Points: 25

God is identical to 'truth' itself. God is not just true, but actually truth itself. {Mopac = Pro | RM = Con}

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 25
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
^ God is a female for those who cared to know. She was using the human avatar of Maty Noyes and possesses even me from time to time. ;)

The definition of God is going to end up being what this entire debate revolves around. Pro has the delusion that the definition of God is essentially everything that's real as in non-simulated if this planet etc are all simulated. So if we're in the Matrix or in some way limited in our pseudo-reality, the realest reality is by definition God according to Pro. Not only is this entirely contingent on many factors of our reality's nature (in that it's coded, not authentic... Conjured, not naturally occurring) but there is absolutely direct contradictions in the way Pro defines God and the very role of God in the first place.

God is different in every religion but something we can all agree on is that is that God is either (I made hybrid versions for 1 and 2 of the definitions in the links):

1) A superhuman being or spirit (perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness) worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
2)  the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the (one) supreme being.
3) the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

 What I find quite interesting about Pro is they actually support definition 2 but their listed religion on this site (currently Christianity) supports 1. That aside, let's get on with the debate.

If we uphold definition 2 (which is what Pro's definition of God is closest to) we don't then extend that to mean that it is 'supreme reality' or 'utmost realness' or whatever else Pro is going to portray as the definition of God. The second definition of God is that of Deism and other more 'laid back' outlooks on God where people believe in an essence almost, a being that created us but in no way at all is good or great. Personally I support both definitions 2 and 3 but I don't like definition 1 at all and unless called out on it I won't debate about that.

If we are to say that God is the supreme being that created all that is real (except for God) then what happens is we are saying that we have determined that to be true and until we determined that, it was (to us) not true. Pro would argue here that this is because we were deluded and we had to seek out truth as our 'truth' was not 'true' at all but the issue with this approach is that it implies that to anyone who doesn't believe in God at all (atheists/atheist-leaning agnostics), there is no way anything can be true to them (which is quite blatantly nonsense). Then comes the issue of proving in any way that it is the atheists who are the ones who haven't found truth. After that, one must prove all other religions and outlooks on God wrong except the one they hold to be true and only then can we begin to suggest that God is true. Even at this endpoint, God is not truth itself but rather 'true' is a property assigned to what could be a mythological and fictional being entirely but may well be 'real' or 'true' if we can prove it to be so. 

An alternate way to show how hilariously wrong Pro is, one must ask that if God is truth itself then 'god being truth itself' cannot be true since the only thing that's really true in reality is God and that statement or idea (that God is truth itself) is not God itself but rather a conclusion regarding God. If we say that a Dog is a Labrador or even that a Dog is canine (the latter being correct in all cases but ignoring the canines that aren't dogs etc) we can't then say that our statement is 'true' if the dog is said ot also be truth itself since the statement about the dog isn't the dog itself and thus wouldn't be 'truth' or the 'supreme reality'.

I will end it here for now.
Published:
I will use the sources that my opponent chose for dictionary. I will use Oxford and merriam-webster, as these are respected dictionaries

The Oxford definition that my opponent posted is correct, the one that says "The Supreme Being".
The Merriam-webster definition that my opponent should be using is the one that says "capitalized the supreme or ultimate reality". Note that there is a difference between God as a capitalized word and God as a lower case word. This is a problem in English. In Arabic, as an example, Allah means God and illah means god.

The Supreme Being and The Ultimate Reality mean the same thing. It means The way things actually truly really are. The most truest existiest reality there is. Ultimately real. Get it?

And this is not merely a semantic argument, this conception of God, which is understood in English as God with a capital "G" is in fact older than the English language. I am not arguing the English language, this is a theological issue.



To quote a father of the catholic/orthodox tradition and canonized saint... Augustine of Hippo...

"Where I found truth, there found I my God, who is the truth itself"

Augustine repeats in no uncertain terms throughout his vast corpus of works that The Truth is God. Not just any truth, but, as is closer to what the original language says, Absolute Truth. 

