The Instigator
Grayneer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WileyC1949
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

God, heaven, and hell only exist metaphysically, not physically. Therefore, are only ideas.

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 1 vote the winner is...
WileyC1949
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 58669
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Grayneer

Pro

Round 1- Acceptance, then so on.
WileyC1949

Con

Finally got it..... I accept your challenge.... This is my first, so pardon if I commit debating faux pas.
Debate Round No. 1
Grayneer

Pro

Alright, I'd like to thank con for accepting my debate. Welcome to DDO!

Before my beginning argument, I feel it is important to talk about the study of metaphysics. The prefix "Meta", meaning "beyond" and the word "Physical", meaning "That which is material". Metaphysics is a fundamental branch of philosophy that looks at the nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Thing's like ideas, opinions, and thought are all considered to metaphysical.

So, my beginning argument is rather practical. Neither myself or con can determine the physical existence of god, heaven, or hell. Therefore they remain as ideas and exist metaphysically, not physically.
WileyC1949

Con

"Physical" is something that can bee seen and touched. Certainly neither God nor heaven are "physical", at least in any sense we know. But first off how do you know that the physical actually exists at all? Edgar Allan Poe wrote: "All that we see or seem is but a dream withing a dream." While I certainly do not consider him an expert in the field I do not rule out that what he said is true. Science tells us that there is nothing "physical" about the atoms which make up everything. When magnified to its maximum the only thing that makes up a nucleus of an atom is a tiny ribbon of energy.

Likewise your argument ignores the fact that certain things certainly DO exist that are far more than "ideas". I would place God in that category. But in it also are love, hate and a host of other things that transcend mere "emotional" response and can exist in reality. True love, not just the hormonal sense of attraction, undoubtedly does exist but is neither "physical" nor merely an "idea". If that is true of love why can it not be true also of God?

You also overlook the possibility of the what we call "real" may not be the only thing that is "real". Scientists are in general agreement that there is the possibility of there being more dimensions than our 4. The acknowledge that there could be 11 or even more dimensions and each of those dimensions could have their own universe of which ours is only a tiny part just as a stick-man's two dimensional universe of the surface of the paper he is drawn on is a tiny part of ours. It opens the question as to whether or not God is in fact a multidimensional being. This is something which could only be caused "supernatural".

Many scientists, even agnostics and atheists, have acknowledged the possibility of the "supernatural" and that an "intelligence" was behind the existence of our universe and ourselves. Atheist Stephen Hawking said: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ". The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Agnostic astrophysicist and NASA scientist Robert Jastrow said: "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

More recently, two papers published last year also seem to indicate that. The first was in March in the premier scientific journal "Icarus" which essentially said that an intelligence WAS responsible for the programming of our DNA. http://www.evolutionnews.org... (note: while the link is to a source that certainly could be called "biased", the journal where it appeared certainly is not. Here is an abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com... ). What that says about evolution I will leave, but it is obviously profound. But the fact is that it leaves us with only two logical choices: either the programming was done by an alien life form from within our universe or that it was a supernatural intelligence.

The second paper was published in May as a result of a three year study in 20 countries done by Oxford University. It found that human beings are PREdisposed to believe in God and in an afterlife. http://www.ox.ac.uk... History and Archeology have proved that every culture everywhere no matter how primitive or isoloated have sought God in their own way. This has been shown to be true even of proto-humans. The fact that this was true from the beginning of mankind indicates that it is not a "learned behavior" for survival, but rather programmed into our DNA. As a result when you link this with the previous study of the two possible choices, an alien or supernatural intelligence, the one that seems most likely is the supernatural, for why would an alien culture program us to believe in God?
Debate Round No. 2
Grayneer

Pro

Rebuttals.

"Rational" metaphysics, I'll get to that.

"Physical" is something that can bee seen and touched. Certainly neither God nor heaven are "physical", at least in any sense we know. But first off how do you know that the physical actually exists at all? Edgar Allan Poe wrote: "All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream." While I certainly do not consider him an expert in the field I do not rule out that what he said is true. Science tells us that there is nothing "physical" about the atoms which make up everything. When magnified to its maximum the only thing that makes up a nucleus of an atom is a tiny ribbon of energy.

