The Instigator
Mhykiel
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
RowanM
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God is Imaginary

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Mhykiel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 55817
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)

 

Mhykiel

Con

God is a greater nonmaterial mind.

I think Atheist are illogical and purposefully deceptive when they claim, "Burden of proof is only on a positive claim, not on a negative claim"

Well "God is imaginary" is spouted off by Atheist Sheep just as often as God does not exist.

"God is imaginary" is a positive claim so now all you Atheist can present that burden of proof you have been holding on to.

RowanM

Pro

I'll keep this short and simple.

Something imaginary is something that only exists within the imagination. The imagination is "the ability to form new images and sensations that are not perceived through senses such as sight, hearing, or other senses." [wikipedia.org]

So that means something is imaginary when it exists outside of any perception. God has never been perceived by anybody, seeing as there's not evidence for its existence. So where does the image of God come from? Right, the bible. A book describing the God image. The whole concept of God is formed by the bible and not by perception.
Debate Round No. 1
Mhykiel

Con

I agree with the definition my opponent uses for for imaginary.

I'll summarize my opponent's argument as follows

1. God has never been perceived.
2. No evidence for God's existence
3. The image of God comes from the Bible, a book.
4. Concept of God is formed by Bible not perception.

5. ergo, therefore, God is imaginary.

Rebuttal to 1.

Let's address what perception is. Perception has 2 meanings in the dictionary.

1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
2. a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.

My opponent offers no prove that God has never been perceived. Absence of Evidence is not evidence. I directly reject this premise.

1. God is a non material mind.
2. Making the substance of God mind in nature.
2a. implied that out of all metaphysical worlds Dualism or Idealism is possible.
2b. Opposing views lack similar explanatory value. (ie. Schrodinger's cat, Regression of reality to none material things.)
2c. Dualism or Idealism is this world.
3. It is congruent with this world that God be felt, or sensed through a mental nature.
4. God has been perceived. (mental impression)

I for one, have a mental impression of God. At Christian Testimonies [1], People of the Book (Islam) [2], and other such sites show that other people have mental impressions of God as well. These testimonies are not appeals to authority or population. I make no assertion to the validity of each of these peoples perception. I make no claim that these peoples perceptions of God mean God is not imaginary.

Any one can reject the content of the testimonies. But they are evidence that people have a perception of God.

[1] http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
[2] http://www.thepeopleofthebook.org...

Rebuttal to 2.

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What would be evidence of a perception? This goes directly to my opponent asserting God has never been perceived. Evidence of a perception would be testimony as I already given. Perceptions can be recorded as chemical signals being processed in the brain.

2. There is evidence God has been perceived.[3][4]

Volunteers had religious experiences that were recorded by MRI. Dr. Newberg states Newberg explains, “They don’t feel that they’re purposely making it [happen]. They feel that they are being basically overcome by the experience.”

My opponent assumes from an none established materialistic world that these perception are internally generated and not externally caused. There is no difference between the chemicals used the perception is external with when the perception is internal. My opponent has not established the connection that these types of perception are external.

It is not enough to say that a third observer did not experience the same perception at the same time. There are well established experiments that some people are more sensitive to smells, taste, and sight. That some people can taste a chemical 6-n-Propylthiouracil while others can not. [5] So some people can perceive a sensory experience while others can not.

[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[4] http://bigthink.com...
[5] http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org...

Rebuttals to 3.

The bible has a description of God. My opponent asserts that all the perception of God are based on this description. This is not the case because some people have not read the bible and yet still have a perception of God. This fact invalidates the premise making it false.

Rebuttals to 4.

This is begs the question where did the first description of God come from and why does it match so many other people's perceptions of God in history. It is much more likely to assume that a particular mental impression, like pain or bright light, are shared between the whole of human beings. And that this human perception of an event is being recorded of in the Bible.

God is imaginary is unlikely, if not just flat out on unprovable making it meaningless as a premise for any argument, and no better than an opinion.

