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 this is a good topic , but surely your first statement is incorrect , it's an idea you are worshipping the idea or concept of a God , if a God or Gods have not been observed then surely it is the idea or concept of A god that is being worshipped
Ok I think the problem lies in the first statement ,the way it's worded ,but for arguments sake lets skip to your fourth statement , what truths can be known if the first three statements are correct ?
The first statement is analogous to the following: "It is impossible to receive a message that had no author." We can be mistaken regarding the identity of an author, but if there is a message, there is an author. In order for one to worship, there must be an object of worship. When one worships they are treating someone as infallible, whether or not this entity truly is infallible is not addressed by the argument.
Heres a couple I suppose, for the sake of argument
God is by nature communicative
God is either worthy of worship or not
DISCLAIMER I think of myself as atheist, but not because I don't believe there are gods. Since I personally regard no beings as worthy of worship, I still identify as atheist
You see I am trying to be fair here I get what your saying in a roundabout way , but you cannot continue with the first statement intact ,to worship there has to be a deity going on the true meaning of the word , so the statement is flawed .... Why not reword it ?
Propose a modification and I'll either accept it as an improvement, or explain why I hesitate. Since I am convinced that people can be worshiped, I don't think of deities as being necessary to worship, Frankly, I believe it's the other way around.
Ok at this stage I don't know ,what your trying to say ,you need to clarify your first statement and then you can move on to your other three statements
So you think worship is better defined in terms of reverence and adoration, and I think it's better described as "to regard as infallible". Either way, there must be an object of worship or there is no worship.
Ok let's just jump again to statement four ,how would the first three statements if true help you better describe and understand Gods ? I think with all due respect the whole four statements do not fit together and I can see the general trust of what your saying , the first statement as it stands now is meaning less by the use of nonexistant ..... But just move on to four and tell me how you can better describe them if 1,2,3are correct
how would the first three statements if true help you better describe and understand Gods ?
The argument isn't supposed to "help you better describe and understand Gods", it only helps to move from wondering "Do gods exist?" to "What are gods?"
I think with all due respect the whole four statements do not fit together and I can see the general trust of what your saying , the first statement as it stands now is meaning less by the use of nonexistent ......... But just move on to four and tell me how you can better describe them if 1,2,3are correct
I'd rather not move past a premise you don't accept. Would you accept this first premise instead?:
1. IF: To trust as infallible (what I mean by worship) requires a being to be trusted
If I come up with a better way of presenting the argument I will, I appreciate your thoughtful challenges. I had created a similar debate before, and may very well present a revised version later.
Now it may be that someone sharp enough will come along and help me see how my logic is poorly supported, that would be cool. But I never attended a day in a philosophy class, and my ontological argument from worship is better than the most well known ones...admit it
It's not a question of possibility, it's a question of probability.
Philosophy has compounded from it's initial simplicity to something far more complicated. Socrates' moral philosophy is pretty simple (and kind of stupid). Going one generation ahead to Plato, we see a much more rich philosophy. Aristoteles, who was a student of Plato, arguably has an even more complicated moral philosophy (he even explicitly says that moral perfection is impossible because we are already embodied in the world; moral perfection would require that we could somehow transcend experience.)
It's the same thing we see in many subjects, like physics and maths, new ideas are built upon old ideas, or by combining existing ideas. Now, it's obviously possible that Atypican can have the insights of modern logicians, but considering the fact that modern logic is built upon litterally thousands of years of investigation it seems hugely improbable that Atypican can know as much as educated people. This is exactly why education is a great thing. It's like cheating, you skip over all the work that people have used entire lifes trying to figure out.
It still doesn't change the fact that it's a possibility.
You might have noticed that I don't deny the fact that it's a possibility. The entire point of my post was to show that probability is infact important. You say you just don't care, but I don't really think that changes anything. Maybe it's just your way of saying that my point is stupid, but the fact that you don't explain why it's stupid makes your words empty.
Actually no. First, why do you use harsh words to point out that this doesn't personally affect you? And secondly, if you truly didn't care then you would have no motivation to answer me in the first place. It seems that you have a reason for "not caring", so instead of wasting time telling me that you don't care, wouldn't it be all the wiser to state your reasons?