This is a good point. You seem to be asking,"How can we even perceive reality?" To answer this question, I feel that it is fundamental to understand how we perceive existence. Descartes famously said "Cogito ergo sum", or "I think, therefore I am."(http://en.wikipedia.org...) He proved this with an example. Let's imagine that there is an invisible evil genius is filling our minds with incorrect idea's to keep us for understanding the truth. It's childish, but can you prove it's not true? Descartes figured out that If the evil genius was fooling him, he'd have to exist in order for him to do just that. If we doubt our own existence, we must exist in order to doubt it.

So now that we know about existence, lets talk about reality. Or more importantly, rationality. The reason I try to stay away from rational metaphysics is because it is simply flawed at times. If I think rationally about Descartes' s findings I would ask myself, "Could his findings just be another incorrect idea of the evil genius?" We can answer this, not with rationality, but with subjectivity. This is the point where faith and emotion must come into play, because there is no factual evidence or something that is observed to support the existence of god. Therefore, you cannot prove it rationally. I'm pretty sure there was even experiments done that proved quantum mechanics. But not god.

It's nearly instinctive for humans to decide subjectively when they don't know. This is the case of reality. I am here. I am typing. I am looking at the computer screen. These are all subjective statements. By acting on these subjective thoughts, I give them validity, therefore meaning to me and my life. One could even argue that the past doesn't exist.


Likewise your argument ignores the fact that certain things certainly DO exist that are far more than "ideas". I would place God in that category. But in it also are love, hate and a host of other things that transcend mere "emotional" response and can exist in reality. True love, not just the hormonal sense of attraction, undoubtedly does exist but is neither "physical" nor merely an "idea". If that is true of love why can it not be true also of God?

These could all be considered ideas."I love you." "I hate you." Theoretically, you're proposing an subjective idea about how you feel about somebody. I understand what you're saying, but you're still proposing ideas. Even with love, there is something being observed, so it can be ruled out rationally. Plus I found this article about how true love was observed as a chemical reaction (http://jezebel.com...) God is essentially just an idea that more than 1 person believes in. This makes it a subjectively stronger idea, yet an idea nonetheless.

Many scientists, even agnostics and atheists, have acknowledged the possibility of the "supernatural" and that an "intelligence" was behind the existence of our universe and ourselves. Atheist Stephen Hawking said: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ". The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Agnostic astrophysicist and NASA scientist Robert Jastrow said: "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proved, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

More recently, two papers published last year also seem to indicate that. The first was in March in the premier scientific journal "Icarus" which essentially said that an intelligence WAS responsible for the programming of our DNA.http://www.evolutionnews.org...... (note: while the link is to a source that certainly could be called "biased", the journal where it appeared certainly is not. Here is an abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com...... ). What that says about evolution I will leave, but it is obviously profound. But the fact is that it leaves us with only two logical choices: either the programming was done by an alien life form from within our universe or that it was a supernatural intelligence.

The second paper was published in May as a result of a three year study in 20 countries done by Oxford University. It found that human beings are PREdisposed to believe in God and in an afterlife. http://www.ox.ac.uk...... History and Archeology have proved that every culture everywhere no matter how primitive or isolated have sought God in their own way. This has been shown to be true even of proto-humans. The fact that this was true from the beginning of mankind indicates that it is not a "learned behavior" for survival, but rather programmed into our DNA. As a result when you link this with the previous study of the two possible choices, an alien or supernatural intelligence, the one that seems most likely is the supernatural, for why would an alien culture program us to believe in God?

All of these articles provide solid findings. But I can choose to disbelieve in them subjectively. I haven't seen the real proof with my own eyes, therefore it may not exist. Overall, I do not believe that this is a debate about evolution or science. The debate is rooted in religion and philosophy. Plus I could think of a BILLION ways for aliens to program us to believe in god.

Finally, absolutely everything can be considered an idea.


