist. Neither concept has to be incorrect for misunderstanding to take place.
Capitalism of the word 'god' is pretty common amongst English practitioners of monotheistic religions. This is not limited to the Abrahamic religions; another example is Sikhism. Writings such as 'The God Problem' (can't locate a link at the moment, may edit it in later) also capitalize it and use it generically rather than deal with specific individual gods from various mono or polytheistic religions. But as you said, it's not really relevant to the debate.
You have demonstrated your claim to my satisfaction. I concede my point that the word "god" being capitalized refers to the Christian god in all cases. I was incorrect, my apologizes.
What does alien mean if not 'life that did not arise on earth? Most, if not all religions assert their god(s) to be living, so wouldn't that make every god an alien?
I was unclear. I was attempting to distinguish between an alien and a supernatural entity. If there is no difference, or the two are not mutually exclusive, then I will concede that point for the sake of this discussion as I may be using a more restrictive definition of "alien" and it really isn't important to this discussion.
As for lack of worship... have you ever been to a comic convention? And for a more literal version...
If there are people who worship Superman, their concept of Superman is different than the original concept, as the creator of the original concept conveyed it as fictional. The altered concept of Superman may qualify as a god, but is a different concept from what it is based on.
As such, whenever two individuals who hold different concepts of 'god' are using the term, each is misunderstanding 'god' in terms of the other persons concept. The concept of 'god' as spoken by a Christian is fundamentally different from the concept of 'god' as spoken by an Atheist. Neither concept has to be incorrect for misunderstanding to take place.
Perhaps we have just had a misunderstanding. I'm not claiming that one person is unable to misunderstand another persons concept. My position is as follows:
For any given concept, there either is or isn't a manifestation in reality that matches that concept. Some concepts are developed based on manifestations in reality, and the concept changes based on our understanding of the manifestation. An example would be Earth, while once thought to be flat, we have since learned that our concept of Earth was misunderstood or incorrect, and have corrected it. Other concepts are not based on something that have been demonstrated to manifest in reality, these concepts cannot be a misunderstanding because the concept itself is self referential. An example would be Superman, the originator of that concept cannot be misunderstanding Superman, because his concept is correct by definition. Even if we discovered a manifestation in reality that is similar, but not exactly the same as the concept of Superman, the concept of Superman still wouldn't me a misunderstanding, because the concept of Superman is self referential.
I am objecting to the idea that "God" is misunderstood, because for any concept of "God" to be misunderstood, there must be a manifestation in reality that is being misunderstood, and as the concept of "God" is not based on a manifestation in reality, the concept is correct by definition. You can misunderstand my concept, but I cannot. If you understand my concept, it is impossible for any impute of information to demonstrate that my concept is a misunderstanding because my concept if correct by definition.
I'm just assuming when we are talking about a God we are talking about an almighty superior being? If so, it doesn't make any sense to me that an almighty being would let itself get misunderstood.
