Any attempt at arguing for the existence an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical
God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe
Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 8k max. word rounds.
First round is for acceptance
Second and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fit
Final round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)
I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but.
I intend to prove your EXACT phrasing wrong by demonstrating a counter-example, thus refuting your generalized claim.
I thank The Scapegoat bleats for accepting to opportunity to debate, and I hope that his counter-example provides sufficient opposition.
I’m going to make simple arguments to begin; I will address his counter-example when he provides it.
Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components:
To say that god does not have any of these, or even to say that he only has one, is to suggest that god is not a god, but rather some kind of restricted or limited entity.
Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed.
Complexity, as a product of understanding, arises when something needs to be complex. For example, a television set is not complicated for any other reason than because it has to be. If that particular television set was not as complicated, then it would either work sub-optimally or not at all. Hence, the television set is as complicated as it has to be – it does not make sense to say that something is so complex that it had to be designed.
Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding
Comparatively, a television set can be more complicated than it needs to be, but this would indicate a product that lacks understanding. If the television set were to have extra wires that did not impede nor benefit the system, then you could say that the designer of the television set did not fully understand what was required. The goal of intelligence is to strive for simplicity, and making things unnecessarily complex does the exact opposite.
To say that the universe is ‘finely tuned’ is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent
If the universe is finely tuned, then it would imply that god doesn’t have any control over aspects of our reality, otherwise he wouldn’t have to tune in the first place. The fact that he can ‘play the universe out of tune’ suggests that he can create a flawed universe, of which he does not want (hence the tuning). This is not to mention how silly it is that god has to make up for his mistakes when he sets the rules in the first place. To say that the universe is finely tuned is to contradict the nature of the creator god.
Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence
I think this is fairly self-evident, but I will address any objections should my opponent make them.
It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time
In order for god to demonstrate infinite intelligence, he would have to limit himself to a test of some kind. When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones. So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us). However, in limiting himself to testing conditions, he, at the very least, hides his omnipotence – you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules.
And thus, it can be written as so:
Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations
Demonstrations of consciousness require demonstrations of intelligence
Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations
Evidence for god, via complexity, indicates nothing. Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive, and such a creator god could only ever appear be contradictory in nature. Thus, any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical.
Arguments taken from the Youtube channel, 'TrenchantAtheist'. http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=_nNy-xPbKas&list=PL47F8B6C872DB6AC1
(Take the two (dot)s out)
(For all those that are ready to give me a jump for giving this as a reference, this is a reference, not a source. The difference is that I am not referring to this as researched evidence, rather I am referring to this because I have used the arguments from here, and thus I am giving credit where credit is due).
I will reply to those in the next round, if necessary. For this round, allow me to just state my case.
My opponent claims that the attempt alone, and in and by itself, is illogical, if one argues for the existence of a divine entity as described in the first argument.
I say attempting this argumentation is logical, and nothing but.
I hope we can agree that being in a state of despair is undesirable. And that it would hence be illogical to want to remain in such state or enter it on purpose.
Often, people are shaken in their view of the world by some new scientific findings, which results in despair. For evidence, I present the works of Thomas S. Kuhn on "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Physicists are particularly prone to that. Kuhn describes how many of these physicists consequently turned away from physics towards philosophy and religion.
It is commonly accepted that religion can offer comfort, as it provides answers beyond the logic of science.
If a person's logical, scientific views of the world are shaken, and the person confused and in despair, it makes perfect sense for that person to seek comfort in religious beliefs. It is thus logical to make that step. Those beliefs can include the belief in the existence of an infinitely-intelligent creator god.
If a person believes in something, it is also logical to argue in favour of it, because thus the belief and comfort will be reinforced against criticism from the outside. Criticism like the one my opponent presents, for example. Reinforcing that comfort if it is under attack from the outside is a very logical thing to do, because if the belief falls victim to the criticism, the despair will be back, which is undesirable and harmful.
Most famously, Pascal argued in favour of god by a wager: http://en.wikipedia.org...
And while his wager itself may be flawed, it was most logical to attempt it, to make use of modern scientific methods (stochastics in this case) in order to conciliate science and religion, because that conflict is the initial source of the aforementioned despair. If religion and science were not treated as antipodes but rather parallel perspectives, the despair about the failure of scientific knowledge would not even exist.
Let me illustrate by a specific example:
Research about the origin of the universe has so far always led to the same dead end: What was there before, where did the initial energy of the Big Bang originate from. It is a boundary of physics, especially since physics are a descriptive science, not one offering reasons. Now if a scientist reaches that limit and despairs over the fact that his reasoning has come to an end, transcending that into METAPHYSICS is a logical step. Scientists search for answers. When his research reaches a dead end, our scientist will have to turn elsewhere for answers.
The scientist had - prior to this point - believed that his research would lead to an ultimate insight. That's what science is there for: to get the bottom of things. This belief now turns against him, as science ultimately failed him, which leads to a depression. Turning to the thought that a creator god is at the bottom fills that hole, gives the man rest.