Now if you were to tell me that it's impossible and how it's impossible I could see a valid point.
So i will have to renounce one of my prior statements and say that your point was stupid in my opinion because it proves nothing to me. That information was not useful at all.
Nothing's ever certain. All assumptions are subject to doubt, scientific knowledge is subject to doubt. Nothing is certain. Exactly because nothing is certain we have to deal with probability.
My post did prove something to you - if not, then dispute the specifics - it proved that it's more likely that someone attending philosophy classes has a better grounding in philosophy than someone who hasn't. So you are right, I can't say that Atypican is necesarilly worse off than your average wannabe philosopher. I can, however, say that it is likely that Atypican has missed some details that a student hasn't. We have to deal with likeliness so my information was indeed useful.
it's more likely that someone attending philosophy classes has a better grounding in philosophy than someone who hasn't.
I have some interest in arguing against this statement. Just not here in this debate. I have created this challenge debate. If you'd rather it be an open debate, either create it, or let me know.
considering the fact that modern logic is built upon litterally thousands of years of investigation it seems hugely improbable that Atypican can know as much as educated people.
My logic is still as you say "built upon litterally thousands of years of investigation". Why do you suppose that my studies being self directed, increases the probabilty that the quality of what I learn is inferior to "educated people" ?
In academia you have swarms of people who attend classes for reasons other than burning curiosity, or a desire to advance the art.
This is exactly why education is a great thing. It's like cheating, you skip over all the work that people have used entire lifes trying to figure out.
As a couple of my favorite "uneducated" philosophers point out...
1."Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects"
2. ""There is nothing more stupid than an educated man, once you get him off the subject that he was educated on.".
3. "A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one."
I have given a great deal of respect to a number of philosophers in the LIFELONG process of my own. But it seems like your argument here belongs in this other debate, because this here debate is for arguing the quality of the ontological argument from worship. Thanks
Since it isn't possible to worship something that isn't there.
yet a lot of people do state that a god should be worshiped.
But where's the god? hmmm?
Where is the truth? a talking a shrub? a book of stories? hmmm?
I could worship Will Smith because I know he's there, but how am I to worship something I don't know is there?
Something isn't true until it's undeniable.
Like, if i stated "this object will drop to the ground when I let go of it because that's the logic of gravity". There's still the possibility that someone could catch it before it hits the ground, which would make the statement false.
The statement can not be recognized as true until i let go of it and then it drops to the ground.
You are not trying to force some kind of belief on someone. This is very flawed. Your ontological argument does not try to prove something that doesn't make any sense if you actually think about it. Total fail. :)
Your argument is valid, but your argument is not sound. The argument follows the rules of classical logic, but your first premise is wrong (will show this in a second). Therefore this argument can't be used for much in it's current state.
A thought experiment should show why the initial premise is wrong:
Let's say I have a crush on somebody. I literally like everything about her, everything is great, and it seems that she can't do anything wrong. I start to obsess, idolize, and I eventually get to the point where it could be called worship. She is like a God to me. On the face of it, it appears that I am worshiping a person, a real person. But if we look more into it, I think we can agree that I am only worshiping my idea of her. In reality she isn't a God, she isn't purely good, she isn't perfect. She has imperfections. That is, I am worshiping something that isn't real, I am worshiping an idea.
So yeah, because I can worship an idea which doesn't correlate with reality, it seems that I indeed can worship something that doesn't exist.
Your argument is built upon the assumption that it's impossible to do something like this, but such an assumption is wrong. Therefore your argument isn't sound.
The argument DOES NOT assert that ONLY gods can possibly be worshipped. The first premise, if you assume it, only supposes that worship is a behavior that cannot possibly be directed to a BEING that doesn't exist.
I think I should address your contention that it's possible to "worship an idea". I think we are in full agreement that to worship a being, is to act as if such a being is infallible. In your example situation, if you are treating this lady as if she is infallible, I would agree that what you are doing IS treating her like a god....ie. worshiping her. If you are treating yourself like your understanding is infallible, then what you are doing is self worship, which my argument doesn't rule out as a possibility. I think that what is actually occuring with what you refer to as " I am only worshiping my idea of her" would either be you actually worshiping her OR it would be self worship. In either case we are talking about actual beings that are worshiped.
