- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Where did those people that wrote about these characters in a fictional setting get them from?
This is quite laughable. It's obvious to try and lump everything together to try to make it all ridiculous. But we have to be honest with this information here. You can't know to call something fantasy and be correct without proof of it being so.
This is why agnostics exist. There's no proof of God being real nor proof that this is fantasy.
I can see this being true. The basic logic of it is in anything that is against you or the furthest away from your position to the point it about shatters it, perhaps pours judgment on it, gives you a distaste, dissatisfaction, what's to like there ?
A natural response if you will. You wouldn't like displeasure .
"No it hasn't. You can't prove these things don't exist and hence you can't prove anybody made them up. It's the exact same thing with God."
Oh excuse me. What are the origins of these made up characters, the unicorn, superman and leprechaun?
"Are you stupid?"
Am I stupid to what ?
"You are literally making decisions about fantasy concepts based solely on what your personal bias is towards those concepts. Leprechauns have been "proven to be made up", but God simply has an "inconclusive existence". I mean, just look at the vast difference in language you are using to describe two different fantasy beings which have an identical lack of evidence supporting them."
What's the evidence that they're fantastical? See, just pay attention to the words you're using. If there is no evidence for or against what we're talking about here, it's inconclusive. Do you follow what I'm saying?
But you use the word fantasy. In order to identify something as fantasy, there's evidence of it being such. How else do you know it is?
That's what I said from the beginning, made up unlike God unless you or anybody has proof otherwise.
For those confused about fictitious characters being real like the leprechaun or unicorn or superman, that's all been proven to have been made up. Doesn't compare to the inconclusive existence of God. So therefore the most rationality of anything concerns the most science and evidence. The most evidence we have to date over anything is the inconclusive nature of existence for a god. That's where the agnostic view comes into play
The agnostic position rationalizes that currently there is evidence or a fact concerning the existence of God.
The fact is that the reality of a god is inconclusive. Their position totally sways on evidence alone. That is the basis of the scientific method, empirical data , research and etc.
All other positions that take a belief in the positive or negative are less rational based on the previous mentioned fact regarding the agnostic role.
That is the summary and size of it. That'll do for now.