Instigator / Pro

Americandebater24

1442

rating

debates

57.76%

won

Topic

#3696

God is a fictional character founded on hearsay and supersition

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06

Tags

Religion

Parameters

Publication date: 08.31.2022 02:25AM
Last updated date: 09.16.2022 08:02AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Intelligence_06

1737

rating

172

debates

73.26%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Americandebater24

08.31.2022 06:33AM

Pro

If God were real, then there would be irrefutable objective evidence for his existence. Instead, we are only given hearsay accounts based off of individuals who only wrote works of the bible YEARS later after the claimed events. and said accounts are not in agreement Eiether the New testaments and old testaments are a prime example of these conflicting accounts. So not only is there NO solid evidence, the only form of evidence that can be produced is hearsay accounts that can't be validated and are themselves controversial in nature.

Therefore, it is based on this understanding that it can be easily concluded that God is of a fictional nature rather than factual since the proclaimed existence in question fails to establish itself on a factual and evidence-based standpoint

Intelligence_06

08.31.2022 07:53AM

Con

God is a fictional character founded on hearsay and supersition

Con should win if the topic is proven to be false due to there being no specifications

Con should win if Con proves that God is not founded on hearsay
Con should win if Con proves that God is not a fictional character

1. Hearsay

Merriam-Webster for "Hearsay": Rumor

"Rumor": talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source

"Founded": to take the first steps in building

I would argue that the foundation of the idea of "God" was early enough that it was not disseminated. The first step(s) involves people analyzing phenomena(leading to people later concluding that it was, in fact, God) and later actually concluding there to be a God, as well as assigning attribute to what "god" they think is, such as omnipotence, etc. When the idea of God is created with enough coherence and clarity that could be understood by people simply, it is being founded. In other words, the idea of God should have been founded before it could be disseminated, thus not by rumor.

If an idea that could bear resemblance to what "god" is but is not coherent or complete enough to be called an actual distinct "idea", then is that idea "god"? Although I am not an arcaeologist nor a historian, if the idea of "some supreme creator, not necessarily God" that is not enough coherent is spreaded among the populace and then became what we know as "God", then that means the predecessor idea of "God" is being founded by hearsay, not "God" itself.

Either the idea of "God" developed independently to be coherent, in that case, not founded by hearsay; or said idea is polished after widespread of the proto-idea not yet complete, in which the idea itself is founded after hearsay. What makes it different is by the hearsay of the latter scenario, it is not "God" that is the idea that is founded. After the foundation for the latter scenario, further dissemination is still not foundation as the idea is already coherent enough to say it is being founded.

Therefore, the idea of "God" simply cannot be founded in any part by hearsay. Also, hearsay is not an essential component in the building of the idea of "God", or any idea at all, since "God" is not an idea that necessarily depend on population believing in it. While people could believe in God and further detail his abilities, the definition of "God" is not depended on that people believing in it.

2. Fictional Character

MW Definition: one of the persons of a drama or novel

Is God a "person"? I think not. Maybe we apply the word "character" way too liberally so that a talking desk and a sentient chair qualify as "characters", by definition, God is not. More than that, I would argue that neither the Bible nor the Quran nor any holy text in any holy religion is actually either a drama or a novel. This is the closest thing I can get in the definition page. I demand Pro prove that the Bible or Quran(etc.) are drama or novel, or this point is dropped. And no, God is obviously NOT an attribute.

Yet Christians everywhere will affirm that God is a person, while the average Muslim will readily deny this.

Some religions straight-up deny that God is a person, rendering all definitions that apply to any sentient creatures(as opposed to other things like attributes) to be unapplicable. Without restrictions stated, Pro ought to prove that God is a fictional character, a person, in all cases, and in all religions.

3. Rebuttal

And said accounts are not in agreement Eiether the New testaments and old testaments are a prime example of these conflicting accounts.

Pro thinks that the idea of "God" was never coherent, meaning that the idea was never even founded in the first place. That proves the topic wrong.

So not only is there NO solid evidence, the only form of evidence that can be produced is hearsay accounts that can't be validated and are themselves controversial in nature.

If it were founded, then dissemination must occur after the idea was created, or that it was not hearsay of God itself, or in other words hearsay was never a part in the foundation of the idea of God.

