The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
belle
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

God and Unicorns Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
belle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,767 times Debate No: 14250
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

I as the Pro will argue that God and unicorns do exist.

My opponent as the Con will argue that God and unicorns do not exist.

Definitions

God = omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being

Unicorn= A unicorn (from Latin unus 'one' and cornu 'horn') is a mythological creature. Though the modern popular image of the unicorn is sometimes that of a horse differing only in the horn on its forehead, the traditional unicorn also has a billy-goat beard, a lion's tail, and cloven hooves—these distinguish it from a horse

Opening Argument........

Premise 1) Idea's exist.
Premise 2) God and Unicorns are idea's.
Conclusion: Therefore Gods and unicorns exist.

In support of Premise 1. "1) Idea's exist.". This can be proved true, on that basis that if idea's do not exist, then it would be impossible to have the idea that idea's don't exist.

In support of premise 2) God and Unicorns are idea's.". I doubt this premise will be challenged.

The conclusion 3) Therefore Gods and unicorns exist. necessarily follows from the premises.

I look forward to Cons response.
belle

Con

Hopefully this debate will be entertaining for the both of us.

As for my opponent's argument-

1) Ideas exist- yes they do. No argument here.
2) God and unicorns are ideas- no they're not. You specifically, and explicitly, defined them above, and the word "idea" is not present in either definition. The conclusion clearly does not follow.

Now, I will grant that according to your definition of God, he does exist ("necessary existence"), however, you have yet to provide any basis for the claim that unicorns exist. As you say, it is my burden to negate the claim "God and Unicorns exist". Logically speaking, the negation of that claim is that it is not the case that god exists, or (inclusive) it is not the case that unicorns exist. Given that, I concede the god portion of this debate from the definition alone, and await your proof that unicorns exist.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I will accept changing the definition of God by taking out "necessary existence". The definition of God now is....

God = omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, eternal, incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being.

Con says "1) Ideas exist- yes they do. No argument here" but then says " "idea" is not present in either definition", well you accept that idea's exist in any case here is a definition for it.....

Idea = 1.any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
2.a thought, conception, or notion:

There are really two argument and I will separate them.

Premise 1) Idea's exist.
Premise 2) Unicorns is an idea
Conclusion: Therefore unicorns exist.

Premise 1) Idea's exist.
Premise 2) God is an idea.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
belle

Con

I thank my opponent for modifying the definition of god in order to make this debate more balanced.

Because his two arguments are of the exact same logical form, I will deal only with the one regarding "god" in this round. However, it is understood that my analysis applies to both arguments equally by replacing the word "god" with unicorn and the definition of god with the definition of unicorn.

The question at issue is premise 2- "God is an idea". This is clearly false. As my opponent has defined God, he is a personal being with a number of attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

"Idea" is defined as:
(n) thought (the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

By substituting the definitions of the words for the words themselves, we find that premise two resolves to:

A personal being with such and such attributes (see the list provided by my opponent) is a thought.

Its clear that a personal being is not a thought, although one can think *about* a personal being.

The content of a thought (idea) is not itself an idea. Just because one can think about god, it does not follow that the concept of god is identical with the concept of idea. As their definitions show, they are quite different.

My opponent's argument fails.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their response.

I think I am safe in saying that Con agrees that idea and thought are the same. The reason I bring this up is because in Cons objection they interchange the words thought and idea.

Con says "The content of a thought (idea) is not itself an idea.
Hopefully you see the contradiction here. If the content of an idea is not itself an idea, then what is it ?
An idea has to be an idea
A thought has to be a thought

The law of identity states "In logic, the law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A. Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity. When discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology" http://en.wikipedia.org...

Con Says "Just because one can think about god, it does not follow that the concept of god is identical with the concept of idea"

Con here uses a different word for idea and thought when they say "concept"
As said before, the concept of God is a concept
the idea of God is an idea
The thoughts about God are thoughts.

Premise 1) Idea's exist.
Premise 2) God is an idea.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

I look forward to Cons response.
belle

Con

I'm not sure how else to demonstrate the fallacious nature of my opponent's claims. He hasn't rebutted my argument, but rather has simply repeated his argument again without making it any more sensible.

There is a very real different between the idea of an object and the object itself. An idea is in the mind, and thus physically instantiated only in the brain, as some pattern of neural activity. On the other hand, an object is instantiated in physical space, outside the skull of all individuals (unless the object in question is someone's brain :P). Existing in the mind, as an idea, is not the same as existing as an independent entity.

Let me try an example, using a different object, to see if i can make this more clear. In my mind, I hold the idea of 10 billion dollars. However, the mere fact of my thinking about them does not make the 10 billion dollars exist- if the idea were identical with the object, I would be rich! The fact that I am not rich is clear proof that a mere idea is not identical with the content of the idea, as I have stated.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for his response. Now Con makes a distinction between something existing in mind and something existing in physical reality when con says " Existing in the mind, as an idea, is not the same as existing as an independent entity."

