CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
10
Yes No
Debate Score:23
Arguments:20
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (10)
 
 No (8)

Debate Creator

atypican(4874) pic



Do you accept the premise: "God's existence is purely conceptual, or something more"?

In other words: "Do you realize the fultility of debating whether or not god exists?"

Yes

Side Score: 13
VS.

No

Side Score: 10
2 points

I haven't come across any evidence that god is anything more than conceptual, so for as of now I can only believe god exists conceptually.

Side: Yes

Yes, but you can still debate whether a religion is true, by attacking the flaws.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yeah, but you can't attack the flaws of religion in general, you have to address the individual.

Side: Yes
3 points

Oh, I didn't know that .

Side: Yes
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, but you can't attack the flaws of religion in general, you have to address the individual.

I'd like to hear your logic on this.

Side: No
1 point

This, "Do you realize the fultility of debating whether or not god exists?",

does not follows from

this, "God's existence is purely conceptual, or something more"

These are two completely different notions. God's existence can be purely conceptual and it can be non-futile to discuss Him (philosophers say that the exercise of any critical thought should be done, simply for the good of the mind and of reason; this is to be done regardless of the reality of the world, which is why we have an entire branch of logic that deals with possible worlds). God existence can be more than conceptual and it can be non-futile to discuss Him (if God does exist, then talking of Him is important).

Simply by being capable of discussing God we find that God is at the least conceptual (siding with the "Yes" side). However, as shown above, the discussion of God is in no way futile (siding with the "no" side).

Side: Yes
1 point

This, "Do you realize the fultility of debating whether or not god exists?",

does not follows from

this, "God's existence is purely conceptual, or something more"

As far as you can tell. :)

Side: Yes
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

No, it doesn't follow at all. And if it did, with a number of steps missing, then this formula is begging the question.

Side: No
2 points

Reality is purely conceptual and the word conceptual is purely conceptual so we might as well just say this about everything then and in the end realise the definition of 'yes' and 'no' is purely conceptual and this side is conceptually capable of being the right side.

Side: No

Reality is purely conceptual and the word conceptual is purely conceptual so we might as well just say this about everything then and in the end realise the definition of 'yes' and 'no' is purely conceptual and this side is conceptually capable of being the right side.

That right there is a snapshot of everything that goes on in atypican's brain.

Side: No
1 point

atypician's brain is a fascinating concept.

Side: No
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

I dont agree that reality is purely conceptual, so you are wrong about that.

Side: Yes

It depends on what you mean by futile. If you try to debate religion with someone who doesn't want to listen then it is futile, but is that really a debate or is more of repeating debunkings? If the person is open-minded then their is very much so a point because both sides can converse their ideas and this notion of "debating is futile" is no longer needed. If both sides are open to talk about it, one side is willingly to admit he or she is wrong. Depending on the outcome, God's existence might become real to someone, or God might be seen as only conceptual. These agreements from initially opposing views cannot be reached between people unless proper debating occurs. Debating cannot occur if debating is seen as futile.

Side: No

It is up to the mind of the believer. If a believer is stern and does not want to debate, he or she will not argue.

Side: No