Also in the Christian protestant tradition Herman Bavinck wrote
God is the truth in its absolute fullness. He, therefore, is the primary, the original truth, the source of all truth, the truth in all truth. He is the ground of the truth – of the true being "

And though these are examples from western academia and Christian traditions, you will find this understanding of God is fairly universal in the various religious traditions of the world. The Abrahamic faiths all recognize The Truth as being God. Even in vedic monotheism, God is understood as ultimate reality. 



So to make what I am saying very clear, The Truth is God.


My opponent in this debate is an admitted pagan. He does not understand my faith, nor should he presume to. I believe that he has a superstitious conception of God that comes from not being able to distinguish between that which is created and that which is uncreated. The evidence to this is that my opponent believes that God is an understanding.

God, or The Truth is not what anybody says it is or conceives it to be. It Is That It Is.

That is, whatever The Truth actually is, that is The Truth. That is God.

That is what The Ultimate Reality means. It is not merely true things, but The Most True.



And being that we are created beings using the medium of creation, there is a certain absurdity in expressing the uncreated.


Christianity actually addresses this through the trinity, as we relate to The Ultimate Reality through The Most Perfect Image of The Truth, with The Spirit of Truth. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

But this isn't a debate about Christianity, it is a debate about God. The monotheistic God is The Ultimate Reality. I believe it is obvious that without this God, there is no truth or reality, and as we are all clearly having an experience, it is evident that there is some form of reality. God is simply reality in the truest sense. If there are gods at all, they would not exist without this God. The God I profess is the lord of all worlds, and clearly so. It is a simple matter of contemplating and understanding what "The Ultimate Reality" means.

And there is clearly nothing else worthy of being called God. The Ultimate Reality is the only Being that can possibly be God, because there is nothing greater.

And what I'm saying is no innovation at all. The God I am confessing before everyone is the very same God that has been preached for thousands of years. These little gods are created things. They are mortal. They have a start and a finish. They are not eternal. The Ultimate Reality is Eternal. It has sovereignty over all things. Name One greater! You can't, it's impossible there is none greater, and even if you could name a name, it would not be greater.

So yes, The Truth is God, and even if in this debate I am outvoted, it would not change the reality of what I am saying. It is the Truth, and if everyone in the entire world disagreed, they would be wrong. In fact, if everyone in the entire world was destroyed, my God would still exist, as my God existed before people. My God is Eternal. There is no authority greater, no power over God. There is none like God, no comparison. My God is The Singularity, and there can be no doubt that this is The One True God.









Round 2
Published:
When Augustine says that God is truth itself, then what Augustine is saying cannot be truth itself nor a subset of truth since what he's saying isn't God, it's a statement.

This nonsensical contradiction can be solved by explaining the following:

Truth, in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.

Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties. Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterizes the good scientist, the good historian, and the good detective. So what is truth, that it should have such gravity and such a central place in people’s lives?

While 'being true' is defined as:
(being) in accordance with fact or reality.

And reality is defined as:
the quality or state of having objective independent existence

So, if God is real, that is then true. God's existence being true is then something separate from God itself as God's existence being false wouldn't mean the idea itself has become 'lying' or 'lies' or 'mistruth itself' but rather is a lie and mistruth in the nature of what it is. God is possibly truly real, that I agree with my opponent one but God is only real if God is in line with truth, which itself isn't God. You must understand that God existing objectively wouldn't mean that God's creation is all fake, then you are saying the creator of all is creating nothing in reality and contradict yourself by defeating God.
Published:
God is quite literally The Ultimate Reality. That is what the concept means. Besides that, this is the one God I profess to believe in unwaveringly.

Once again, whatever The Ultimate Reality is, that is what The Ultimate Reality is. I am not saying that your false or superstitious conception of God is The Ultimate Reality, I am saying The Ultimate Reality is God. The Ultimate Reality is The Truth.

So to make this absolutely clear.....