I demonstrate that people perceive of God. being a non corporeal mind, God leaves no physical evidence. Leaving us to discern God's existence from the mental evidence God is being perceived.
RowanM

Pro

RowanM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mhykiel

Con

I extend my arguments
RowanM

Pro

RowanM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
Metaphysical is as you defined. But the combination with "world" takes on a different understanding. All metaphysical worlds is all possible worlds. Actual world is the metaphysical world we live in.

Is it possible there is a giant crater at the bottom of the ocean, yes. That possibility would be a metaphysical world. And some one can make an argument that a giant crater is there, making that metaphysical world this world.

Suggestions of time being that all possibilities erupt from a point so there are multiple universes where everything that could change is changed, is in essence a metaphysical world concept.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
Jjjohn
My understanding of the word metaphysical is the world in which the normal rules of the physical world do not apply, or apply differently. or so wikipedia tells me:

"For instance, it was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature" (physis in Greek), that is, the science of the immaterial."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Because the only assumption I offered was a possible of 2 (and more) metaphysical worlds. Your naturalistic explanation affirms only one metaphysical world. claiming all others are not this world. You assume the negation of multiple possibilities while I assume the negation of only one. Occam's Razor is not evidence for anything. It is a guide for the simplest explanation. Which would be mine."

I do not agree I am I assuming the negation or multiple possibilities, because I am not convinced that there is evidence for assuming any metaphysical worlds of any sort exist. we can demonstrate the physical world. we cannot demonstrate any metaphysical worlds. one is fact, the other is speculation and as such, they cannot be compared on an equal basis.

the simplest explanation is one that uses the least assumptions. invoking any metaphysical worlds involves making the assumption that they exist at all. invoking the physical world involves making no assumptions, which makes explanations simpler.
Posted by FatalArchon 2 years ago
FatalArchon
I have a correction to my previous post.

"and therefore the perception of God is not imaginary."

should read

*and therefore the perception of God is possible from external stimuli as well as internal.
Posted by FatalArchon 2 years ago
FatalArchon
@Mhykiel - I will accept your premise of the following:
If we accept Dualism to be this reality then I claim:
1.physical can directly react with physical (light leaving thermal, sound leaving kinetic traces)
2. That physical can react with spirit (human body)
3. spirit (mind) can directly react with other spirit. (Perception of God)

and therefore the perception of God is not imaginary. This still does nothing to prove whether God himself is imaginary or actually projects himself into the psyche of his subjects. It just provides the possibility that the PERCEPTION of God could come from an external source. Like the images in a book or words from a preacher, or mass aggregation of an ideal or another spirit who is not god and has masqueraded as a deity.

It's all speculative and really gets us nowhere.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
Then you and jjjohn are not arguing the same case. I did not mean to misrepresent you.

You claim a human is non-physical spirit and physical brain. This is similar to Dualism. You reread my arguments and transpose spirit for mind and that could make them easier to understand. If you accept the existence of one non-physical spirit entity then why not all? You would need a justification for saying man can be part spirit but a God can not be all spirit. There fore God not exist.

-"Earlier you stated, "So the claim "God is imaginary" can be no more proven no more true by perception, than light or sounds can be proven by perception."- I was using this in respect to the argument. Reducing the points step by step to show that perception would be no proof for light or sound, as it would be no proof for God. This is to make a point by extending the logic to an absurdity. You can certainly accept the absurdity and then make an argument favoring light and sounds existence on something other than perception. But that is not the debate. The claim was God has never been perceived. I countered. And then claimed that perception had as much value as perceiving light or sound. You now counter with the value of perception is too low to be convincing.

If we accept Dualism to be this reality then I claim:
1.physical can directly react with physical (light leaving thermal, sound leaving kinetic traces)
2. That physical can react with spirit (human body)
3. spirit (mind) can directly react with other spirit. (Perception of God)
Posted by FatalArchon 2 years ago
FatalArchon
I, once again, have to reject your assumption to my position on a subject matter. Specifically the assumption that my position is that of a solely materialistic world. I can conceive and entertain a notion of spirit and conscience without the existence of a deity. This however alters my personal definition of mind. My definition of mind would be the manifestation of the conscience rooted in the physical human body. This manifestation is the product of both a non-physical entity(spirit) and the physical entity(brain).

