The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

god or nut

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...
gryephon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 72803
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

the existence of religion=theists believe there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, and atheists believe there isnt, while the agnostic accepts he dosnt know, and that they ofc dont know either

lol
gryephon

Con

Theism doesn't really have a position on nuts inside of an unbreakable nutshell. I'm a theist, I personally doubt the exsistance of an unbreakabble nutshell, so if i'm going to dream up things, why not imagine an unbreakble nutshell without a nut? While not every theist may share my views, but I submit myself as proof that this is not true.

Some atheists may argue that athiesm isn't a belief in anything, but merely a lack of belief in something. For say atheism is the lack of belief in a god, while it may be true that some or most atheists that there aren't any unbreakable nutshells it's really irrelevant because atheism has nothing to do with nuts. You can even do research[1] on the word itself, and see that it has nothing to do with nuts. Also, this does also apply to theism as it has nothing to do with nuts either.

I don't know if agnostics would accept that they don't know, I'm somewhat agnostic towards agnostics knowing things or not. How would you know that an agnostic's doesn't know? they could be lieing through their teeth that they don't know. =D
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

what nut, i dont know whats inside it, or not, how would i know

i cant know the future
gryephon

Con

Well if we're not debating what differrent religious position believe about nuts inside an unbreakable nutshell, what are we talking about then? lol.


Why can't you know the future? I can tell you many things about the future, I personally am about to take a shower. I know that I will meet my maker one day.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

hm, is god the nut in the unbrekable nutshell? or an empty unbrekable nutshell?



because you cant break into the nutshell the inside belongs to the future, it is not now, it is in my mind, i can imagine a tiny dragon inside the nutshell, does that mean there is a dragon in there? does that mean there is not a dragon in there?


the future is imaginary, as i can only reach it with my imagination


i dont know=i have to imagine it


know=physical experience of now



you are about to take a shower.. is now, will you die before you get out of the shower or even into the shower? am i right if i claim, you will die before you get out of the shower? at what point, do you know, if i am right in claiming that


besides the obvius you wouldnt know if you are dead.. its just an example to highlight a dilemma i guess



gryephon

Con

hm, is god the nut in the unbrekable nutshell? or an empty unbrekable nutshell?

I don’t think God is a nut or a nutshell, John 4:24 says God is spirit… So I think this rules out the notion of God being nuts because nuts are materialistic objects and not spiritual.

because you cant break into the nutshell the inside belongs to the future, it is not now, it is in my mind, i can imagine a tiny dragon inside the nutshell, does that mean there is a dragon in there? does that mean there is not a dragon in there?

You’re losing me. Never mind, I’m lost already… what???? seriously what are we debating here? What does it matter if you or can’t imagine a tiny dragon in a nutshell?

the future is imaginary, as i can only reach it with my imagination

Well I know that the future is not imaginary because what happens is different from my imagination, say you can imagine having passionate sex with your teenhood dream girl at 5 o-clock, and then when 5 o-clock rolls around it doesn’t happen. This is the proof that the future is independent from the imagination.

you are about to take a shower.. is now, will you die before you get out of the shower or even into the shower? am i right if i claim, you will die before you get out of the shower? at what point, do you know, if i am right in claiming that

Well if you’re saying that I’m going to die before getting in the shower, then obviously you would be wrong because it would contradict my knowledge. So I would know you’re wrong almost immediately.

Also making a claim doesn’t make a person automactiaclly right. I could make a claim that all bachelors are married, but me merely claiming it doesn’t make it true. So no to your statement that if you claimed that I would die upon leaving the shower is not true based on your claim. However if you knew that I was going to die, then it must be true that I am going to die because you know that I am.






besides the obvius you wouldnt know if you are dead.. its just an example to highlight a dilemma i guess

Uhh… I’m not dead, atleast last time i checked. I guess I can check again, but I think i'll get the same results.

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

so is there a nut inside the nutshell? .. or is it empty? if you dont know either, how could the "nut" be material?



if i imagine there is a dragon inside the nutshell i can believe that just as i can believe there is a nut in there, so who is to say i am wrong about the dragon in the nutshell


only now is true, now is matter, i know my experience of now


god is possible, just like the nut, imaginary



so, becasue you are not dead, you know i was wrong




gryephon

Con


so is there a nut inside the nutshell? .. or is it empty? if you dont know either, how could the "nut" be material?