4. Conclusions

Hearsay cannot be a part of the foundation of the idea of "God".
God is not a "fictional character".
Pro thinks that the idea of "God" may have never been found in the first place, in the end proving the topic wrong instead of right.
Overall, vote CON!

Round 2

Americandebater24

08.31.2022 09:13AM

Pro

"I would argue that the foundation of the idea of "God" was early enough that it was not disseminated. The first step(s) involves people analyzing phenomena (leading to people later concluding that it was, in fact, God) and later actually concluding there to be a God, as well as assigning attribute to what "god" they think is, such as omnipotence, etc."

the Con is claiming that God is really simply because we have a foundation understanding on what god is in theory and that analyzing phenomena will conclude that God is real. This can be rebutted for two reasons.

just because people have foundation of what they think to be a god does not make said God real, it only establishes the theory of who God is.
There is id nothing in phenomena to objectively say there is a god regardless of people who may claim that leads them to believe it does.

"When the idea of God is created with enough coherence and clarity that could be understood by people simply, it is being founded. In other words, the idea of God should have been founded before it could be disseminated, thus not by rumor."

The con is arguing from an appeal to the majority stance, this does not prove God at all because understanding the concept of something will not make said concept true. By that logic superman would be real because enough people understand the idea of him enough to not make him fictional. so yes ot remins a rumor and thus hearsay until Proven otherwise.

"If an idea that could bear resemblance to what "god" is but is not coherent or complete enough to be called an actual distinct "idea", then is that idea "god"? Although I am not an archaeologist nor a historian, if the idea of "some supreme creator, not necessarily God" that is not enough coherent is spread among the populace and then became what we know as "God", then that means the predecessor idea of "God" is being founded by hearsay, not "God" itself"

. The cons argument lacks logic, if something cannot be empirically proven and is based only on the accounts of people or in the Cons case "idea" is by definition a rumor and otherwise known as hearsay. an "idea" alone does not validate an existence.

"Either the idea of "God" developed independently to be coherent, in that case, not founded by hearsay; "

ideas be it coherent or not is still hearsay because it lacks empirical foundation and is based on nothing more than rumors. I'm not sure why the Con seems to believe that just because a thought or opinion is coherent that it somehow does not fall under the definition of hearsay but it's clear that this is what it is.

"or said idea is polished after widespread of the proto idea not yet complete, in which the idea itself is founded after hearsay. What makes it different is by the hearsay of the latter scenario, it is not "God" that is the idea that is founded. After the foundation for the latter scenario, further dissemination is still not foundation as the idea is already coherent enough to say it is being founded."

Coherence has no factor on if something is hearsay based or not.

"Therefore, the idea of "God" simply cannot be founded in any part by hearsay. Also, hearsay is not an essential component in the building of the idea of "God", or any idea at all, since "God" is not an idea that necessarily depend on population believing in it. While people could believe in God and further detail his abilities, the definition of "God" is not depended on that people believing in it."

the Con seems to be arguing about the idea of God being hearsay rather than the god in question. the debate is not about the "idea" of God. it's about God being fiction and based on hearsay. Therefore, the argument is irrelevant and completely off base.

Is God a "person"? I think not. Maybe we apply the word "character" way too liberally so that a talking desk and a sentient chair qualify as "characters", by definition, God is not. More than that, I would argue that neither the Bible nor the Quran nor any holy text in any holy religion is actually either a drama or a novel. This is the closest thing I can get in the definition page. I demand Pro prove that the Bible or Quran(etc.) are drama or novel, or this point is dropped. And no, God is obviously NOT an attribute.

God is a character in the bible. anything be it human, demon warlock you name it. Anything in a book that is given a name, individuality or credit actions in any book fictional or otherwise is a character. Therefore, God is a character by definition and to deny that is uneducated.
Neither the bible nor any "Holy text" can be validated or proven true. Therefore, everything in it is only true if you believe which makes it subjective and thus can be described as fictional book
They don't have to be specifically a drama or novel you only need to deny or question its validity and thus can call it a fictional book and subsequently every character in it would be a work of fiction including god

"Some religions straight-up deny that God is a person, rendering all definitions that apply to any sentient creatures (as opposed to other things like attributes) to be unapplicable. Without restrictions stated, Pro ought to prove that God is a fictional character, a person, in all cases, and in all religions."