I apologize if my grammar or spelling is rough, it's 3 am here.
WileyC1949

Con

I feel that it is fundamental to understand how we perceive existence. Descartes famously said "Cogito ergo sum", or "I think, therefore I am."(http://en.wikipedia.org......) He proved this with an example. Let's imagine that there is an invisible evil genius is filling our minds with incorrect idea's to keep us for understanding the truth. It's childish, but can you prove it's not true? Descartes figured out that If the evil genius was fooling him, he'd have to exist in order for him to do just that. If we doubt our own existence, we must exist in order to doubt it.

You are correct about Descartes and his famous "Cogito". His Cogito does logically proof the individual's existence. However you overlook the fact that the Cogito does not "prove" we exist as physical beings nor does it prove that other intelligences exist. They could all be a dream. This was pointed out by subsequent philosopher whose name it seems everyone has forgotten, with his "side-bar" to the Cogito saying "I dream therefore I exist." You seem to overlook the fact that both of these philosophers are agreeing with my side of the debate rather than yours. Both speculate out that a being can exist as an "intelligence" or as a "dream" without having physical form at all and yet be more than just an idea.

The reason I try to stay away from rational metaphysics is because it is simply flawed at times. If I think rationally about Descartes' s findings I would ask myself, "Could his findings just be another incorrect idea of the evil genius?" We can answer this, not with rationality, but with subjectivity. This is the point where faith and emotion must come into play, because there is no factual evidence or something that is observed to support the existence of god. Therefore, you cannot prove it rationally. I'm pretty sure there was even experiments done that proved quantum mechanics. But not god.

It's nearly instinctive for humans to decide subjectively when they don't know. This is the case of reality. I am here. I am typing. I am looking at the computer screen. These are all subjective statements. By acting on these subjective thoughts, I give them validity, therefore meaning to me and my life. One could even argue that the past doesn't exist.

You are correct as well in pointing out the flaw in deductive reasoning, just as whoever the philospher was pointed out the error in the Cogito. However the very point of the Cogito was the fact thay you cannot prove that you are typing an looking at a computer screen. You cannot even prove your existence to me as I may be having a dream that I am debating with you. You can only prove you exist as an intelligence to yourself. Nothing more. Descartes went on to bring God existence into thie issue because the fact that God would not deceive us was the only way he could accept the physical reality. I want to point out that virtually every invention of man was as a result of deductive reasoning. To rule out rational metaphysics and that truth can be discovered by reason is to rule out all deductive reasoning and philosophy as well.

These could all be considered ideas."I love you." "I hate you." Theoretically, you're proposing an subjective idea about how you feel about somebody. I understand what you're saying, but you're still proposing ideas. Even with love, there is something being observed, so it can be ruled out rationally. Plus I found this article about how true love was observed as a chemical reaction (http://jezebel.com......) God is essentially just an idea that more than 1 person believes in. This makes it a subjectively stronger idea, yet an idea nonetheless.

You miss my point concerning love and hate. As I pointed out I am not talking about an emotion or saying "I love/hate you." Nor am I talkig about the chemical reactions in our bodies that produce hormonal attraction. And please note that your link is mere fluffy hearsay because it contains no link to the supposed actual research of the supposed "scientists". Even the article credited to an on-line writer ("according to..."). To say that to show pictures and obtain a chemical reaction does not therefore define true love as a chemical reaction. There is a love that goes far, far deeper. An abiding presence. A love of God, a love of mankind... not just a desire to help those less fortunate but seeing everyone as a true brother or sister. True love exists, but it is not found in any chemicals.

All of these articles provide solid findings. But I can choose to disbelieve in them subjectively. I haven't seen the real proof with my own eyes, therefore it may not exist. Overall, I do not believe that this is a debate about evolution or science. The debate is rooted in religion and philosophy. Plus I could think of a BILLION ways for aliens to program us to believe in god.

Finally, absolutely everything can be considered an idea.

I think you nailed your coffin tight with the remark "I can choose to disbelieve in them subjectively". Is reality up to what you say reality is? Can there exist a difinitive truth even though you or I do not know what that truth is? As I have pointed out things can be deduced by rational thought. The fact that we have an "idea" in no way shape or form means that our idea exists ONLY as an idea. Logic takes us from the known to the unknown. It is this very idea that scientists have been able to seriously speculate about other dimensions even there is no way of possibly proving it.