While I will admit that certain ideas can be held to as if they could not be incorrect, I do insist that this stems from worship of an actual being. Hence, such stubbornness in holding to an idea is a result of worship but not worship itself.
I think your argument is very convincing, but I don't think worship=holding stubbornly to an idea, rather I think worship=treating a being as infallible.
You are making an argument about the quality of the debate title and suppose that I have improperly referred to it as an ontological argument. This is a distraction from the substance of the argument, and I would prefer a separate discussion for it
Where do you get the idea that only existing things can be worshiped? How exactly does this prove that truths about God is more important than the truth to gods existence? Because the concept of God obviously exists therefore it Is more useful to know as much about god, wether as a concept or not then wether God exists? If so, I have to say the fact that people worship God makes the truth to wether or not God exists the most important truth of god ever since the worship of god impacts society.
Where do you get the idea that only existing things can be worshiped?
What it is to worship, is to regard a being as infallible. If one is not "regarding a being as infallible", one is not worshiping.
How exactly does this prove that truths about God is more important than the truth to gods existence?
It apparently doesn't prove it to you. Since you don't accept the first principle of the argument, we'll probably have to see if we can establish first principles in a different way. What do you find unacceptable about this equation: "to worship=to treat someone as infallible" ?
Because the concept of God obviously exists therefore it Is more useful to know as much about god, wether as a concept or not then wether God exists?
My thinking is that If god exists as only a psychological phenomenon, then we should try to improve our understanding of this phenomenon. If god is a prevalent and perhaps dangerous psychological phenomenon, how much more so?
If so, I have to say the fact that people worship God makes the truth to wether or not God exists the most important truth of god ever since the worship of god impacts society.
Just as one can't spill the contents of an empty cup, or believe a story that was never told, one cannot worship without regarding someone as infallible.
Messages are not sent by non existent beings, non existent beings cannot be excessively trusted because they (being non-existent) are sending no message. If you get a message, you can be assured that the message has an author. Better to know from where a message comes than to imagine it came from nowhere.
What it is to worship, is to regard a being as infallible. If one is not "regarding a being as infallible", one is not worshiping.
You can worship something you THINK exists, because you think it exists but that does not mean it exists it merely means you are worshiping the concept. I agree with you, as all atheists would, that the concept of a god does exist, to argue that god exists conceptually is arguing against nobody.
It apparently doesn't prove it to you. Since you don't accept the first principle of the argument, we'll probably have to see if we can establish first principles in a different way. What do you find unacceptable about this equation: "to worship=to treat someone as infallible" ?
I don't disagree with your logic I am merely saying that it doesn't prove god beyond a concept.
My thinking is that If god exists as only a psychological phenomenon, then we should try to improve our understanding of this phenomenon. If god is a prevalent and perhaps dangerous psychological phenomenon, how much more so?
If god is a all within our psyche, and it impacts society, it would be important on whether or not one can be logically justified in thinking one exists, after all if none of us believed in god, it wouldn't effect any of us.
Just as one can't spill the contents of an empty cup, or believe a story that was never told, one cannot worship without regarding someone as infallible.
I agree with this, it just seems that you are using this argument as a potential argument for god's existence, and when that fails you go "well at the very least god exists as a concept" which at the point we're not debating anymore, and I fail to see where you are going with that.
Messages are not sent by non existent beings, non existent beings cannot be excessively trusted because they (being non-existent) are sending no message. If you get a message, you can be assured that the message has an author. Better to know from where a message comes than to imagine it came from nowhere.
I never said it came from nowhere but if god is only a concept than god's origin is therefore man, like all concepts. It comes from our minds, specifically our imagination.
Yes, god's existence is either purely conceptual or something more. What else would it be. The concept could not exist at all, but you and me both know neither of us would be in this debate nor would you have made this debate it that was the case.
The theist and atheist reach common ground for logical argumentation in common acceptance of the statement that: god's existence is either purely conceptual or something more
If us atheists move to admitting gods existence, for the sake of logical progression, no longer are we wasting time debating whether or not god exists. We can have more interesting debates like..."Is gods existence purely conceptual, or something more?"