If a religion claims God is real, then the burden of proof is on them. Secondly the purpose of calling god a fictional person is to deny gods existence so wither that god is viewed as a human, creature or otherwise is irrelevant so that argument is irrelevant as well,

"Pro thinks that the idea of "God" was never coherent, meaning that the idea was never even founded in the first place. That proves the topic wrong."

Con thinks that a coherent idea of God undermines the concept of hearsay, and it does not. hearsay applies in all situations where the proof is nonexistent empirically and only exists in rumor thus ideas being coherent or incoherent is still hearsay without proper evidence.

"If it were founded, then dissemination must occur after the idea was created, or that it was not hearsay of God itself, or in other words hearsay was never a part in the foundation of the idea of God."

hearsay does not require to be part of a foundation of the idea god. you must simply fail to prove exists outside of the idea for hearsay to applie

Hearsay cannot be a part of the foundation of the idea of "God".

Hearsay applies in all situations where your foundation of evidence lacks empirical prove.

God is not a "fictional character"

Con has not established this, only that some religions dont view god as a person which is irrlevent

Pro thinks that the idea of "God" may have never been found in the first place, in the end proving the topic wrong instead of right.

Never claimed the "idea" of god was never found. only that its based on fictional characterizations as well as superstitious hersay.

Overall Vote CON!

thats not a conclusion thats a statement.

Overall Cons argument is that God is not a fictional character simply because they assume hearsay requires an idea to be cohernt and that god is not a fictional character because they belive god isnt a person and there for cant be called as such. both arguments are false because anything mentioned or trated as an indidvual in a book is a character and since we cant vaildate the bible to be true its fair to call it fictional and thus gods a fictional character as result. And hearsay as ive said before applies anywhere evidnced for something lacks anything factaul and is based on a rumor which a thought, idea, or opinion alll fall under that category cohernt or not.

Intelligence_06

09.02.2022 08:02AM

Con

Rebuttals

the Con is claiming that God is really simply because we have a foundation understanding on what god is in theory and that analyzing phenomena will conclude that God is real. This can be rebutted for two reasons.

I did not conclude that God is "real" materially, but yes, it is "real" as an idea. The idea of Superman or Luke Skywalker is known to enough people so that the character of the "idea" of such a person is fleshed out that they are coherent ideas. Superman is real as an idea and not materially. So is God as an idea, and what I am trying to prove that dissemination or hearsay take place either before or after the idea of God is founded, while not taking part in the foundation of the idea itself. If God is "not real", then Pro would fulfill not his BoP due to that nothing can be founded if it does not exist. if Pro is really saying this, that means a concession.

Keep in mind, that Pro did not use any adjectives when describing what "exist" he is talking about in the description or in the rounds, so the scope of what can be referred to as "existent" would be indefinite. In this case, God obviously exists, as an idea, and its foundation is not built in any part on hearsay.

The con is arguing from an appeal to the majority stance, this does not prove God at all because understanding the concept of something will not make said concept true. By that logic superman would be real because enough people understand the idea of him enough to not make him fictional. so yes ot remins a rumor and thus hearsay until Proven otherwise.

No, by that logic it means that the idea of Superman is founded, and to use Superman as an example, the idea of what Superman is was founded solely by DC comics before it is disclosed to the public, meaning that Superman already exists as an idea before the hearsay stage.

For God, it is the same thing. One first thinks out loud what God is and what God can do, fully determining a set of abilities included by God before spreading the word about God to the people by hearsay. If what God is was still unknown right as they spread any word to anybody around, then what they have disseminated was not the idea of God, as the idea has not yet founded.

. The cons argument lacks logic, if something cannot be empirically proven and is based only on the accounts of people or in the Cons case "idea" is by definition a rumor and otherwise known as hearsay. an "idea" alone does not validate an existence.

Except, God is an idea, just like Superman or going more abstract, for example, nihilism. You cannot visualize what nihilism is, can you? You can't bring nihilism into the real world, can you? Despite that, Nihilism persists to exist as an idea, as a set of facts/statements.

