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
|
 |
Disagree
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
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
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
1
point
|
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
point
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
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
|
