Debate: Does God exist?
Side: Atheism

If we accept that god exists at least as a concept then we have moved beyond asking if god exists and may now logically progress to questions about god's characteristic qualities. You cannot logically discuss the qualities of something assumed to not exist.Exactly, my point, whether or not god exists, directly effects the importance of understanding what god is like. If god only exists as a concept, making sense of gods existence in relation to ours is unnecessary and does nothing for us, other than making some good fun in having some fantasy maybe. If god exists more than just a concept, then understanding god as an actual thing beyond an idea is relevant because it relates to us. Actual things can effect other actual things but I am sure you know this. If god is only a concept, then god can't have an effect on us like an actual thing, only as a concept or the influence of the concept. We can logically discuss the qualities of god if god only conceptually exists, as what god was supposed to mean, what god is in actuality, if god is a concept is illogical with having purpose behind discussing the qualities other than fun, and that is how it should be. We can discuss the qualities of an actual unicorn hypothetically all day long, but it would be illogical to discuss the qualities of unicorns in actuality if it was beyond the reasons of amusement, or as if we genuinely thought that unicorns exist. So since it is illogical to discuss the qualities of unicorns beyond reasons of amusement, and partaking in harmless fantasy, should we believe unicorns exist so that we can logically discuss the qualities of unicorns seriously? By your logic we should. My point is that god's existence is equally if not more important than an understanding of god, it isn't a question that should be ignored as long as we are seriously contemplating the qualities of a god. If we are to seriously contemplate the qualities of a god, then we should do so also contemplating whether or not god exists beyond that of a concept. To not acknowledge god's existence at all as a concept is silly, but I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. It is like two people arguing over whether or not there are people who die from unicorns, but not taking a moment to even think "wait do unicorns even exist?". Ideas have consequences, and thinking of god strictly as an ideological construct, this ideological construct matters alot because it affects the way us humans interact with each other. If god did not exist, god would not have major sociological implications.See, here I agree and disagree at the same time, when I said if god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't matter, what I meant was, what god would be in actuality hardly matters. If god doesn't exist then arguing whether or not god is just ignoring us, is the universe, what morals god has, what god expects from people, is all pointless, unless you are just playing with fantasy, and not taking any of it seriously but only to that extent. The reason the concept of god has such a huge effect on us is mostly because people believe in him/her/it/whatever, so to make the argument that god exists because it effects strongly how we treat each other is the same argument as "because so many people believe in god, then god exists". That isn't a reason to think god exists as an actual thing, unless you again meant conceptually, if you meant conceptually then I COMPLETELY agree with your statement, and I doubt anybody will argue with us there. Both atheist and theists, acknowledge that the idea of god exists, no reasonable person who has heard of god thinks that the concept of god doesn't exist. Everyone for the most part know that the concept is there, otherwise we wouldn't be able to debate about it here. That's strikes me as odd. You agree with the statement for reasons different than what I have yet to explain to your satisfaction. ie you don't know exactly what I meant, but you know enough to know that you agree for different reasons.I think we ran into a misunderstanding as I agreed with the statement that a better question was "is god a matter of serious concern to us?" but figured we had different answers to that question thus resulting in different reasons. I assumed since you are arguing that god does exist, that the question "Is god a serious matter of concern to us?" I assumed that your answer to that question is yes, while mine is no. If you believe god exists, then god is a matter of concern to you, I guess I could see where you are saying no, because the word "serious" is in there, if that is your answer I apologie for being presumptuous. I think god isn't a matter of serious concern, cause we don't have a logical reason to think god exists (in actuality, not conceptually) in the first place. We aren't concerned with unicorns because we lack a reason to think they exist, that are actual or probable. I could argue unicorns are possible, even if it happens to be the most improbable thing in the world, they are still possible, I still don't believe in them, and I would argue it to be illogical to believe in them. As belief means you have to be certain, which means your level of certainty doesn't match the probability of the existence of unicorns.  I'll be happy to discuss effects of god after you admit god exists. Start a new debate and invite me.Sounds like a fun debate, however I can only admit god exists conceptually as I cannot be more certain in god's existence, then gods inexistence (actually). I do admit god does exist as a concept though, but anyone would.If we do not first accept the premise that: "truths can be known about god", then any statement or question posed with the word god as the subject remains meaningless.Some truths can be known about god, because god is a concept, like any other concept. Like the truth that god exists conceptually, the truth that people believe in god, etc. However I am not convinced god exists beyond that, and no truths can be known beyond that at least in this time right now. So not every statement or question posed with the word god is meaningless, because it exists as a concept. really? Why do you believe in "The Universe" instead of "The Multiverses" ?I always thought if there was a multiverse, the universe would be apart of the multiverse, I am pretty certain with what I have observed about other humans, that we would still have a "universe" if we discovered a multiverse. I thought the word universe only referenced everything inside our "realm" of space and time, or all of space and time that our existence belonged to. A multiverse would just be multiple universes. By what I thought universe meant, obviously a universe exists, regardless of whether or not a multiverse exists. Pantheists understand the universe as god, Do you think they believe this for "No reason"?How do pantheists "understand the universe as god", what does that mean? Understanding implies that you acknowledge the truth of something, know about something, therefore understanding would here in this sentence would imply the universe is god as a truth. This can be justified by having the definition of god being universe, but I think both you and me know that wasn't what the word originally meant. Whenever and wherever the word god came it didn't mean everything, all ancient concepts of gods referred to something conscious, or/and the origin of literally absolutely everything. God was never meant to mean universe. If someone's "god" means universe, I KNOW your god exists, I just don't see the point in calling something that already has a name. Does universe not suffice? I used to be a "pure agnostic" leaning pantheistic. If god is the universe, I agree with the pantheists, I just don't identify with them and their use of the word "god" and have a valid reason in believing in this "god". If god means anything that is presumptuous by having no logical or evidential back up, then when I said there is no reason to believe it, I meant an adequate logic or evidence as to why the universe is god. There is still reason, just not a logical one.