The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is God really to be considered real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 119785
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Lets hear your side first and I will base myself off of your opinion.
This will be an 'Open Debate' and the first member to accept my challenge will become my opponent. There will be a total of 4 rounds of debate.
The voting period will last 10 days.


Consideration is as consideration does.

What we might consider to be real will not necessarily be real. Especially something that is beyond the limits of proof.

Consideration is a decision making brain process. We can only make decisions based upon our stored information.

Stored information is largely acquired in our formative years and is often a process that we have very little control over.

We are all brainwashed to a certain extent.

Someone conditioned in a theistic environment will probably consider a god to be real. It would therefore be fair to propose that under these circumstances a god "is really to be considered real".

The emphasis here is obviously on the word "considered" and definitely not on a personal acceptance of what might or might not constitute reality.

Nonetheless: Physiologically the brain process of consideration is real enough. However the derived thought itself will not necessarily bear any comparison with universal reality.
Debate Round No. 1


First, Let me clarify and applaud you for your directive upon this argument. The aspect of consideration I agree is based upon the human nature, But I would like to address the philosophy of the higher being. If as humans our morale and actions can be defined or justified by the 'lord".

My side in which I will state my thesis and my open argument:

At the beginning of the 21st century, A more general rationale for philosophy of religion should be cited: it can enhance cross-cultural dialogue. Philosophers of religion now often seek out common as well as distinguishing features of religious belief and practice. This study can enhance communication between traditions, And between religions and secular institutions.

one reason one may support recent non-realism. For, It has some credibility based on the sociology of religion. In the practice of religion it appears that we have something more (one might well say something deeper) than metaphysical theorizing. Religion seems pre-eminently to be focused upon how we live.

While the evidence of a higher, More powerful being with direct control is scarce, We made up the idea of someone higher to explain the unexplainable, To give a sense of peace of mind, And to allows us to become one under submission. But it has now become a plague under the development of society. It turns many against many in the name of purification or lord.

While I am sorry for the inconvenience of my briefness, I do state my reasons and point of view on this idea.


I think we are sort of coming at the same thing but from two different angles.

My personal philosophy of the human condition is grounded firstly, In it's reality or my perceived notion of it's reality, Especially with regard to all aspects of human physiology. And secondly, In the human purpose within the process of material evolution.
I am atheistic in regard to human contrived religions but nonetheless I cannot move away form the principle of purposeful evolution. What or who or how or why material evolution was (maybe continuously) instigated remains an absolute mystery.
In other words, The something from nothing principle is the point at which all theistic and scientific theory breaks down.
I see the necessity of the human condition as being solely for the purpose of moving material evolution forward.
As we rapidly move into a new technological era, It is only the abilities of a small number of individuals that matter. The rest of us are becoming largely inconsequential bi-products of the evolutionary process.

So: "Is God really to be considered real"?
Well: Given the individuality and nature of the human physiological condition, God has the potential to be considered as 7. 5 billion separate and different things.
I personally could refer to the process of material evolution as the God process and therefore in that context would therefore consider a God to possibly be real. With all emphasis on the word "possibly", As all god notions are only theoretical and certainly not known certainties.
Similarly an out and out Christian theist might consider the possibility of an ethereal wise old man with a long white beard that looks over humanity from some mystical heavenly realm.
At the end of the proverbial day any God consideration is simply a product of internal brain function. An assimilation of conditioned and stored information and as such is as real to one person as it is to the next.

Culture is an archaism and cross culture is simply dialogue between people who have an assumed or perceived difference. I would suggest that technological advancement has had a far greater influence on "cross cultural dialogue" than religion has ever had.

As for "something deeper". I would simply say that depth is as physiology does.
That is to say that responses to external stimuli can be as profound or as apathetic as we care to make them. Ultimately profundity or apathy come from within and not from without.
Debate Round No. 2


I believe that our views are similar, As you stated, More directly than I thought.

As a fellow atheist I believe that the notion of God is overrated. The thought of the "an ethereal wise old man with a long white beard that looks over humanity from some mystical heavenly realm. " is the explanation for the unexplainable as I stated before.

But lets approach this somewhat logically:

God cannot be discovered nor refuted by science alone. For this reason the arguments for and against God"s existence must be, In the end, Philosophical. We consider three of God"s best-known divine attributes: his omniscience, Omnipotence, And omnipresence as a guidance for our morales.

First, Let"s work out our definition of God a bit more. As noted, God is pure spirit"an immaterial "mind""who exists outside of time and space. We may also say that he is the perfect act of being itself, And thus all perfections are in him. In other words, God cannot be perfected further because he is infinite perfection.

Because God has no parts, Is infinite in being, And is therefore absolutely "simple, " we can say that God"s infinite power is his infinite goodness, Which is his infinite knowledge, And so on. Thus in the end, It is much more profitable for us to speak about God in analogies (all-powerful, Etc. ) and to speak about what God is not (space less, Etc).

God, Who contains all perfections within himself, Can rightly be referred to as all-powerful, All-good, All-knowing, Etc. We cannot say (by the way) that God is a "pre-eminently peerless stinker" because stinkiness is a privation of a good; but God is "perfectly good". Such an assertion of God"s infinite stinkiness is an amusing bit of rhetoric but it does not in the least follow logically from the given philosophical definition of God.

