The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ObjectivityIsAMust
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

god is stories

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...
ObjectivityIsAMust
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 66050
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

if nature is intended, its a machine, therefore god is stories.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

I will debate that God is not stories.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

concept=story=false
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

My opponent supports my arguments: "concept=story=false"

-> I stated that god is a concept and therefore not a stories.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

concepts cant exist without stories, so concepts are stories, and imagination is false
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

" concepts cant exist without stories, so concepts are stories, and imagination is false"

-> 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.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

story=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

In valid definition of the word story: "story=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now"

-> A story can be defined as an "account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment".
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

imagination is a dead nation

story=false
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

Nonsensical argument: "imagination is a dead nation"

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.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
Your comments make no sense and are even contradicting. I therefore conclude you are trolling and I refuse to feed the troll.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
god exist, god is all that is false
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
im saying information exist, superman exist, unicorns, 0 bananas, infinity even thou i can never reach the endlessness with my physical body, i can understand it has no end
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
First off, all information in in the human mind is not nothing since it is the combination of the connection of neurons in the mind and therefore based on matter. Just because human being can't see it does mean that it does not exist.

Therefore, information = matter = exist
-> Finally, a logical use of the equal sign and of the dumb-down way of debating.

In addition, as your proposition is that God is stories not that God does not exist. You can't just say that stories is merely a substitution for things not existing in physical form since that is not the meaning of the word, instead one should use imaginary. Therefore this is merely a fallacious attempt to give word a different meaning to suit ones purposes.

Bad definition of existence and illogical use of the word nothing as it imply that nothing is something which is contradicting:"existence is the balancing point between nothing and something".
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
stories=information=nothing

matter=something

0 and 1

and i don't recall saying that mister penguin

existence is the balancing point between nothing and something, nothing exist, and something exist
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
This is nonsensical: "Information, or anything that does not literally exist, is false, and now is true, so my phone is true"

In addition, the information in your arguments are irrelevant since stories can be based on things that literally exist therefore, even by your illogical premise, his point that something that exist (true) can be equal to something that does not exist (false) is inaccurate.
Posted by Alpacthulhu 2 years ago
Alpacthulhu
Within his own philosophical realm, which I have been privileged to study over the past few days, he actually whomped you.

In this, everything has a value of true or false. Information, or anything that does not literally exist, is false, and now is true, so my phone is true (this was how he once explained it) because it is made of matter which takes up space which is time which is now.

Concepts are information-- false (in what I will call Spexism.)

God -- false (according to some previous debates of his... I am assuming this to be a philosophical postulate.

Therefore if both are false, both are equal by the transitive postulate of actual logic and so therefore God=Stories... From what I have gathered...
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Extend the debating time phase to 72 hours and I'll accept.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
its either by choice or not
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Incomprehensible.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
vi_spexObjectivityIsAMustTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments ate gibberish.