god is stories
Debate Rounds (5)
This debate is not about whether or not God exist, instead it is about whether the concept of God should be defined as stories.
I argue that God is a religious concept that many humans follow. Therefore, he should not be defined as stories since concepts are not stories. There are stories about God but that doesn't make the concept of God a story.
The argument that my opponent uses to defend his position is nonsensical and contradicting -> "if nature is intended, its a machine, therefore god is stories."
-> First, even if his premise is true that nature is intended (i.e. planned) that would not prove his conclusion that god
is stories. In fact, the implication that the world has a plan contradicts his conclusion that god is stories as it suggest the existence of a God which would support my position that God is not stories.
-> I stated that god is a concept and therefore not a stories.
-> Bad conclusion based on your premise, instead your conclusion should be that concepts are dependant on stories. However, this would be false as the premise is wrong.
-> It is the complete opposite, a story require concepts to even be thought of or written therefore stories are dependant on concepts not the other way around.
-> A story can be defined as an "account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment".
Unsupported premise: :"story=false"
My opponent has not refuted or even addressed my arguments. He has merely made nonsensical and fallacious statements that distract from the issue or contradict his position.
I therefore conclude by restating my premise that God is a religious concept and should therefore not be defined as stories.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments ate gibberish.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.