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, Of course, Disprove God, Just as we can't disprove Thor, Fairies, Leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, Like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, We can say that God is very very improbable.

Then it suffices to say that philosophical proofs for or against God"s existence will not be sufficiently worked out without rigorous intellectual groundwork. Indeed, The finite limits of human reason that force us into analogies and negative statements about God can sometimes lead to frustration and headaches. But I side with G. K. Chesterton, Who acknowledged "the riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man. "


As humans we are limited by the limits of physiological function.
And I think that we are in agreement with the notion of considered reality being valid within the context of physiological function.

The traditional image of most popular gods was a wise old man with a beard. Who of course was considered to be real by wise old men with beards. Or more probably made up by wise old men with beards.
Limited physiological function indeed. Or more appropriately physiological function limited by limited knowledge.
We have gained a few thousand years of considerable development and scientific understanding since and should now be able to easily recognise the naivety of those earlier theories.

And stinkiness is only relative to olfactory function.
But that's not to down play the profundity and possible importance of the human computer. An amazing bit of physiological kit as ever was. Could it simply be a quirk of evolutionary development? Or could there more to it than that?

As for: The three Om's.
The three Om's are all well and good but the three Om's could easily have been the three Im's or the three Um's and were obviously something completely different anyway when regarded in the original text.
But let's be honest: A God theory would have been pretty weak without these three attributes.
There's this wise old bearded guy called God who is in charge of everything but he's not particularly powerful and doesn't know much and we can't get in touch with him.
Doesn't sell him does it?
Or: There's this wise old bearded guy called god who is in charge of everything. He's fairly powerful and knows a thing or two, But we can't get in touch with him on a regular basis.
Still not selling him.
It's really got to be all or nothing.

God has no parts but is nonetheless infinite (somewhat contradictory) and is simple. You're still not selling him to me.

And don't get me started on time and space. They are a whole different debate. Suffice it to say that for me existence outside of time and space is nonsense.

Darwin knew what he knew and made calculated assumptions based on his knowledge. His assumptions have been recorded and subsequently passed from brain to brain and restored as knowledge. His assumptions are still as much open to question as the assumptions of God, Thor, Fairies, Leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The reality is; if we are conditioned to accept these assumptions as fact then we probably will, Despite all sensible information that is available to the contrary. Ultimately Gods are assumed and transmitted information and as such only exist within our physiology and not without.
Of course any assumption has the possibility of actually being correct. Oh no!

And the organic computer was limited by it's own fragility.
And so it designed an inorganic device in it's own image.
And thus all relevant knowledge was able to escape that Earthly prison.
And thus evolution was able to move onwards towards it's conclusion and rebirth.
And that device was called God.
Debate Round No. 3


We are both wrong in equal and opposite directions.

But God is not a being. God is not the highest being. God does not, Technically speaking, Exist. You exist. I exist. Superman exists (in the imagination). Our ideas of God also exist. But God is not in those ideas. God is beyond human conception. That from whence existence comes must be beyond existence itself.
You cannot prove God exists because you cannot prove what is not true. Nor can God prove God"s own "existence" in a way that would satisfy either atheists or apologists. This is not because God is not all powerful. (And how very American, And male, By the way, To focus on God"s power. ) It is just the nature of things.

God is. He does not have mind nor will, For god is either mind or he is willing. God does not make decisions as we understand it. God does what he has believed in as a god self. God does not have parts.

Evidence of god is not possible, Not in a meaningful way. You cannot prove your existence beyond existence yourself. Its like trying to explain how a circle might have corners.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, So reliable?
"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, Let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, Or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence. "11

and such I further am able to state as to why god is nothing but a figment of our self plaguing our reality


Firstly let me say that it's been a pleasure debating with you.
We have similar but differing ideas. Which I think is a typical trait of the human consciousness and also very relative to your opening proposition.

Of course, The most ridiculous situation of all is the existence of anything. Because it should be impossible for anything to exist. . . . . Something from nothing.

Ok so something does exist or we assume it does and we observe rules and order. Well that's just the way things are and that's just the way things would be, Even if we were not around to give witness.
The universe is as the universe does and mathematics is a human concept that we apply to things and not a universal thing that applies to us. Maybe sometimes we are deluded by our own self importance.
Though that is not to underplay the importance of humanity as an evolutionary tool.

Humans conceptualise. It's one of the things that sets us above all other species and I would suggest that Gods were once a theoretically innovative concept. But we have moved on considerably with regards to knowledge and information.
Imaginary Gods that we created in our own image should now be irrelevant, But the old information still persists.

Material evolution will progress come what may and those that matter will continue to forward this process. The rest of us are just here to service the needs of those evolutionary innovators.

And we will continue to regurgitate the old information.
And we will continue to bicker and fight over whose wise old bearded man is best.
Until such times when this solar system comes to its end.
And all Earthbound notions will cease.

By such times though, The responsibility for all necessary information and knowledge will have been transferred form the organic to the inorganic.

And devices will roam the universe. Telling tales of humanity and Gods.

Gods that may really be considered to be real.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.