The theist and atheist reach common ground for logical argumentation in common acceptance of the statement that: god's existence is either purely conceptual or something more
We already are at these common grounds by common sense we both acknowledge each other by accepting this grounds to start off. By common sense we know that we each other understand this, so what effort needs to be taken to reach a goal we have already reached?
If us atheists move to admitting gods existence, for the sake of logical progression, no longer are we wasting time debating whether or not god exists.
Why can't we debate both? If anything the fact that I don't believe in god has made me feel more clearheaded in understanding god, because we can only acknowledge god conceptually since that is all we know about god(s). As an atheist I don't just assume god is pure and good, I don't assume their is heaven, I don't assume anything. I understand that if a god did exist at any point any imaginable situation could exist to revolve this.
We can have more interesting debates like..."Is gods existence purely conceptual, or something more?"
Isn't that close to the same thing though. you know I'm just going to go in there and say "we have no evidence to suggest god exists beyond concept". which is just roundabout way of saying "we don't have evidence for god's existence". in fact it the EXACT same thing, cause if it wasn't that would be suggesting that us atheists think god doesn't exist as a concept, which obviously we do...
We already are at these common grounds by common sense we both acknowledge each other by accepting this grounds to start off.
I disagree. Atheists in general, are not granting the existence of god, then disputing descriptions of god they find unacceptable. They are simply denying the first principle that must be accepted for any cogent discussion about god to ensue, ie "god exists".
Pantheists are generally hip to this.
Why can't we debate both? If anything the fact that I don't believe in god has made me feel more clearheaded in understanding god
You can't better understand something unless it exists. Try to describe god according to your understanding of god. Just for the sake of argument abandon the assumption that god is non-existant, and assume that god exists as a poorly defined concept.
Isn't that close to the same thing though. you know I'm just going to go in there and say "we have no evidence to suggest god exists beyond concept". which is just roundabout way of saying "we don't have evidence for god's existence". in fact it the EXACT same thing, cause if it wasn't that would be suggesting that us atheists think god doesn't exist as a concept, which obviously we do...
I disagree. Atheists in general, are not granting the existence of god, then disputing descriptions of god they find unacceptable
We don't grant the existence of god, because that is illogical however we are still capable of contemplating hypotheticals. We still can dispute descriptions of god that make more or less sense, and as I was trying to say earlier, because we treat god as a hypothetical, our understanding of what a god could be in my opinion is a lot more sensible, because we understand you can't be totally certain what kind of god exists, if a god did exist. Because I see god as a hypothetical, any god could exist really, however what reason is their to think that if a god did exist, it would be male or female, or similiar to human beings at all, or even biological life, if it is something supernatural. We atheists do see certain descriptions of god as more ridiculous that others. Just because we don't believe a god exists doesn't mean we aren't as capable of contemplating other truths of god as any other theist, we do it from a point of view where god is hypothetical however I feel as though that is an advantage to having a likely and sensible description for a god if one were likely to exist.
Pantheists are generally hip to this.
Pantheism was called by Carl Sagan as sexed up atheism pantheism isn't all that different from atheism, in contrast to other spiritualities, People who are atheist, choose to be skeptical partially to uphold a "relationship with reality", we have no beliefs to contradict our discoveries, we have no unjustified convictions to compete with what we discover to be true. Pantheism is the spirituality that does this better than any other spirituality. Pantheism looks at reality and calls it god, an atheist looks at reality and calls it reality. There is no need to go ahead and believe that god is real to contemplate what god is, we can do that hypothetically. No reason to convince ourselves of something just so we can have an idea about it, that is foolish in my opinion. It is a lot like convincing yourself unicorns are real, so that you can have an idea of what unicorns would be like? does that make any sense to you in all honesty? There are two types of theists in this world, those whom are willing to accommodate their perception of reality to their belief in god (creationism), and those whom are willing to accommodate their belief in god to their perception of reality (pantheism). However an atheist can do what a pantheist does even better, because we don't have any beliefs in god to accommodate for our perception of reality, our perception of reality isn't by any means deterred by a belief in god, and if we ever happen to come across undeniable proof and evidence of god, then I will become a theist right there and then. However you don't need to believe in god, to contemplate on a god, we atheists see god as something that came from our imagination, and thus can be and will always eventually be changed to adapt.
