The Concept of God is More Similar than Not Compared to Unknown Information
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
God: the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
b: a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
Information: knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
Con: The concept of God is more dissimilar than not to the concept of unknown information
XIII.d.2 Regardless, we know enough, at present, to appreciate the uses water has, and we marvel at its various expressions [liquid, solid, gas], without understanding why that curious feature of wetness is a limited nature of the stuff. God knows why; we do not. An attribute that is greater than ours, yet we share sufficient ability with God to make use of water, so, the analogy works.
This might be a concept to take to the forums, to workshop out your thought process into logical proofs.
Notice: I would have left this until my frame of R4, but I don't want to mislead anyone, particularly my opponent. In my R3, I made an error of identification in argument X.a.3, which said, "...and Con has said it within his own definition of similarity..." I meant to say that Pro said this.
I'm taking the chance that I understand gugigor's premise. Looking forward to a good debate.
I'm with the others that the wording is a bit confusing. Some clarification might be good
To clarify my own understanding, your Pro position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to unknown information, and Con's position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to known information? If I have the dichotomy of the positions correctly understood, am I correct in the assumption that while Con may present holy writ of whatever source as evidence, you may not consider it as valid sourcing compared to, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it's up to voters to determine which argument/sources are more valid? https://plato.stanford.edu/
This is a foregone conclusion. Three paragraphs of unsourced assertions and missing half the debate, vs a detailed well researched multi-tier case. This is only confirmed by the obvious Burden of Proof issue of pro trying to kritik that con's case should be ignored, without first building up a counter case, when pro is in fact the person with primary BoP.