Honestly, I wouldn’t know if it’s empty or not. If you toss the nut over here I can see if I can pop it open with some tools outside in the garage to check if there is a nut inside it or not. I guess if we’re really desperate I can get it x-rayed. And maybe if you have more nuts, we can work on juggling or something if we’re bored.



if i imagine there is a dragon inside the nutshell i can believe that just as i can believe there is a nut in there, so who is to say i am wrong about the dragon in the nutshell


Wrong about what? I don’t think anyone is saying you’re wrong… If you’re saying that you’re imagining a dragon inside a nutshell, I’ll agree that you dreamed up a dragon and a nut, I have no reason to doubt that is true (people imagine some very bizarre things). I probably won’t believe your imagination, because I don’t even believe mine. If I was curious of its truth, I might inquire if there is a method for acquiring knowledge of it. But the thing is I don’t see why I would even care of ever laboring to acquire knowledge of a dragon inside of an unbreakable nutshell, it’s not like I’m worried it’s going to break out, I’d rather spend my time playing video games or reading the Bible (things I find more interesting) then figuring out if there is a dragon in there.




god is possible, just like the nut, imaginary


That may not be true, as it is written “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?[1]” Now it is possible that God really wrote this down, and if this is true that he really did write it, this would contradict him being imaginary, one cannot really write things down in the imagination. You can imagine someone writing something down, but you can’t really write anything in the imagination because it isn’t real, hence why nothing “really” happens in your imagination. So it is possible god is not imaginary.


1) Jeremiah 32:27 (ESV)


so, becasue you are not dead, you know i was wrong


Right.


Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

possibilities are imaginary
gryephon

Con


Nope. When someone is saying something is possible, they're meaning something might be true. For example when someone says it's possible that there is some cheesecake left in the fridge, they're probably talking about that there might be some real cheesecake in an actual refrigerator. Not necessary an imaginary cheesecake in an illusionary refrigerator. Sure, one might be able to imagine a cheesecake in a refrigerator, but that’s not usually what the person is talking about when they’re talking about possibilities.


Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
atheism=disbelief=belief=theism
agnostic=non belief
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
@Chaosism

Why is atheism and agnosticism Inconsistent with each other? They have the exact same prefix and suffix, yet have contradictory meanings". For example Atheism is a lack of belief, whereas agnosticism actually has a belief, which is a direct contradiction in meanings because it"s having and lacking. Definitions should be consistent in meaning, not random.

The problem with the definition of antitheism is that it doesn"t make use of the prefix "anti-" which means opposite of, against. A better definition would be "Against God Belief" which follows from Anti-"(Against)", Theos "(God)", -ism"(Belief)".

There is a problem with agnosticism, it seems spontaneously specific. When you look up what "gnostisc" means, it means knowledge, it comes from the Greek "gnostikos", it doesn"t mean God directly. Sure probably most agnostics believe one can"t know God, but agnostics can also believe one can"t know the Easter Bunny. When you break apart the word a-"(not)", gnostic-"(knowing)", -ism "(belief)" as you can see nowhere does it mean specifically God. So it doesn"t make any sense defining it that way, its meaning knowledge in general, not just knowledge of God.

To note on the atheist"s alpha privative, the problem here is that you"re having the prefix change the meaning of the suffix. Ideally an affix isn"t supposed to modify the meaning of other affixes, but modify the meaning of the root itself. When people attach "ist or "ism it"s usually to indicate that it"s an actual doctrine or a practice (contrary to lacking), for example anarchist isn"t a person who lacks belief in rulers but is a person who believes that there shouldn"t be any rulers (an-"without", arch "ruler", -ist "belief"). Atheist could never be plural if the prefix modifies the suffix cause it would negate it"s meaning" the suffix "-s" in atheists (a|the|ist|s) would be required to be interpreted [without + "-s"] because the a- prefix means not or without.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
hm, is god the nut in the unbrekable nutshell? or the inside of an empty unbrekable nutshell?*
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
atheism=antitheism

lack of belief=agnostic. unless i know, i am unaware of the claim, or i have another religion
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
@ Zarroette

That depends on what definitions you accept. I've done a lot of research and believe the following to be true definitions:

Theism : The belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism : The lack of, or absence, of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Antitheism : The belief that God or gods do not exist.
Agnosticism : The belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

Agnosticism is a completely separate label from belief, because it pertains to knowledge.

The popular misunderstanding is:
Atheism : The belief that God or gods do not exist.
Agnosticism : The position of undecided about whether one believes God exist or doesn't exist.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
He's actually right about this.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
true they will be defeated to fast
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
Please people, stop taking this guys debates.
Posted by Molzahn 2 years ago
Molzahn
Is that your argument in a nutshell?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
vi_spexgryephonTied
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 arguments were incoherent, and were all *bare assertions*, with no evidence to back them up whatsoever. Con referenced sources to show *how* the universe could not have been created by a nut [yep ... weird]. Pro's incoherence hurt readability to the point where I couldn't understand how Pro's kritiks were relevant to the already incoherent and poor resolution. Con used the only sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
vi_spexgryephonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: as usual, pro failed to give any kind of a coherent argument