The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

god=information

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 2 votes the winner is...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 965 times Debate No: 75607
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

theist=i accept reality is false(i accept imagination is true)=i accept reality is imagination
atheist=i accept reality is false
agnostic=i accept reality is true

theist=belief
atheist=disbelief, belief to the contrary
agnostic=i accept i dont know

know negates religious claims, and religious claims have nothing to do with knowledge

if i show you a full hand with 5 fingers, and you see 5 fingers but i claim i am showing you 3, do you believe my claim?
if i take my hand behind my back and say i am showing 5 fingers behind my back, is it true for you to say that i am showing 5 fingers behind my back?
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for setting up this debate; I hope it will be interesting and educational.

PRO has made the following claim: "god=information"

Definitions

god: A powerful spirit or person, often considered to have created, or to have had a hand in the creation of the world and/or the universe [1][2][3][4][7]. Also often seen to be ruler of the world and/or universe [2][3][6] as well as the creator or arbiter of morals [2][7]. God is also often seen as immortal and without beginning or end [4][5][7].

information: Knowledge or facts about a subject [8][9][10].

Rebuttal

Given these two different definitions, PRO is unjustified in making the claim that "god=information."

Sources

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]http://www.bible.ca...
[5]http://www.islam101.com...
[6]http://www.shaivam.org...
[7]http://www.jewfaq.org...
[8]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[9]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[10]http://dictionary.reference.com...





Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

information=false and truth
matter=true

so you do not have to imagine god then?
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for his comments this round; I will address them presently.

Definitions

First off all, I reject the definition PRO is offering for information. Since PRO did not offer an initial definition, I provided on in the previous round. My definition is well sourced, and it agrees with the way we use the word in our everyday lives. Pros definition is unsourced, it does not conform to any usage I am familiar with, and it was not offered at the instigation of the debate.

Imagining gods

PRO has posed a question about imagining god. Although I fail to see the point of the question, and I am not even sure about the grammatical qualities of the question, I will do my best to address it. I assume that PRO is asking about whether or not a god can be imagined. Of course a god can be imagined; however, this means nothing. I can imagine a chair, but that image in my brain is not a chair. Similarly, if I imagine a god, that image is not a god.

I can only imagine that PRO is trying to equate the imaginings of a god in my brain as information, but this point falls flat. As I pointed out above, the mental image I have of a god, is only a mental image; it is not a god. Therefore, it does not fit the definition of "information," since "information" is defined as knowledge about a thing, and I have no way to compare my mental image with an actual god to determine if it matches in any way. Also, even if we accept my mental image of a god as information, it still doesn't equate to god, since it does not meet any of the aforementioned qualities of gods.

Pros Argument

PRO has not offered any overt argument. So far he has failed to support his position. I look forward to his arguments in the following rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

reliable source=religion=false=information

god is imaginary.. not real
MrJosh

Con

PRO has not argued for his resolution, nor has he rebutted my comments. I would like to point out that if we accept PRO's comment that "god is imaginary...not real," then not only does it not fit the unchallenged definition I offered in the first round, it can also not meet the definition of information, as the imagined god cannot be verified and considered factual or knowledge. I look forward to PRO's next comments.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

they are arguments, and prof, undeniable

you have no memory of god and god is not physical.. 1 place left
MrJosh

Con

Thank you PRO for your comments. However, contrary to your claims, you have not made arguments. At best, you have made assertions; a practice you have carried into this round. In this round, PRO has claimed that I have no memory of god, and that god is not physical, two claims he has not supported with evidence. Also, even if he were to prove these points, they do not support his initial claim that "god=information."
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

you could argue religion is true..

god=false
false=information
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for another interesting round of comments. Yes, I could argue that religion is true, but not only do I not think so (look at my profile, I'm an atheist and an anti-theist), I don't see that it is relevant.

New "Arguments"

PRO has now claimed that "god=false" and "false=information." As these are not even coherent concepts, I will not bother to address them any further, except to say that if it was an attempt to redefine terms, I reject it; that part of the debate is past.

Wrapping Up


PRO made the claim that "god=information," but he never provided any evidence to support that claim. PRO has failed to meet his burden of proof. On the other hand, I have demonstrated how the definitions of both "god" and "information" describe different ideas. Therefore, they cannot be equal as claimed by PRO in the initial resolution.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
the proof is god is imaginary.. lol
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
im talking about the story about a fat dude with a beard in a red costume going global on 1 night so you behave to get presents
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
define santa
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
Meaning I know Who santa is in my famely....
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
No. An asanta would.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
know=physical experience
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
would a believer in santa know santa?
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
Yes. What is known..? An agnostic would not know...?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you cant know santa btw..
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i dont know=i know its false
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by A.Starr 2 years ago
A.Starr
vi_spexMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had poor grammar skills and no sources and no evidence to back up his/her belief.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
vi_spexMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's grammar was improper throughout; punctuation, capitalization, use if an equal sign. Pro never presented an argument stronger than a bare assertion; most of which were not readily understandable. Con presented a myriad of sources while Pro used none.