The Instigator
SenorSwanky
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The idea of God exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 3 votes the winner is...
SenorSwanky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,535 times Debate No: 25905
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

SenorSwanky

Pro

The idea of God exists.

Definitions:

Idea - any conception existing in the mind. An idea does not require physical proof.

God - omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being.

Exists - to continue to be. Existence of an idea means that people still believed in the idea.

I want to emphasize that the acceptor of the debate should not be arguing for physical proof/disproof of God. The debate revolves around the existence of an idea of God. I am not looking for a defense or evidence for atheism. Also, I realize that the specific views on God can come from many religions. This is a secular debate to determine if ideas of God do in fact exist.

Thank you, I am looking forward to a fun debate.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I accept. State your case, homie.
Debate Round No. 1
SenorSwanky

Pro

Thank you for accepting. In this round I will arrive at a logical conclusion based on the available evidence that the idea of God exists.

1. Many People Belong to World Religions
World religions are organizations that worship God. Many houses of worship have been build to honor God and house religious ceremonies. God is central to religion. Without an idea of God, the many world religions that can be observed today would not be around. Time, money, effort and energy is spent to praise God. This behavior can best be explained that there is a deeply held notion of God.

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Judaism: 14 million

http://www.adherents.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Religious Creeds
Many religions have a creed that professes their faith. The creeds contains a reference to God. The creed would be just empty words if the people reciting them did not truly believe in God. Accepting the sincerity of religious people reciting a creed means, at least for religious people, they are accepting the notion of God.

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

3. Religious Wars
The mantra today is that Religion has caused most of wars in human history. Religion is based on God, therefore an idea of God must compel people to kill one another. Suicide bombers blow themselves up in the name of their religion. This illustrates the existence of God on a personal level. One of the strongest pieces of evidence that an idea of God exists is someone taking their own life. It the idea of God that compels people to take their own life and the life of others.

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

4. Sports Athletes e.g. Tim Tebow
Tim Tebow is a quarterback on the New York Jets. He clearly demonstrates his belief in God on the football field by genuflecting after a touchdown. Many athletes believe in God and give thanks to God after a victory. Athletes outward support of God demonstrates that the idea of God is alive in the sports world.

http://online.wsj.com...
http://www.npr.org...

5. Random Sample Testing
Ask someone "What is God?" The person will try to explain in the best manner they can. How can someone explain a notion if the notion does not exist? Therefore, the idea of God exists.

6. Descartes Ontological Argument
The idea of God is not necessarily proof of God. One can simply prove the idea of God by simply stating, "I have an idea of supremely perfect being." There is no need to draw any conclusions from that statement, the statement alone is enough to prove the argument.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

A clear explanation has been given for events and actions that have been observed for thousands of years. The evidence clearly supports the hypothesis. The rational explanation to the observed behavior above is that an idea of God exits.
InVinoVeritas

Con

1. Indeed, there are world religions that have members who worship God. And a lot of them. I concede this point.

2. Yes, every religion has a creed that professes members' faith and loyalty to God. I concede this point, as well.

3. Someone taking their own life for an idea that he or she believes portrays God means that the idea was, in fact, that of God, in his entirety? Not at all. I'll delve into this further in my own arguments.

4. "The idea of God is alive in the sports world"? Eh, not so much. I'll explain.

5. "How can someone explain a notion if the notion does not exist?" Very easily, actually. I have never seen a man with a rainbow afro growing on his chest; although such a man may not exist (from my perspective), I believe I can explain the notion pretty well.
But, more importantly, the IDEA of God is distinct from one's EXPLANATION of God. Let us take note of that.

6. "One can simply prove the idea of God by simply stating, 'I have an idea of supremely perfect being.'"
Oh, if only it were that simple.

---

God, according to the opponent's definition, is an "omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being." Can we really imagine an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being?

1) The human mind cannot comprehend infinite anything. Omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are examples of traits that require one to imagine infinity. Without the ability to conceptualize these traits, one cannot effectively mentally hold the idea of God, by definition, in their mind. The idea of God would have to take into account these traits; although we know the nature of these traits in theory, we cannot conceptualize them when trying to form an image in our mind. Therefore, an idea of God cannot exist.

2) The concept of God is a paradox. Here is an example regarding omnipotence:

"If God can do anything, can He make a mountain which is too heavy for Him to lift?"