You can't better understand something unless it exists.
unless it doesn't exist, then you understand everything you can about it already. If it does exist, then the advantage of understanding it as an existing thing comes from EMPIRICAL evidence of your beliefs about this god. For example, someone comes to me and claims there is an alien in the room next to me being watch by the FBI, now I have never seen this alien, never heard it, never smelled it, anything, I have as much knowledge on this alien as the person next to me whom doesn't believe the alien is really there, however I do. I don't know anything about the alien, I don't know if it has one eye, two eyes, ten eyes, no eyes, what kind of limbs, if it is intelligent (me and the non believer may be able to guess if it is intelligent since it is on our planet), if it is friendly, if it is evil, etc. I choose to believe in it, he doesn't. However do either of us have a better understanding of this alien? He understands just as well as I do, what kind of alien could possibly exist there. We have the same understanding, now imagine that the person telling us, wasn't an official by any means just knows about it somehow, and gives me a description of the alien, even though he has never seen it or anything either, but for some reason believes this is what the alien looks like. The skeptic will be able to think "well even if there was an alien there, I don't see a reason the alien would match your exact description" though I might not... I already accepted the alien existed for absolutely no reason other than that I heard about it, so why wouldn't I accept the definition? Now I have prejudice towards this supposed alien, prejudgement, I already decided what kind of alien exists after all it wasn't hard for me to decide the alien did exist, however the skeptic has no prejudice because he never accepted the alien to exist, and therefore is openminded to what kind of alien this supposed alien would be. They have the same amount of knowledge therefore the same understanding, even if one is only viewing it from a hypothetical point of view. Acknowledging something as existent or non-existent only furthers your understanding if acknowledging the existence of a god allows you more KNOWLEDGE of this god. However nobody has direct evidence, everyone is an agnostic technically. Nobody knows more about this god, than the other assuming this god exists.
Try to describe god according to your understanding of god. Just for the sake of argument abandon the assumption that god is non-existant, and assume that god exists as a poorly defined concept.
The creator of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. That is all required for a god, and anything else would be an assumption. Surely if a god were to exist it wouldn't be bearded man in a robe living in the clouds... Pantheism assumes a lot more on god than deism in my opinion, however pantheism is a lot more adaptable.
Whether one identifies as atheist or not, what we do is entertain ideas that we find provocative for whatever reason. Atheists, according to my experience, find the various ideas of god very provocative. When people say they believe in god, it's meaningless unless they describe characteristics of the god they believe in. When people say they don't believe in god, this is just as meaningless without explaining what descriptions of god they find objectionable and why.
If god doesn't exist, then no description of god is more appropriate than any other. If god exists, we may assume that some descriptions of god are more truthful than others. For example we could debate whether describing god as "the creator of the universe" is better than describing god as "The label sometimes given to the interplay of ideas that result in our ruling logic", or "the most powerful human delusion" etc..
Sorry for not addressing each point you brought up in your well thought out argument. It was concede defeat by wall of text, or this. :)
To regard a concept or idea that one holds as perfect would be from my perspective, a form of self worship. ie you are treating yourself as if you could not be wrong about it. I think only communicative beings can be worshiped, ideas can be obsessed over perhaps, but I don't think it's fitting to say ideas are worshiped.
They certainly believe this being communicates with them, they do not believe this being is a concept, however objectively that's all it really is right now. So by their reality, their belief system, the communication between them is established that they proceed to "worship" this being.
They certainly believe this being communicates with them, they do not believe this being is a concept, however objectively that's all it really is right now.
They or we might be mistaken about the nature of god. None of these mistakes can be addressed very well while stuck debating gods existence.
So by their reality, their belief system, the communication between them is established that they proceed to "worship" this being.
Supposing god as a remarkably ubiquitous psychological phenomenon (perhaps related to schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder), and gods nature to be purely imaginative, can only logically follow after admitting gods existence. We don't have to agree what god is to move the discussion forward, only that god is