Superman can also be described as a set of facts/statements, for example:

Kryptonite affects Superman.
Superman wears a blue-red suit with a cape.
Superman posesses superhuman strength.
etc.

In other words, Superman is as existent as an idea as nihilism as an idea. Superman, unlike nihilism, includes the entirety of statements or presets that when pieced together creates what is similar to an organism, a person, a "character". In fact, all characters in fiction are ideas, that can be described by a collection of statements. That is what God is, a character-esque idea.

And yes, an idea exists when a set of statements are put together. For example, I can just create idea X:

idea X is red.
idea X can move at a constant speed of 114514m/h in a straight line.
idea X is somewhat resistant to ammunition from pistols.

And there we go, idea X exists and we know what idea X is: Something red, that moves fast, and that is durable. Obviously, we can say that idea X can refer to a battalion chief fire truck, but idea X is not exactly a fire truck, as I have yet to say that whether idea X has any wheels or is drivable by humans or not. That is what happens before the complete foundation of God as an idea: Another idea was disseminated but that idea was not exactly God, the same way that I am not really telling people that there is a fire truck waiting outside when I tell them "idea X" is outside.

I am not going to specify what set of statements make up what God is as an idea, those are in the Bible, or other holy texts like Quran. But yes, God is an idea and by thinking it through what "God" really is and assigning attributes and characteristics to "God" so it is distinguishable from any other idea, the idea of God exists. By Pro's definition, of course it does.

If Nihilism exists or Christianity exists(Christianity is also an abstract idea, and no, it is not any given cross, church, bishop or artifact), God exists, as an idea.

God is a character in the bible. anything be it human, demon warlock you name it. Anything in a book that is given a name, individuality or credit actions in any book fictional or otherwise is a character. Therefore, God is a character by definition and to deny that is uneducated.

First, God is not a character in "The Bible" as God also appears in, for example, Judaism and Islam, and according to Islam, God is not considered a person nor an attribute. Therefore, in consideration of all considerations of what God is, God is not necessarily a person, and not absolutely a character.

Pro's definition of what "character" is is unsourced and Pro did not verify himself to be more authentic than dictionaries. Point dismissed.

They don't have to be specifically a drama or novel you only need to deny or question its validity and thus can call it a fictional book and subsequently every character in it would be a work of fiction including god

Failure to source definitions, and failure of proof for that the Bible(or any holy text) is indeed a novel(series?) or drama. Point dropped.

Con thinks that a coherent idea of God undermines the concept of hearsay, and it does not. hearsay applies in all situations where the proof is nonexistent empirically and only exists in rumor thus ideas being coherent or incoherent is still hearsay without proper evidence.

Once again, what I am trying to say is that hearsay either appears before the idea of God is fleshed out enough to be its own idea or after, and neither counts. Dissemination only spreads one idea, and does not build upon it. The physical nonexistence of God does not undermine God existing as an idea as the abstractness of nihilism(and thus the inability of bringing it into material) does not render it nonexistent.

God is not a "fictional character"
Con has not established this, only that some religions dont view god as a person which is irrlevent

Pro has proven not any holy text satisfies the definition of "fiction".

Conclusion

Pro has not established what kind of "existence" he meant, so existence as an idea obviously should count.
God, like Superman or nihilism or idea X, can be assigned statements, facts, attributes, aspects, etc. so that a collected set can be brought together to make up an idea. Superman's set makes him an above-average heroic person, and God's set makes God... yeah, something. As long as a collection of statements exists and can be referenced by "term X", for example, then "term X" exists as an idea as it refers to an existing collection of statements that makes up an idea, making its existence.

Therefore, God exists as an idea.
Dissemination only spreads one idea, and does not build upon it. Occurance before the finish of the foundation of "God" makes the hearsay an idea that isn't "God" and occurance after the foundation makes it not a step in the foundation at all.
Therefore, God exists as an idea, and its foundation was not built on hearsay at all as it is impossible.

Pro has not proven that God is a person in all cases(making in definition that God is not actually a character).
Pro has not proven that the Bible or any holy text ever satisfy the classification of fiction(making in definition that God actually does not appear in fiction).
Pro's case is dismantled by Con. Vote Con!