Well guess what Con I agree with you.

Con Illustrates this point by saying "I hold the idea of 10 billion dollars. However, the mere fact of my thinking about them does not make the 10 billion dollars exist"

But what exactly is the argument here ? Once again I agree that the idea may not correspond to a physical reality. But here is the question, if an idea such as a unicorn, (readers I ask you to think of one now) does not correspond to a physical reality, does that mean the idea doesn't exist ? Of course the idea exists, it exists in the mind REGARDLESS of whether its corresponds to a physical reality.

Lets look at it again.... Con says "However, the mere fact of my thinking about them does not make the 10 billion dollars exist""

Yes, thinking about 10 billlion dollars creates the idea of 10 billion dollars. So yes you thinking about the idea creates the idea. The confusion here may lie that "exist" in this statement can apply to both an idea and a physical reality.

If Con says "However, the mere fact of my thinking about them does not make the 10 billion dollars exist In a physcial reality. Once again I agree.

But if Con says However, the mere fact of my thinking about them does not make the 10 billion dollars exist as an idea, clearly this is false. If you have an idea about a 10 billion dollar bill, then that idea exists.

Now it can seem to some people this is counter intuitive, but just think about it, even if the idea does not correspond to a physical reality, the idea is still there. For instance the number 2 can't possibly exist in the physical world cause a number has no physical properties. It has no weight, height, length, age, color etc, How much does the number 2 weight ? What color is it ? Where is it currently located ? So if the number 2 can't possible exist in the physical world, where does it exist ? It exists in mind/thought/concept etc

Now some people counter this, and say that well ideas don't exist at all, trouble is, you have to have the thought, that thoughts don't exist, you have to have the idea that idea's don't exist hence the contradiction.

Now an objection could be raised along the lines that, well idea's exist, but exist in some kind of non existent way. This is a contradiction of existence, either something exists or it doesn't.

Now that it is proven idea's/thoughts etc exist, and this can't be refuted, and that unicorns is an idea.

Premise 1) Idea's exist.
Premise 2) Unicorns is an idea
Conclusion: Therefore unicorns exist.

I thank Con for participating in this debate.
belle

Con

My opponent has conceded that the idea of a thing is not identical with that thing. Thus its clear that the fact that the *idea of* a thing exists is not sufficient grounds to claim that the thing *itself* exists. He writes:

"Yes, thinking about 10 billlion dollars creates the idea of 10 billion dollars. So yes you thinking about the idea creates the idea. The confusion here may lie that "exist" in this statement can apply to both an idea and a physical reality."

The idea of god existing is not the same as god actually existing because god and "the idea of god" are not identical entities, anymore than the idea of ten billions dollars and ten billion dollars are identical. Try buying a mansion with the idea of 10 billion dollars and tell me how it works out.

Its clear that no new arguments will be proffered. My opponent continually disregards the difference between a thing and the idea of that thing, even when affirming my argument that they are not the same in the case of the 10 billion dollars.

Pro has completely failed to provide any support for his assertions that god and unicorns exist. I have repeatedly shown that his argument to that end is nonsensical.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
How did one come to the conclusion that God and unicorns are of the same category?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
But thanks for the RFD, forgot about that :)
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Re read my argument, I deny that existence is the same as having to physically exist. I don't think you understand my argument cause you say "All you proved was that the idea of God and Unicorns exist"

But I also proved that idea's do exist (even absent any physical correlation. Existence is NOT just subject to the physical.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
RFD--
CONDUCT, SOURCES: Tied
ARGUMENTS: Con
Pro: All you proved was that the idea of God and Unicorns exist, which doesn't have to be proven, since it's common sense. If you'd been a devious, semantical bastard, you might have won this. However, as Con said, you pretty much just repeated yourself for 4 rounds. :/
SOURCES: Con
Pro: More punctuation please.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I've never seen blazingflame NOT votebomb.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
If the *idea* exists, it doesn't mean the actual object you envisioned exists. I have the idea to sell a tube of never ending toothpaste that has buttons to change the flavors. Ok?

If its so easy to refute, why not just accept the debate.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I deserve a good hiding, I want to be spanked,errrrrr philosophically speaking.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Pro, I think you might have set yourself up for a hiding here. Good luck.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
All you're basically saying is that the *idea* of God and the *idea* of unicorns exist. If the *idea* exists, it doesn't mean the actual object you envisioned exists. I have the idea to sell a tube of never ending toothpaste that has buttons to change the flavors. Ok? Does a never ending tube of toothpaste exist? Not quite.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
This is tempting.... >_<
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
IllegalcombatantbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
IllegalcombatantbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
IllegalcombatantbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
IllegalcombatantbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03