Definitions of "Definition" courtesy of Merriam-Webster....


" statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol"

or

"a statement expressing the essential nature of something"

or

"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear"


And once again the definition of "God" courtesy Merriam-Webster...

"capitalized the supreme or ultimate reality"



So let it be very clear that when I am saying "God" I quite literally mean "The Ultimate Reality". It means the same thing. That is what the concept means. Besides the dictionary being very very clear about this, as I said before, this is not an innovation. This is not a semantic trick. This is not an English language argument. This is what the concept means, and this is what the concept meant even before the English Language. The theologian I referenced in my first argument, St. Augustine lived around the time of The Roman Empire. This was hundreds of years before the writing called "Beowulf", widely credited with being the first writing in English.. I would also like to note that anyone who tries to read Beowulf today can see plainly that this form of English is unintelligible to the modern speaker. It is not English as we know it today, it isn't even English as they knew it in the time of Queen Elizabeth or Shakespeare.


I believe my case has been thoroughly proven, and anything else I say would simply be redundant at this point. I don't believe that my opponent or anyone for that matter would be able to argue against this any more effectively than someone could argue that the Sun is made of ice cream. It is simply a wrong position. 

I would also like to further state as an aside to anyone reading this debate who might have been fooled into adopting the atheist position that when someone says, "There is no God", they are actually saying "There is no Truth", and all atheist arguments against God should be interpreted with that understanding. It stands to reason that there is no argument that actually can stand with that premise. 


Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
The Truth is God
Round 4
Published:
If God is reality itself, God created itself...

Even if this contradictory even is proven true (cycle-of-reality scenario) then that being true is a truth separate from God itself.
Published:
God did not come into being, but always was, always is, and always will be.

The reason for this is simple.

The Ultimate Reality would not be what it is if it was brought into being or was created by anything. It is eternal existence. Created things are contingent on God, God is not contingent on created things. God is The Uncreated.


The Truth is God

Round 5
Published:
Pro not only has to prove that God is real now since their entire cases rests upon God always having exists, being in existence and existing in the future but he/she must fight Con on the matter of God as an entity being the only real, only true 'thing' there is.

God is one of many true things if God is real and God made truth itself or applies to truth itself in a way that implies God isn't truth itself.
Published:
My opponents entire argument is to try to monkey his way around what "The Ultimate Reality" means.


The Truth is God

I have thoroughly made my case, and it is irrefutable. 