And yes, you are correct in pointing out that an alien life form could have programmed us to believe in God. The question is that if they did not believe in God themselves why would they do that? I can understand if they had programmed us to be peaceful to THEM. But if they themselves had no notion of God why would they program others to believe in Him? Sorry, but I do not see the sense in that.

Finally as I pointed out that because you or have an idea certainly does not make that idea correct. Nor does it make it incorrect. What we think exists may in fact exist in reality, even if not physically. If as those scientists and other have said that the "supernatural" does exist then all they have done is increased the liklihood of God existing supernaturally.
Debate Round No. 3
Grayneer

Pro

You are correct about Descartes and his famous "Cogito". His Cogito does logically proof the individuals existence. However you overlook the fact that the Cogito does not "prove" we exist as physical beings nor does it prove that other intelligences exist. They could all be a dream. This was pointed out by subsequent philosopher whose name it seems everyone has forgotten, with his "side-bar" to the Cogito saying "I dream therefore I exist." You seem to overlook the fact that both of these philosophers are agreeing with my side of the debate rather than yours. Both speculate out that a being can exist as an "intelligence" or as a "dream" without having physical form at all and yet be more than just an idea.

You are correct as well in pointing out the flaw in deductive reasoning, just as whoever the philosopher was pointed out the error in the Cogito. However the very point of the Cogito was the fact they you cannot prove that you are typing an looking at a computer screen. You cannot even prove your existence to me as I may be having a dream that I am debating with you. You can only prove you exist as an intelligence to yourself. Nothing more. Descartes went on to bring God existence into the issue because the fact that God would not deceive us was the only way he could accept the physical reality. I want to point out that virtually every invention of man was as a result of deductive reasoning. To rule out rational metaphysics and that truth can be discovered by reason is to rule out all deductive reasoning and philosophy as well.

You are still overlooking everything I said about subjectivity.
Yes! What if we cant prove this, what if we cant prove that. That's when we must act on impassion and emotion to answer the question. I believe we are using subjectivity to give us the validity that you are there, we are debating etc. If we cannot prove anything, we must be subjective about it. I'm not saying I do not believe in intelligent design, I'm saying I do not believe in intelligent design by god because both you and I know all the inconsistencies that have been covered in every other god debate.

However the very point of the Cogito was the fact thay you cannot prove that you are typing an looking at a computer screen. You cannot even prove your existence to me as I may be having a dream that I am debating with you. You can only prove you exist as an intelligence to yourself. Nothing more.

This is a very important point. But if I don't exist, why or how are you debating me? The thing is you're still debating me, therefore I still retain value in your mind, so I exist as a subjective idea. I've come to the realization the true meaning of this debate is not regarding metaphysics. It simply comes down to this: We cannot prove god rationally, because god has no OBJECTIVITY. The truth about god can only be answered with SUBJECTIVITY. EVERTHING IS SUBJECTIVE.

You miss my point concerning love and hate. As I pointed out I am not talking about an emotion or saying "I love/hate you." Nor am I talking about the chemical reactions in our bodies that produce hormonal attraction. And please note that your link is mere fluffy hearsay because it contains no link to the supposed actual research of the supposed "scientists". Even the article credited to an on-line writer ("according to..."). To say that to show pictures and obtain a chemical reaction does not therefore definetrue love as a chemical reaction. There is a love that goes far, far deeper. An abiding presence. A love of God, a love of mankind... not just a desire to help those less fortunate but seeing everyone as a true brother or sister. True love exists, but it is not found in any chemicals.

I admit that article was pretty bad. But this whole paragraph shows a lot of unneeded humanism. Let me ask you a question, "Why should we love mankind if this may all be a dream and they mean nothing?" You're just contradicting yourself. This "deep" love you speak of, I've never felt it, so how does it exist? The evidence you are simply providing only affects you and not me. It's like when somebody says " Oh yes, I always feel that god is with me everywhere I go."
That's you, not me.


I think you nailed your coffin tight with the remark "I can choose to disbelieve in them subjectively". Is reality up to what you say reality is? Can there exist a definitive truth even though you or I do not know what that truth is?

TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE,
which makes it definitive to you or I. You cannot determine if my definition of reality is reality, so you are forced to draw conclusions SUBJECTIVELY.