So if the only qualification for God is that he is a mind without a body(your definition), then how can we quantify or qualify experiences of God in the same way we qualify or quantify experiences of light and sound? Light and sound have physical, testable, falsifiable qualities that can be measured and manipulated. Intensity, direction, frequency, etc.

It seems that this is another can't prove it, can't disprove it. Which nullifies the continuation of the argument.

Earlier you stated, "So the claim "God is imaginary" can be no more proven no more true by perception, than light or sounds can be proven by perception."

Light and sound manifest and react with things other than our mind. We have no evidence that god has interacted directly with anything. There is no residue left behind by interaction from god like there is with light(thermal residue) or sound(inertial residue). When a proclaimed miracle happens there is not a substance of mind left behind to indicate God had been there. This is the difference I was trying to demonstrate.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
@FatalArchon
"God is an entity composed of mind."

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Before we can identify a characteristic of God, we must define God. Out of all the religions that affirm an entity of God (except maybe those based on a God of Spinoza), the only common characteristic is they are intelligent. intelligence is an expression of a mind. To not add any more characteristics like having a brain.. the only solution is to say God is composed of a purely mental "substance" mind.

This is a philosophical definition to be removed from religious pretexts. We are debating the existence of God. So evidence is in the form of onus to establish a likely hood that God exists. There is nothing to point at and say that is God. Like a dog or another human. So like a black hole, we inductively reason God exists by considering different phenomena. People perceiving God when they have real experiences, (yes the experience they have is real, we are debating what the content establishes) is one such phenomena.

Could you please define the composition of mind?

In idealism and dualism (Solipsism, etc..) mind is the fundamental "substance" or after continued regression into smaller scales of what composes reality, mind is the most basic none divisible element. So mind is not composed of anything. It is the element that interacts with itself to compose the world and exhibit intelligence.

What is the mind composed of?

In your materialistic philosophical view of this world this is like asking what a quantum string is composed of.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
@Jjjohn

1. "i see how it could be interpreted that way. or it could be interpreted as saying that accurate conclusions are based on evidence and the least amount of assumptions. a naturalistic explanation uses fewer assumptions than a religious explanation."

R1a. My interpretation of what you mean by the word "naturalistic" is from the dictionary for philosophical naturalism.

R1b. I agree naturalistic explanation make less assumptions than religious explanations. This is because religion has tenets and a whole belief system. My explanation was philosophical. DO not confuse the Two.

R1c. A philosophical explanation does not make more assumptions. Because the only assumption I offered was a possible of 2 (and more) metaphysical worlds. Your naturalistic explanation affirms only one metaphysical world. claiming all others are not this world. You assume the negation of multiple possibilities while I assume the negation of only one. Occam's Razor is not evidence for anything. It is a guide for the simplest explanation. Which would be mine.

It must be real nice to assume the world is material assuming nothing is mind or spirit, and then describe all phenomena in naturalistic terms, rejecting mind and spirit, so you can in turn confirm the world is material. Circular logic unless you can show materialism is this world.
Posted by FatalArchon 2 years ago
FatalArchon
@mhykiel "God is an entity composed of mind."

What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Could you please define the composition of mind?
What is the mind composed of?
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
Jjjohn
"I was not arguing that the perception is an accurate description of the phenomena God."
I accept the clarification. your arguments make more sense in this context.

""My argument in the debate was that God has been perceived."
to perceive something, it has to exist, unless the perception is a delusion. since god has not been proved to exist, the more likely explanation of claims of perception of god is delusion.

"1. You even say "consistent with a naturalistic explanation". You do realize this already concludes there is nothing spiritual."
i see how it could be interpreted that way. or it could be interpreted as saying that accurate conclusions are based on evidence and the least amount of assumptions. a naturalistic explanation uses fewer assumptions than a religious explanation.

"So prove that a materialistic actual world is more likely than an idealistic actual world."
it would be fun, but I'm burned for tonight. thanks for the conversation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
MhykielRowanMTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff Con's sources helped his case, and since Pro provided none, sources go to Con.