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.
The affirmative position that everything exists should (I think) be self evident. It is the supposition that a thing does not exist that's illogical. For if something doesn't exist, how can we reasonably discuss it's characteristics? Supposing that god exists only as an imaginative construct is better logic than supposing god doesn't exist.
I'm not sure I'm entirely understanding your point.
Do you equate god with everything?
It is the supposition that a thing does not exist that's illogical. For if something doesn't exist, how can we reasonably discuss it's characteristics?
That's kind of a weak basis for your argument. I'm sure you could imagine up a fictional creature or being in your head right now and go on to describe it's characteristics to me.
Supposing that god exists only as an imaginative construct is better logic than supposing god doesn't exist
I don't really think that specification needs to be made. All kinds of absurd and unknowable things exist in peoples minds. I don't know, personally I don't count the imaginary as real, so when someone says "X exists/X doesn't exist," I don't think that the obvious fact that X can exist as an imaginary concept supports either contention.
Try to pay your rent with imaginary money you picture in your head and I think you'll see what I mean.
I'm not sure I'm entirely understanding your point.
It needs sharpening to be sure.
Do you equate god with everything?
No. It's just that when I think of what a god is, I don't think of something nonexistent, just something that's quite often poorly understood.
That's kind of a weak basis for your argument. I'm sure you could imagine up a fictional creature or being in your head right now and go on to describe it's characteristics to me.
Granted. Though if I were to describe a fictional character, I would be describing something imaginary, not nothing. Do you think the statement that "there are no such things as fictional characters" is true?
I don't really think that specification needs to be made.
I'll argue for the importance of the specification if you accept it's validity.
There is a prerequisite to progressive logical dialog: "Contra principia negantem non est disputandum) that if not met, effectively prevents, or at least seriously retards the collaborative refinement of conceptual principles.
All kinds of absurd and unknowable things exist in peoples minds.
As I like to say, "an imaginary problem is a real problem"
I don't know, personally I don't count the imaginary as real, so when someone says "X exists/X doesn't exist," I don't think that the obvious fact that X can exist as an imaginary concept supports either contention.
Our disagreement in a nut shell, is that you "count" only some things as "real" or "existent", while I believe that literally everything exists. We might have misunderstandings about the properties of a thing, and disagreements on how to accurately describe a thing, but anything that can even be mentioned exists. Shall I tell you about shlxoron? Shlxoron is a term I just made up. Now besides being a term I just made up, what else is shlxoron? It's a literary device I am using to try convincing you that everything by definition literally exists.
Try to pay your rent with imaginary money you picture in your head and I think you'll see what I mean.
Imaginary money I picture in my head may not be useful for paying rent, but I am imagining something, not nothing. Try Imagining nothing and I think you'll see what I mean.
Our disagreement in a nut shell, is that you "count" only some things as "real" or "existent", while I believe that literally everything exists. We might have misunderstandings about the properties of a thing, and disagreements on how to accurately describe a thing, but anything that can even be mentioned exists.
I've noticed most our disputes come down to how we define terms, and how we initially view ideas going into the debate. For me, saying something is fictional or imaginary is synonymous with saying it doesn't exist in reality. I take the term "imaginary" to mean it only exists in peoples minds and not anywhere else. Similarly, I think "reality" deals with common, tangible things people can interact with, which, by definition, cannot include imaginary things. So if I said "a fictional things only exists in your imagination," that would be me basically saying "a not real thing is not real."
I'll argue for the importance of the specification if you accept it's validity.
There is a prerequisite to progressive logical dialog: "Contra principia negantem non est disputandum) that if not met, effectively prevents, or at least seriously retards the collaborative refinement of conceptual principles.
Which ties into this. It would admittedly, technically be better logic for me to say something along the lines of "god exists as an imaginary being" over "god doesn't exist," but again going back to terms I think imaginary being don't exist so saying something exists as an imaginary being, for me, is as good as saying it doesn't exist. That's why I don''t feel the specification needs to be made; it seems redundant.