K_Michael

09.15.2022 07:43PM

-->

@Americandebater24

Would you be interested in debating this again with me?

K_Michael

09.15.2022 05:06PM

I will be writing a vote for this soon. I have class in ten minutes so expect the vote in 2-4 hours.

Intelligence_06

09.15.2022 08:12AM

1 day left.

Intelligence_06

09.12.2022 11:27PM

3 days, please someone vote.

Intelligence_06

09.08.2022 01:27PM

7 days left. Votes anyone?

TWS1405

09.04.2022 11:08PM

There are far too many religious beliefs across the planet, and most if not, all share a similar core basis of its existence and extended storylines. That, to me, says aliens were involved in the development of humankind on this planet. Especially when you look at the Olmecs, Easter Island, Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, et al.

FLRW

09.04.2022 08:41PM

Would the Christian Bible be considered hearsay evidence?

Just hearsay, because it isn't evidence for anything other than Bronze Age Hebrew goat herders were superstitious, barbarous slave owners and slave traders

K_Michael

09.15.2022 11:13PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con has BoP in this debate, so I will primarily be weighing his arguments vs. Pro's counterarguments. As a result, Pro's R1 arguments have little bearing on the rest of the debate, though I will note that Pro's argument for God being fictional in R1 is fairly sound, it doesn't directly address the contentions that the debate rests on.

Arguments:
R1
Con opens R1 by pointing out that by disproving either that 1. god was founded on hearsay or 2. that god is a fictional character, Con will have upheld his BoP. This point is never contested by Pro, so I will be rating arguments in these two categories.
1. "founded on hearsay"
Con's main arguments around this are that because the idea of God was coherent before it was spread around, it wasn't FOUNDED in hearsay.
2. "fictional character"
Con contends that based on the definition of "character," god wouldn't qualify, therefore disproving the claim "god is a fictional character." The reasons he doesn't fit the definition are as follows, first, the Bible or other religious works referencing God don't qualify as a "drama or novel", second, God is not a "person" and therefore cannot be a character.
Rebuttals

R2
Pro
Pro counters Con's first argument with the points that it was A. still spread by hearsay, and B. the "idea of God" is distinct from "God" itself. For the second argument, Pro argues that because the Bible cannot be verified, it should be considered fictional, and that the idea that God is not a person is "irrlevent" to whether he meets the definition of character.
Con
Hearsay arguments
Con argues that God being real as a concept or idea disproves Pro's title claim, and compares it to Superman being real as a concept. Furthering the analogy, he argues that Superman ISN'T founded in hearsay because he was a concept developed by DC Comics before the public even knew about him in order to spread hearsay and rumors, which is no different from God existing as a concept before it was "disseminated," which, as he had already argued in R1, means that "God" was not FOUNDED in hearsay.
Con also criticizes the argument that the idea of "God" being separate from "God" by comparing it to other abstract concepts like "nihilism," and can similarly exist as a pure concept or idea.
Fictional Character Arguments
Con starts by criticizing Pro's definition of "character," pointing out that it is uncited, and likely made up by Pro himself. He dismisses this definition and continues to insist that by the official definition, a character must be a person, which, since Pro never argued that "God" must be a person, disproves the character portion of the title claim.
Ignored argument: Con fails to address the Pro's definition/argument of fiction as "Neither the bible nor any "Holy text" can be validated or proven true. Therefore, everything in it is only true if you believe which makes it subjective and thus can be described as fictional book"

Conclusion:
The distinction of being FOUNDED in hearsay and being DISSEMINATED via hearsay is fair and was not refuted.
The definition of character as given by Con was not properly contended, nor did the title claim meet said definition.
The definition of fiction was refuted, and then ignored by Con.
The distinction between the "idea of God" and ""God" existing were proven to be semantics at best by Con.
Overall, points to Con

Sources: Con provided definition sources in the form of Merriam-Webster, a reputable dictionary source. Pro links the Wikipedia articles to the Old and New Testaments, but fails to actually cite them. You can link as many sources as you want, but if they aren't actually used in the argument, they count for nothing.
Points to Con.

Legibility: There were a few mistakes on both, but nothing egregious and meaning was clear throughout.
Points Tied.

Nothing of note for Conduct
Points Tied.