TITLE: Rhetoric of ethos in Does God exists?
Exordium, Partitio: Introduction – what an analysis of rhetoric in the debate “Does God exists? “can reveal
- Hook: God symbolizes faultless because he does not have a defect. If an argument is not rigorous, it is not perfect. The discussion of the existence of God stemmed from a popular dispute amongst philosophers for thousands of years up until today.
- Method: This essay will analyze the rhetoric strategy-ethos used in the debate—- ‘Does God exists by co-precedent Dan Barker and the director Sonny Hernandez. Explicitly, the weakness of the argument that Mr. Barker wants to cover-up is exposed by Dr. Hernandez.
- Overall Argument: The rhetorical techniques–ethos used by Dan Banker cannot de be determined as persuasive due to the inherent imperfections and invalid points in his presentation.
Narratio: The debate – Does God exists?
- In June 2017, a debate on the existence of God arose in a church in Houston between the co-precedent Dan Barker and the director Sonny Hernandez. In this debate, both of them try to overthrow the other’s perspectives forcefully. Dr. Hernandez answers the question of God’s existence, using an affirmative aspect. Dan Barker, an American atheist, firmly insists that God does not exist in the world. This essay can use rhetorical analysis to help answer such questions.
Refutatio: Analysing Nick Naylor’s claims that he argues ethically (part 1)
Evidence (debate quotes): Mr. Barker narrating – “There is no need for a God, hundreds of millions of good people on this planet lead moral, charitable, loving and purposeful lives without believing in God. […] Morality and ethics and logic and truth and knowledge come bottom-up from our natural lives, not top-down from a dictator.” (Houston, 2017)
- Analysis: Mr. Banker’s emphasize on the use of common sense steeped within the quotidian aspects of life facilitates greater acceptance within the audience. However, he still does not explain the beginning of human lives
- Evidence (rhetorical theory): Killingsworth references Aristotle— “Ethos focuses on the author, the attractiveness of the character and the author.” (Killingsworth, 2005) . In the book “strategies for change,” it states: commitments to values are powerful, and emotions run high-logical demonstration may seem irrelevant and conventional argumentative strategies suspect.
- Analysis: Barton does not perfect his viewpoint but focuses too much on the responders.
Confirmatio: Analysing Dan Barker’s imprecision in the debating through Sonny Hernandez’s point of view.
- Evidence (debate quotes): For worldview to be considered rational and coherent, both theist and non-theist will have to rely on reasoning our senses to know our presuppositions are valid […] apart from revelation you cannot because you do not appeal to a standard that can justify knowledge claims.
- Analysis: Hernandez is explicit in suggesting that the perspective of Mr. Barker is wrong because everything cannot come out of nowhere.
- Evidence (rhetorical theory): Ethical argumentation has frequently proceeded as if it were governed by the logical necessity characteristics […] Ethical frameworks support a more bounded set of persuasive strategies within a principle-based ethics of rights.”
- Analysis: Dr. Hernandez’s ethical refutation towards the opponent’s perception is well-founded and logical, which provides the audience with a deeper understanding.
Peroratio: Conclusion – the unethical rhetoric of Nick Naylor
- Summation: Taken together, Naylor is challenging to interpret because his argument sounds rights, but is a lack of rigor.
- Call to action: For scholars in philosophy and theology, the analysis of ethos in the debate illustrates a controversial argument of God. Rhetorical discussions enable readers to understand the concept deeply. For scholars in philosophy and theology, the analysis of ethos in the debate illustrates a controversial argument of God. Rhetorical discussions enable readers to understand the concept deeply.