As I like to say, "an imaginary problem is a real problem"
This reminds me of a "Flight of the Conchords" skit:
Jemaine: Have you met my kid? Have you met their little kids? And then, it's just going to be--Hmm. Well in some ways, I think your children aren't going to be affected by a lot of things that affect other children. Because your children... aren't real.
Bret: Yeah, yeah, okay, but--
Jemaine: Do you see the distinction?
Bret: Yeah, yeah, sure. But they still have issues, that don't get taken seriously. And they have to deal with all the imaginary stuff, like rogue unicorns, for example. You know.
Jemaine: Okay, so--there's lots of things that I haven't thought about, I guess. So, sorry.
Imaginary money I picture in my head may not be useful for paying rent, but I am imagining something, not nothing.
But you can only pay rent if the money exists in reality, and that's the distinction I'm trying to make. You might be able to imagine the money, imagining the money certainly isn't imagining nothing, but the money is not real, tangible, material, or actually there. The money doesn't exist.
I've noticed most our disputes come down to how we define terms, and how we initially view ideas going into the debate.
I personally am fascinated by how common this dilemma is
I take the term "imaginary" to mean it only exists in peoples minds and not anywhere else. Similarly, I think "reality" deals with common, tangible things people can interact with, which, by definition, cannot include imaginary things.
Consider the utility of math and it's basis on symbolically expressed imaginary concepts like 0123456789= etc.. You wouldn't dream of saying math doesn't exist would you?
So if I said "a fictional things only exists in your imagination," that would be me basically saying "a not real thing is not real."
The statement: "fictional things only exist in your imagination" does not make use of circular logic. The statement: "a not real thing is not real" does.
It would admittedly, technically be better logic for me to say something along the lines of "god exists as an imaginary being" over "god doesn't exist," but again going back to terms I think imaginary being don't exist so saying something exists as an imaginary being, for me, is as good as saying it doesn't exist. That's why I don''t feel the specification needs to be made; it seems redundant.
Since you recognize the distinction I make as being "technically" valid, but you fail to see why it's an important distinction to make, I'll try to focus on why the distinction is important.
As I see it, Denying a things existence entirely, and describing a things limited existence are fundamentally different. One statement admits a things existence (at least in some form), and opens it up for logically progressive discussion. Having a sound logical basis for what we talk about is important.
I think it's pretty important for people to improve their ideas about what god (or a god) is, and I think the best chance we have of that, is to be as strictly logical as possible.
I Imagine god as a psychological phenomenon by which people develop their "ruling logic". What do you suppose god is?
But you can only pay rent if the money exists in reality, and that's the distinction I'm trying to make. You might be able to imagine the money, imagining the money certainly isn't imagining nothing, but the money is not real, tangible, material, or actually there. The money doesn't exist.
Money is a perfect example of something that started in the imagination and spread from there. I could make up a phrase and say that for the next three days, stating it will be worth two items of your choice at my store. All you would need then is to posses this ("not real" and "non-existent" by your logic) information, and it would be as valuable as money. Therefore things you call intangible or immaterial COULD be used to pay the rent.
Consider the utility of math and it's basis on symbolically expressed imaginary concepts like 0123456789= etc.. You wouldn't dream of saying math doesn't exist would you?
Math is the concept itself. I would argue that the "(insert number here)" you are picturing in your head when you do math doesn't exist.
The statement: "fictional things only exist in your imagination" does not make use of circular logic. The statement: "a not real thing is not real" does.
Imaginary, fictional, and not real are all synonymous. Hogwarts is a fictional castle. Hogwarts is an imaginary place. Hogwarts is not real. These all mean the same thing.
Since you recognize the distinction I make as being "technically" valid, but you fail to see why it's an important distinction to make, I'll try to focus on why the distinction is important.