As I have pointed out things can be deduced by rational thought.

Yes, this is partly true. I'm not saying that rationality cannot deduce anything, this would be absurd. But Rationality is limited when it comes to the god debate, due to the fact that there is no objectivity. What I'm saying is Science and rationality have no consideration for ultimate purposes. Nietzsche said this in "Human, All Too Human."

The fact that we have an "idea" in no way shape or form means that our idea exists ONLY as an idea. Logic takes us from the known to the unknown. It is this very idea that scientists have been able to seriously speculate about other dimensions even there is no way of possibly proving it.

Very good point. Every invention does start as an idea does it not? The inventors want this idea to exist, so they make it exist. THIS IS SUBJECTIVE, and the same could be said about god. Again, god can be proved subjectively, not rationally.

I can understand if they had programmed us to be peaceful to THEM.

I agree with this.

But if they themselves had no notion of God why would they program others to believe in Him? Sorry, but I do not see the sense in that.

As you said before the possibilities are endless. I personally think they would do it for the sake of maintaining a basic sense of control and organization.

Finally as I pointed out that because you or have an idea certainly does not make that idea correct. Nor does it make it incorrect. What we think exists may in fact exist in reality, even if not physically.

FOR THE 40TH TIME, THIS MUST FORCE US TO THINK SUBJECTIVELY.

If as those scientists and other have said that the "supernatural" does exist then all they have done is increased the likelihood of God existing supernaturally.

Like you said in the previous sentence, ideas could be incorrect. The real truth is subjective, not objective.





WileyC1949

Con

You are still overlooking everything I said about subjectivity. Yes! What if we cant prove this, what if we cant prove that. That's when we must act on impassion and emotion to answer the question. I believe we are using subjectivity to give us the validity that you are there, we are debating etc. If we cannot prove anything, we must be subjective about it. I'm not saying I do not believe in intelligent design, I'm saying I do not believe in intelligent design by god because both you and I know all the inconsistencies that have been covered in every other god ebate.

No. I did not overlook what you said about subjectivity. I stated clearly that I totally disagree with what you said. Certainly I can point to things in my life which have completely convinced me that God does exist. But those things were subjective. While they offered undeniable proof to me they would in no way shape or form would be proof to you. I totally disagree that if we cannot answer the question "we must act on impassion (sic) and emotion" to answer it. That completely rules out logic and reasoning. As I pointed out that just because something does not exist physically, and no one can point to it, does not mean it cannot exist except as an idea. Many atheists are fond of bringing up unicorns and comparing them to God. Unicorns are, of course, physical beings rather than the supernatural being that people believe God to be. To be called a "unicorn" they must have the physical characteristics of a unicorn. If it had the horn AND wings it would not be a unicorn. But even there there is no way of saying for certain that unicorns have not existed here in the past, that they may well exist here and now hidden in a lost valley, or they exist in abundance on another planet. You are saying that the fact that something cannot be proved to physically exist means that it only exists as an idea. As I pointed out this is completely incorrect as something can exist without me knowing about it... such as the unicorn on a different planet. The exact same holds true for God.

Your point about inconsistencies should be totally ignored by judges as you are bringing them up in the fourth round rather than the second. And no, I do not know what you are talking about when you refer to them. You likewise present them as an established fact ("because you and I both know...") without any evidence. That would be a different debate.

But if I don't exist, why or how are you debating me? The thing is you're still debating me, therefore I still retain value in your mind, so I exist as a subjective idea. I've come to the realization the true meaning of this debate is not regarding metaphysics. It simply comes down to this: We cannot prove god rationally, because god has no OBJECTIVITY. The truth about god can only be answered with SUBJECTIVITY. EVERTHING IS SUBJECTIVE.e

I disagree. The only way that God can be proved IS rationally because as you said He has no objectivity. The contradictory statement made by so many atheists is that they want physical "proof" of a non-physical being. Sorry, but that is illogical. But as I said the fact that His existence cannot be proved does not mean He cannot exist or exists only as an idea. The fact is that you cannot prove to me that you are actually debating me or that you exist. You could very well be a dream, and when I wake up I will see reality for what it is. In my mind anyone who has watched the movie "Matrix" should understand that possibility.
Deductive reasoning is the path to truth when subjective reality leave us hanging.