Added:
If I lose the votes in this debate because the voters mistakenly claim that I didn't use sources or don't know how the dictionary works, I will consider that mighty lame.
But the truth is the truth whether or not the entire world disagrees with it.
Contender
#21
Added:
Those who deny God by nature embrace arbitrariness.
Contender
#20
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
In other words, you think all you have to do to win an argument is make a straw man.
Gotcha.
But you admit that God exists by conceding that The Ultimate Reality exists.
'Nuff said.
Contender
#19
Added:
--> @Mopac
Yes I get it. He exists because you’ve said he is the ultimate reality - and as such is required to exist as that’s what ultimate reality requires.
... and You’ve defined him into existence. Like I said.
God is the most powerful it is possible to be. If a being that exists can do something, if a being that doesn’t exist can also do that thing, despite them not existing - they are obviously more powerful.
As God is the most powerful being possible - he can’t exist.
... and I just defined him out of existence.
#18
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Yes, the specific definitions of God with a capital G.
Monotheist theology does not accept these other gods as being ultimately real. Only God is real. The Supreme Being. The Ultimate Reality. The Truth.
Contender
#17
Added:
--> @Mopac
... and yet you use the specific definitions of specific words in order to claim that God exist.
#16
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
The Ultimate Reality, God, is not defined into existence, that's ridiculous.
And so is everything else you are saying.
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @Mopac
The God you are describing is being defined into existence. You have to select definitions and language carefully for God to exist. It is possible for a human to change the definition of the words you are using, and if this happened a change in language means your God no longer would exist.
That’s an Addict. RM successfully used definitions to prove your God can’t be the truth. In the context of the debate, he made A Better semantic argument than your semantic argument. You lost because you made a bad argument. You lost sources in part because you didn’t link any citations or
Definitions, but mostly that RMs sources directly reinforces his point directly, whereas you had to shoe horn and use word play with the general definitions that you didn’t properl source.
If you’re not interested in learning from any of your errors: go ahead.
#14
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Because the God I am describing is what is understood in theology, and I know that if you deny this God, it stands to reason you aren't being honest because you don't believe in truth.
You are, after all lying about my lack of sources and taking the meanings of words to be arbitrary.
So if you want to lie, go ahead. You are have a right to be wrong.
Contender
#13
Added:
--> @RationalMadman, @Mopac
Maybe RM can weigh in and explain why I am correct. I’m glad your first reaction is to blame me, rather than look at your own arguments.
#12
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You are certainly entitled to be wrong.
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @Mopac
Firstly, By all means show me the dictionary source you linked in your debate. Con provided sources and links, you did not. But in reality the sources win mainly came from his philosophy of truth, as that consolidated the validity of the definition with which he beat you with.
Secondly, defining God unto existence is a valid argument. RationalMadman did better than you because his argument defined God out of existence.
I voted because your argument was not as good as his,, the same way that I have will (and have), vote the other way if this wasn’t the case.
#10
Added:
--> @Type1
People like me, tzarpepe, and whoever uses this argument will continue to do so until people like you stop arguing against straw men while pretending you aren't.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You say I didn't use sources, which is patently false. I used Merriam-webster, Oxford, and at least 2 theologians.
Besides that, using the dictionary to prove that God means The Truth is a legit argument. You are voting based on an aversion to God, not a real examination of the debate.
But what evs
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @ArgentTongue
Bump
Instigator
#7
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's claim is self-evident. Con's arguments seem to be irrelevant and aimed towards a straw-man definition of God rather than accepting a common (and reputable) definition.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro gets the conduct point for the forfeit. I'm voting con because Pro had the entire BOP and I was unswayed by his arguments. This was a back and forth semantic debate that I honestly had a hard time following and didn't see resolved. Pro's main argument is that God is the ultimate reality, having always existed, and thus is truth. The main counterpoint is that "God is in line with truth, which itself isn't God."
One of the biggest issues I saw with the debate is that the words 'truth' and 'being true' isn't defined until round 2. The definition of truth is "(being) in accordance with fact or reality." and truth is defined as "in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.
Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life..."
Pro doesn't challenge this definition and so these are the definitions I am going with in judging this debate. Pro loses the argument by trying to define God as true and not challenging these definitions. To win this debate, pro really needed to challenge the actual definitions of the words and explain why his definition is better.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con actually cited. Pro did not. However, Con forfeited without apology in the debate or in the comments.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
It is difficult to say who was actually right in this debate, since even the original claim and counter claim was rather subjective. What I can say was that Con definitely argued more poorly overall, forfeiting one round and opening their statements with the claim that a female god sung them a song by possessing a random person.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
Arguments to con: so the primary crux of pros argument is to chose a particular set of definitions that define God into existence his entire argument throughout all rounds are variations of this - which he did successfully. This is generally a poor argument, that can only really be attacked with an argument based on definitions. Now, cons approach was novel, though semantic: to separate the truth of God from God itself - using the definition of Truth to show God cannot be truth. Unfortunately as pro relied totally on definitions he hoisted himself by his own petard in this respect, the argument from definition con made undermining the premise pro made, leaving no other real argument. As Pro did not rebut this definition argument - and con added sufficient doubt to mean pro did not sufficiently show their burden of proof.
Sources to con: pro used no sources, specifically with both the dictation art and philosophy of truth, con used his sources to seal up his Truth argument: the referencing here was perfect to hammer home the definition of Truth argument con made, and ended up being an important aspect to undermine pros burden of proof.