As I see it, Denying a things existence entirely, and describing a things limited existence are fundamentally different. One statement admits a things existence (at least in some form), and opens it up for logically progressive discussion. Having a sound logical basis for what we talk about is important.
I guess I just don't understand why you're trying to clarify "god doesn't exist" to "god only exists in your imagination, where things don't exist in reality." I just generally think the word "exists" deals with reality, not the imaginary. Saying "god doesn't exist" is just as good as saying he only exists in your mind. Obviously the concept of god has to exist in our minds to even discuss the subject, so it seems evident to me the statement is not dealing with the imaginary, but what's real. Similarly, when the statement "god is imaginary" is made, I don't think it need to be clarified: "but he exists in your imagination" either.
What do you suppose god is?
It really varies from person to person, but generally speaking, an idea.
Therefore things you call intangible or immaterial COULD be used to pay the rent.
No, because it's not the phrase you are paying the rent with, it is the real, physical, material, tangible things you give your landlord for free that you pay your rent with. The imaginary thing, the phrase, is completely worthless unless backed with real things.
And really you're just paying rent with money in a more roundabout way. You still had to buy the things you are giving away to pay for your rent. It's just money in another form. Money has to exist or be turned into another thing that exists in order to be used to pay the rent. The phrase by itself has no value, no real world application.
Math is the concept itself. I would argue that the "(insert number here)" you are picturing in your head when you do math doesn't exist.
Math is more than just a concept, it is also a logical method of working with quantitative concepts (numbers). We can't work with things that don't exist can we?
Imaginary, fictional, and not real are all synonymous. Hogwarts is a fictional castle. Hogwarts is an imaginary place. Hogwarts is not real. These all mean the same thing.
They don't mean the same thing. The first two, do not require the self refuting assumption that there ARE things that ARE NOT. Reality consists only of real things whose characteristics are sometimes explained poorly. "Unreal" or "non-existent" is not a property a thing can have.
I guess I just don't understand why you're trying to clarify "god doesn't exist" to "god only exists in your imagination, where things don't exist in reality."
Because I don't think logical discussion about anything can start with the presupposition of it's non-existence. God is a very serious topic, that we should attempt to be logical about.
I just generally think the word "exists" deals with reality, not the imaginary.
Everything "deals with reality", Everything is real, everything exists. The best argument I've heard against this axiom was something like: "The current King of England does not exist". According to popular logic this seems irrefutable. However, one CAN assume that England currently does not officially recognize anyone as king, without making the subtle but fundamental logical error of supposing a somethings non-existence. Even purely imaginary things exist as thought patterns. Referring to something as purely imaginary doesn't require the declaration that something is non-existent or unreal.
Saying "god doesn't exist" is just as good as saying he only exists in your mind.
Earlier you said It would admittedly, technically be better logic for me to say something along the lines of "god exists as an imaginary being" over "god doesn't exist So this looks like a shift of position on your part
Obviously the concept of god has to exist in our minds to even discuss the subject, so it seems evident to me the statement is not dealing with the imaginary, but what's real.
Supposing god at least exists conceptually, opens up the possibility to improve the concept through logical discourse. Consider the ramifications of a poorly developed god concept and you might change your mind about the unimportance of the distinction.
Similarly, when the statement "god is imaginary" is made, I don't think it need to be clarified: "but he exists in your imagination" either.
Me neither. I'd move right on to...What do you imagine is true about god besides that?
It really varies from person to person, but generally speaking, an idea.
You understand that ideas have consequences right?
No, because it's not the phrase you are paying the rent with, it is the real, physical, material, tangible things you give your landlord for free that you pay your rent with. The imaginary thing, the phrase, is completely worthless unless backed with real things.
And really you're just paying rent with money in a more roundabout way. You still had to buy the things you are giving away to pay for your rent. It's just money in another form. Money has to exist or be turned into another thing that exists in order to be used to pay the rent. The phrase by itself has no value, no real world application.