Let me ask you a question, "Why should we love mankind if this may all be a dream and they mean nothing?" You're just contradicting yourself. This "deep" love you speak of, I've never felt it, so how does it exist? The evidence you are simply providing only affects you and not me. It's like when somebody says " Oh yes, I always feel that god is with me everywhere I go."
That's you, not me.

You are getting into the whole purpose issue which, trust me, you don't want to approach right now... if you think I am long-winded now wait until you see me on that subject. Suffice it to say that I fully believe that life does have a profound meaning and purpose, but that meaning and purpose are non-existent without God. And yes, that is subjective.

You said: "This "deep" love you speak of, I've never felt it, so how does it exist?". You are still arguing that the only reality is what you have experienced. It is as if you are trapped in your inexperienced 16 year old body. You do not see what is real beyond your own senses. But the fatal flaw you are making is that reality exists whether you are aware of it or not. I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing, I am not trying to be, but you are 16, I am 65. Which of the two of us do you think has had more life experiences? The point I am trying to make is that because you have not had an experience so far does not mean you will not in the future. A typical sixteen year old is often too wrapped up in his/her own life to be concerned about the lives of others. Often they may feel sad for a moment about the starving kids in Africa, but they will not let that affect their going to the mall with their friends. But guess what? That could very well change as they gain more maturity. Eventually they do see the big picture. My first encounter with this love was when I was a 19 year old atheist taking a rest while mowing the lawn, and looking at a blade of grass idlely. I cannot explain it but I was simply completely overwhelmed looking at its order and symmetry, an order that I then sensed all around me, and then felt His complete overwhelming presence. When I read your question the first thing that popped into my mind was a lyric from a John Denver song ("Spring"?)... "A part of everything is here in me." Probably not your style but you should listen to it: . When you can quiet yourself and then open your mind to realize that you are one with every living thing, every person, whether they be of this world or not you will sense the oneness which is He. And yes that will be a completely subjective experience, but universally true nonetheless. So yes, it could very well be that one could "feel that God is with me everywhere I go." I cannot help but feel that now.

TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE, which makes it definitive to you or I. You cannot determine if my definition of reality is reality, so you are forced to draw conclusions SUBJECTIVELY.

Absolutely not. We may not know the truth and we may have completely different ideas of what the truth is. But no matter what I think the truth is does not change what the truth actually is, and with most things there can be only ONE truth.

I'm not saying that rationality cannot deduce anything, this would be absurd. But Rationality is limited when it comes to the god debate, due to the fact that there is no objectivity. What I'm saying is Science and rationality have no consideration for ultimate purposes. Nietzsche said this in "Human, All Too Human."

I would agree that that science has no consideration for ultimate purposes but that simply means that it is limited. Science is the study of the physical universe. It cannot hope to discover what lies beyond. It can point to the possibility of other dimensions but it will never be able to describe them because they would fall into the category of supernatural rather than natural. Rationality however can take us anywhere we want to go. Deductive reasoning is what led me from the atheist looking at a blade of grass to a theist believing that God exists, to a deist believing that God was in some way responsible for creation, to a non-denominational Christian seeing the truth in Christ message but not being a part of any church, to Roman Catholic where I see the greatest amount of what to me rings true. My beliefs are certainly subjective. But that does not change the fact that there is a REAL truth that does exist and is not an idea.

Very good point. Every invention does start as an idea does it not? The inventors want this idea to exist, so they make it exist. THIS IS SUBJECTIVE, and the same could be said about god. Again, god can be proved subjectively, not rationally.

I would like to point out that "proof of God" was not the issue of the debate. It was whether or not something non-physical can exist as more than a mere idea. I think I have fully explained that it can. In as far as your inventor, once his invention exists it is no longer a mere idea; it has a reality of its own and is no longer subjective. If another inventor had created the exact same thing before he had his idea, his idea does not change the reality of the object existing already. You still seem to be missing my point that because someone has his/her own thoughts or ideas of what reality is does not change what reality actually is. God can exist no matter what you or I think about His reality. More and more evidence seems to be piling up that points to His existence. Just as with science just because no one has yet discovered the "missing link" does not necessarily prove evolution false. It simply means we can't yet see the big picture; we don't yet have the full truth. The exact same thing is true with God. The fact that we do not have all the pieces to the puzzle and cannot point to a completed picture does not mean He exists only as an idea.