Now, along comes a former colleague who still believes that science will take him to an ultimate answer and criticizes the scientist for abandoning his scientific logic.
The scientist now has a choice:
- he can return to science, his faith in scientific research restored: unlikely, as he's already tried and failed
- he can concede and fall back into depression, since he is not only without his science, he's now bereft of his comforting belief in god, too: this is highly undesirable, it would be illogical to do so
- he can argue for the existence of god and try to hold on to what little comfort he has.
Given, this is just one example. But is the man illogical for trying to not lose his mental health? Would it be more logical to have a mental breakdown?
Argumentation, for whatever end, is logical, as argumentation is part of the science called logic. "The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content." (from: http://en.wikipedia.org... ). While some arguments may be invalid, the PROCESS of argumentation is the VERY logical thing. Hence ATTEMPTING to argue is logical, too.
Failure at that is not illogical, it's just a lack of convincing content or false assumptions about connections between parts of the argument.
I assume that you were going to argue about whether or not there are rational arguments in favour of the existence of a god as described by you. But that is not the topic you chose. You chose to call ATTEMPTS at argumentation intricately ILLOGICAL based off of their CONTENT.
That, however, cannot be the case. Trying to achieve a desirable goal is logical. If one tries by means of argumentation, that is no less logical. No matter what about. The logic lies in defending your point of view for reasons of well-being.
If you will concede that, I will gladly turn to the content of your argument on the next round, still, so that you do not feel cheated out of the debate you wanted to have.
Whether rightly or wrongly, my opponent has elected to argue semantics.
My opponent’s argument can be summarised as such:
1. Someone believes in a creator god
2. Someone argues for a creator god
3. Therefore, the argument is logical, as the person is arguing for something that he/she believes in
He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to argue for one, is certainly logical.
I say that the initial step is presupposed unfoundedly. A logical step would be to affirm the first step, rather than assume that it is correct. It would be far wiser to consider the internal premises that comprise the belief, rather than try and argue for them (and potentially waste people’s time, your effort included). It makes no logical sense whatsoever to enter argumentation, when what you are arguing for has not been considered.
So as to “avoid despair”
Whilst it would be logical to believe if it were to help avoid a certain state of despair, there are other factors that have to be taken into account. For example, knowing that what you believe in isn’t necessarily true, or even a lie, could lead to despair of a similar kind, perhaps worse. As far as I can tell, this point seems far too moot to debate, as believing something to enter comfort may bring about despair in the short-run/long-run, or to a greater/lesser extent than the comfort generated. In other words, there are simply far too many variables involved with faith to say that ‘believing will help avoid despair’.
Where my opponent’s argument would make sense
Now, your argument might make sense should it involve something far more moot, such as the validity of a science theory, where external sources might be required as proof. But this isn’t moot. I say that the validity of a creator god’s existence is so fraught with inherent discredit, that a couple of deeply thought ideas with make it plainly obvious that such a god cannot exist, due to the inherent contradiction. Thus, to attempt to argue for a creator god, isn’t logical, as a reasonable step has not taken place beforehand, rendering any argument resulting essentially void of logic, overall.
Why my opponent’s objections do not make sense, as demonstrated via semantics
‘Argue’ has built within it the implication of debate, meaning argumentation between people. As demonstrated in above paragraphs, it makes no sense to argue for something that has not been considered thoroughly beforehand.
It also involves arguing something concrete, as opposed to suggesting via questions. For example, “God exists because the Earth exists”, is argumentation, and I am arguing for the position of God existing through putting forth reasons as to why. To ask the question, “Because the Earth exists, does that mean God exists?” is not argumentation, as this does not hold within the implicit requirements of argumentation (i.e. it is not debate).
What does this mean? It means that if you were to argue for a creator god, you would have already convinced yourself that one exists, which, I argue, is always ill-founded (if you don’t think so, then address my initial argument). Hence, seeing as what should be the initial step of the logical process (considering the possibility of such a god existing, rather than rushing into arguing for one) has not been met, any attempt at arguing for the existence *of* an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical.
My opponent's summary is wrong and misleading, making her rebuttal a straw man argument.
1. and 2. are correct, but 3. is not.
It must read "3. Therefore to ATTEMPT an argument is logical, as the person has to attempt to defend against criticism to avoid despair."
The topic of this debate clearly states that it is illogical to ATTEMPT argumentation for a specific content. Since argumentation is independent from content (see source provided previously), this would make ANY attempt at argumentation illogical. Yet my opponent proposes an argument, which is a clear contradiction.
Furthermore, the initial argument states that ANY attempt at arguing for this certain content is illogical. Which means that only ONE example to the contrary is enough to refute the hypothesis.
An ATTEMPT does not include a full-fledged argumentation. Hence we must omit any and all discussion about the logic of the argument that is being attempted. The question at hand is whether it is logical to attempt an argument. ATTEMPTS in and by themselves clearly include the possibility of failure and flaws.