1. God can do anything.
2. God can make a mountain (because of fact 1).
3. God can lift anything (because of fact 1).
4. God cannot lift the mountain. [1]

If 4 is true, then 1 is false.
If 4 is false, then God cannot make a mountain that is too heavy for him to lift, so 1 is again false.

So, can one have the idea of a square without corners? No. We have the idea of a square, and we have the idea of "cornerlessness." But the idea of not having corners opposes and contradicts of notion of being a square. Therefore, we cannot have the idea of a square without corners. In the same way, we cannot have an idea of God, by the definition presented by the opponent; we can have ideas ABOUT God, but they would never be accurate representations of what he is.

---

An idea of God is simply not feasible, due to the infinite and paradoxial natures of the God concept.

---

[1] http://simple.wikipedia.org...





Debate Round No. 2
SenorSwanky

Pro

The human mind cannot comprehend infinite anything.
This statement most likely is true for most people. However, the concept of infinity is used in mathematics and therefore physics. Georg Cantor spend years trying to prove the concept of infinity. Stephen Hawking uses the concept of infinity when explaining black holes. So while infinity may be hard to understand, its used in math and physics. Why then can't the concept of infinity be applied outside mathematics?

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

"The simplest picture of a black hole is that of a body whose gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. The "escape velocity" of a body is the velocity at which an object would have to travel to escape the gravitational pull of the body and continue flying out to infinity."
http://people.bu.edu...

The concept of God is a paradox. "If God can do anything, can He make a mountain which is too heavy for Him to lift?"

This is a verbal brain teaser for sure. But it speaks more of the limitations of language and the nature of people who use the paradox more than a refutation of the idea of God. If God is infinite, the mountain that He creates exists outside His infinite bounds, outside of infinity. Its as if the mountain exists in a parallel universe, unable to be lifted by its creator. There is a concept of infinity implied by God. Then the paradox contains an object, whether a mountain or stone, which is mentally "placed" or "created" in a setting not affected by God's power. Its a seeming contraction, but really just a nice verbal trick.

Maybe the statemnent is a metaphor for doubt? How can God create all human life and then have people doubt the existance of God? Surely he could change everyone's mind to believe in Him? Free will lets people doubt the idea of God, doubt is a mountain that is too heavy for Him to lift.


Whether God exists or does not exist is not the topic of debate. The debate centers around the fact that people hold the idea of God true. The idea is demonstrable through people's words, actions and outward attitudes. One must draw the conclusion that the idea of God exists.
InVinoVeritas

Con

1) Yes, the concept of infinity is "used in mathematics and physics." And yes, people have attempted to theoretically prove its existence. We can IMPLEMENT infinity, but we cannot conceptualize it; we cannot hold in our mind something that is infinite.

In the same way, we cannot conceptualize God, because his traits are infinite in nature.

2) The opponent proposes a peculiar rhetorical analysis of the "lifting a mountain" paradox... Yet the blatant paradox remains. Indeed, God is a paradoxical concept. And as a paradoxical concept, we cannot have an IDEA of him in our minds; we can have ideas ABOUT him, but not OF him. Keep in mind my "cornerless square" example.

---

It is clear that we cannot conceptualize God, because we cannot mentally imagine his traits. Therefore, we cannot cognitively possess an idea of him.

Vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I can't believe who votes on debates nowadays. Holy cow.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
you walked into a debate based on an ambiguous dual definition
Posted by tdude1196 4 years ago
tdude1196
The simple answer is yes that the idea exists
Just like the idea of unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, and dracula exist
They are just that, ideas
Thoughts of the mind. If the idea didn't exist it'd be impossible for us to discuss it
Not to say the actually deity exists, but the idea that there is a giant man in the sky exists, and is believed to be truth by many
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
What did I walk into?
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
actually they are rather funny. Con didn't see what he just walked into XD
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
*facepalm* semantic debates are a bore.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
SenorSwankyInVinoVeritasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I asgreed with Pro just before the debate began, which is a clear violation of the sites' TOS, as dictated in the forum, "Orientation." Apologies. But this was asked of me, so. Grammar: Pro, who did not use as many colloquialisms. Again, I used my personal opinion to determine who had convinced me after the debate. Again, this is a clear TOS violation. However, I gave this point to Pro. This also required the "convincing argument" point to go to Pro. I should have my voting rights rem
Vote Placed by danjr10 4 years ago
danjr10
SenorSwankyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate was an opinion based debate, quite unintresting
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
SenorSwankyInVinoVeritasTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While we cannot percieve a perfect being, the belief of the existence of God, which is what this debate is about was affirmed by pro.