Like you said in the previous sentence, ideas could be incorrect. The real truth is subjective, not objective.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. The real truth has nothing to do with what we imagine the truth to be. No matter what our ideas are the real truth exists despite them. God can exist as real no matter what I, you or anyone else thinks about it.

Thank you for this debate.... I enjoyed it thoroughly. Good luck to you in your life's search for answers.


Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Grayneer 3 years ago
Grayneer
Alright, so I just took the time to read those articles. I've surprisingly heard of "Wow!" signal before. However, I feel that it is more of a conspiracy of extra-terrestrials. Which I'm completely for if you compare the vast size of the universe. It's certainly plausible. Though the scientific discovery intelligent design clearly shows implications towards religion, the answer will always remain subjective to you or I.

With the final article, I do not think its holds any meat with the debate. Yeah, it's instinctive to believe in the afterlife because we cannot comprehend the actual afterlife. You are certainly right if you're implying that this was programmed into to our design, it's a fundamental base to the human condition. Overall, This just says that subjectivity can be better than rationality.
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
WileyC1949
In your question you did not distinguish between schools of metaphysical thinkers. It seems you wish to define "metaphysics" as "empirical metaphysics"... that knowledge of the world can only come from our senses. However "rational metaphysics" says the opposite... that the ultimate source of truth is not sensory but rather intuitive and deductive. When you think about it you will realize that empirical metaphysics can only teach us about the physical world. Rational metaphysics can take us to logical conclusions that are not necessarily bound to this world or this universe. It is this very reasoning that led to the supposition by scientists that there exists more than just our four dimensions. If in fact other dimensions of reality do exist they certainly could have a physical nature that could not be in any way defined by us because our entire knowledge is built around our 4 dimensions. I believe it was an MIT professor who demonstrated that with just one added dimension a basketball could be turned inside out without breaking its skin. If that "impossible" task can be done with 5 dimensions, what would an intelligent being of 11 dimensions be capable of?
Posted by Grayneer 3 years ago
Grayneer
I'm not saying they don't exist. They exist metaphysically. I'm only saying that they don't exist PHYSICALLY. Picture this, You have an imaginary 100$ in one hand and an actual 100$ in the other. Metaphysically, you have an imaginary 100$. But does it truly exist in reality? No
Posted by Grayneer 3 years ago
Grayneer
Actually, scratch what I just said. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove god. So in that sense god can only exists as an idea! I don't understand how this is illogical! I'm not saying that the question of god lacks truth, I'm saying that the idea of god lacks truth only because it is an only metaphysical idea. So theoretically, I'm saying that the ideas are physically nothing.
Posted by Grayneer 3 years ago
Grayneer
Yeah that's what I'm saying. I could of went farther with it, you're right. Yet there is no need.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 3 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
"Neither myself or con can determine the physical existence of god, heaven, or hell. Therefore they remain as ideas and exist metaphysically, not physically."

That's a concession followed by a non sequitur. If the question of God has no truth value, you don't conclude that they don't physically exist. Pro's burden is much further than that.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 3 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Actually it's not impossible for either side. All Con has to do to win is negate the resolution. Pro has the BOP, so all Con has to do is demonstrate that it's a possibility that there could be a God. Pro should've said something to the effect of "God probably does not exist" in which case the burden is shared between the two sides. Right now, it's a nearly impossible burden save for a concession by Con.
Posted by Grayneer 3 years ago
Grayneer
Well gee, thanks.
Posted by Mray56 3 years ago
Mray56
just another debate proving whether or not a god exists. No point. Its impossible for both sides.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mray56 3 years ago
Mray56
GrayneerWileyC1949Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. Hard to vote because you really can't provide real proof or evidence for both sides. Con presented strong arguments and Pros rebuttals were rather weak. Based on the title, subjectivity is not applicable in proving the resolution.