It appears I didn't make my point clearly enough. There are real valuables that are intangible and immaterial that could be used to pay the rent. Suppose I imagine my knowledge of legal matters to be extremely valuable in and of itself, my landlord does too and she lets me stay in one of her apartments so long as I give her legal advice when she needs it. Am I not paying for my apartment with imaginary currency?
According to my logic it would be improper to say fairies,gods, Frodo, and Harry Potter, don't exist. Better would be to say that they exist as fictional characters.
I think, we theists, are sometimes really very irritated with atheists. I mean, we dont look at the logical reason and points and we dont accept what others tell us because we think that they are degrading our religion
Seem to have no issues with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity when trusting the accuracy of their GPS devices. Such accuracy is only possible by taking into account gravitational time dilation.
Seem to have no problems with the Germ Theory of Disease when getting their flu shots.
Mention the "E" word though, and they get all worked up over it being "just a theory."
They pick and choose what 'words of God' are relevant to their own beliefs based upon what is most convenient for them. Need to justify slavery? Need to blame someone for your own problem? Point to your holy book and say that your bigotry is a-okay.
In truth, this is hypocritical. They should not pick and choose what is most convenient for them, but rather what is most convenient for what is core in their religion. And in most theism, the idea of an almighty, supreme deity is meant to invoke feelings of parentage by some higher power, the idea that you are being watched over, loved, and protected by at least one intelligent person in existence. It's the grace of that idea which originally was meant to inspire people to treat each other as this parenting deity treats people, and to punish those whom are evil just as any parent would punish a misbehaving child. But in the end, your mistakes are forgiven by respecting your parent, or in this case, your deity.
So when theists deviate from this idea and use their religion as a means to justify bigotry, they violate the entire theme of their religion. 'I did it because dad says it was okay,' is a justification that either implies the child is lying about what their father said, or, it implies their father is a bad parent. Either way, it goes against the point of monotheism, and perhaps all forms of theism.
A belief is important but it is not like God is ultimate.C'mon you are the ultimate. You are responsible for your actions not God. Your are the boss of your life not God. Its just foolish to act in the way of carrying a photo of God and look at it every minute you are in trouble.
Well that's a silly point because the bible isn't the thing being messed with, if that's what you mean. In fact before I form a full rebuttal I'd like a little clarification or confirmation if you meant your dispute to be about the bible and\or it's contents.
I was going to post the same argument to both sides but you beat me to it on this side so disputing you saved me both time and effort, I normally find the same things that annoy me about Atheists quite often are the same things that annoy me about Theists and vice versa
In the interest of fairness, you ought to post something along the lines of, "Too many of them are theist simply because they were born into theist culture, not as a reasonable personal principal" on the other side of this debate.
Most of the criticisms I see people list here cut both ways.
Some people think that they are atheists, but then they aren't. I think I atheists search for knowledge and find logical reasoning about everything. Atheists dont just believe that God doesnt exist.. they just want proofs that He does exist. But the others, they are so against God that they are blocking things. You see.. atheists are different from satanists.. thats what others imply. And i find it quite really irritating
If that's how you choose to define it, sure, but then you kind of throw agnosticism as a concept out the window. Many traditional definitions of atheism include rejecting the concept of god, not simply being without it. Indeed, an agnostic doesn't believe in god, and an agnostic lacks belief in god, so what separates an atheist from an agnostic if not being against theism, as the name suggests? They're not called adeists.
Most atheists I've met, my brother included, are kind of egocentric, delusional, and just a jerk in general. Not saying all atheists are like this, of course. I actually happen to have a few friends who might share many of the viewpoints on the other side of this debate. But they realize they don't know everything, either.
I mean that he's delusional about himself and others. He thinks all his troubles are always the fault of others, never himself. He's a narcissist.
I mean it's kinda why I separated it with a comma. It wasn't related to religion at all.
As for the others... well, they pretty much share the category with my brother on this 'do no wrong' viewpoint. However I believe half of them were trolls, anyway.