the truth about god vs. no god is not for debate because nothing

Actually debates aren't supposed to prove things, they only try to convince an audience.
Some people are not convinced by reason, which is why sophistry exists.
Sometimes even, the audience we want to convince is ourselves.

>>2465269
so it's not about discovering truth but about making people believe stuff you made up? like 50% of the threads right now?

>>2465328
If a debate was only between two people with the express interest to act detachedly consider positions, and they were free from all ideology and social judgement, then perhaps they might both agree with a conclusion and between the two of them, they may be satisfied that they found a "Truth".

But most of the time, the debate is between ideologies that have different mutually exclusive axioms, neither side is willing to consider the other as legitimate, so instead is a series of sophistical jabs, for instance by pointing out how your opponent is a bad person (because of their ideology?).
In this case even if one side were to accidentally speak a Truth by coincidence, it would go unnoticed.

>>2465364
thank you for pointing out my faulty choice of words in the original post.

you're retarded for even replying to my obvious bait thread anyway

>Leibniz, Kantor, Gödel are idiot children
>Actual fedora-wearing neck bearded idiot child knows what's really up.
Only on 4chin.

>>2465381
Damn tricked again.

>>2465398
in contrary to god, my magical friend actualy exists

>>2465398
you must be quite happy that the internet supplied you with such nice and easy to use buzzwords