God is a fictional character founded on hearsay and supersition
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- 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
No information
God is a fictional character founded on hearsay and supersition
- 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
- "Rumor": talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
- MW Definition: one of the persons of a drama or novel
Yet Christians everywhere will affirm that God is a person, while the average Muslim will readily deny this.
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.
- 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!
"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."
- 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."
"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"
"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."
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."
"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."
- 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!
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.
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.
. 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.
- Kryptonite affects Superman.
- Superman wears a blue-red suit with a cape.
- Superman posesses superhuman strength.
- etc.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
- 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 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!
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.
Would you be interested in debating this again with me?
I will be writing a vote for this soon. I have class in ten minutes so expect the vote in 2-4 hours.
1 day left.
3 days, please someone vote.
7 days left. Votes anyone?
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.
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