Hence, this has to be corrected: "He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to argue for one, is certainly logical." Wrong again. Correct would be: "He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to ATTEMPT arguing for one is certainly logical."
"Unfounded presupposition ": It is of no consequence how well-executed the attempt is, all I need to do is prove that a single case exists in which initiating the attempt is the logical thing to do. So this is a moot point. You are refuting the logic of the argument, but I am talking about the logic behind starting an attempt at arguing at all.
"So as to "avoid despair"": Again, the topic is generalized. It doesn't matter what OTHER things could be taken into consideration, all I need is one logical example, and my exemplary scientist decided to avoid despair from this one perspective. The exemplary person does not require to be omniscient, nor unbiased. His limited point of view, which is true for many REAL scientist as recorded by Thomas S. Kuhn, leads him to believe that faith will keep him from despair. It is what many people have stated throughout history: faith gives people hope and strength. Only an atheist would argue to the contrary, but that would be impossible, as an atheist would not even attempt arguing for the existence of a creator god.
"Where my opponent"s argument would make sense": Again, this goes against the validity of the argument, which is not the topic at hand. A person with the premise I depicted will still believe in god and argue in his favour, which is a logical thing to do, as arguing AGAINST something you believe would be illogical. By elimination alone, it must be logical to argue in favour of god if you believe. Believers exist. It is logical they argue in favour of this.
"As demonstrated in above paragraphs, it makes no sense to argue for something that has not been considered thoroughly beforehand." The exemplary scientist has been going through a long career of deduction, reaching a dead end in his research. My example clearly states that he has put considerable amounts of consideration into the matter. He just reached a conclusion different from yours. Flawed or not, that is his premise, and these things have happened in the past: some scientists turn to religion when their paradigm is shattered. And while that may be illogical, it is NOT illogical to argue in favour of their position henceforth.
In this case, they do not even need valid arguments. All they need to do is ATTEMPT arguing, as proposed by my opponent.
Until your very last paragraph, you neglect the "attempting" part you YOURSELF brought up. You are trying to divert the attention of the audience to your straw man-argumentation, going against a position I do not hold.
Again: You wanted to discuss whether it's logical to attempt arguing for a creator god.
The answer to that is obviously: sometimes, yes.
If you believe in a creator god, it's logical to attempt and stand up for your belief. Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself or be a coward. Neither of which is rewarding as an experience, so it's very logical to attempt defending your belief by means of argumentation against others.
To do you a favour, I will now pretend you had actually not asked about "attempting" and refute the content of your arguments.
Your premise is accepted for argument's sake.
"Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed." And yet complicated things like your exemplary television HAVE been designed. You make it sound like complexity cannot be the result of design, but that is a contradiction. It makes total sense to say the television is so complex it had to be designed, because it's true. There is not comparable object with the same functionality that has NOT been designed. Your argument would only be true if there were televisions growing in the wild. So all this proves is that complexity and design are not the same thing, they can coexist or not. A rock would be considered "not very complex" and can be found in the wild OR be synthesized.
Another problem with your argument: you already assume that nothing has been designed by god because you claim god does not exist. However, if god exists, EVERYTHING has been designed by him already, including the mind of the inventor of the television. So again, your argument is going nowhere.
"Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding". For the human mind, maybe. But this presumes that no higher intellect than yours or other humans exist. For example: A child might just put a Christmas tree on top of a car, pull a little and shake his head about father tying the tree tight. "Why're you doing it so complicated? I checked, it's tight!" The child lacks deeper understanding. Who's to say we know all about necessary complexity?
"To say that the universe is "finely tuned" is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent". No. "Finely tuned" s just an allusion, a play of words, nothing more. This is hair-splitting beyond the level of semantics you accuse me of employing.
"Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence." The other way round, this would make sense. While unconscious, one cannot display intelligence. However, anyone can lie in a vigilant coma, unable to demonstrate anything, yet being fully conscious (locked-in syndrome). So this is easily disproved.
"It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time." Since we have no evidence on this: pure conjecture.
"When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones." This may be true for the human mind. WE cannot distinguish, but we are most certainly not infinitely intelligent. So this is another assumption based on the idea that human intelligence is the ultimate level of intelligence. An all-intelligent entity might see a difference between the two. Your argumentation falls apart if we accept the human mind as limited and flawed.
"So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us)." Where is the need for god to provide us with proof for his existence?
belief: "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof"
If god wants humans to believe in him, he will certainly not provide proof. You cannot assume to know god's motivations if he's more intelligent than you. Conjecture, thus.
Conclusion: None of your arguments gives any new insights, it's all conjecture based off the idea that humans know more than any other being. Even Socrates denied that. Your argumentation is flawed throughout.
“My opponent's summary is wrong and misleading, making her rebuttal a straw man argument.”
“1. and 2. are correct, but 3. is not.
This does not address my concern, being that there should be a step before the initial step. Whilst yes, attempting to argue and actually arguing are two different things, making this distinction does not counter my point. The fact is that the initial step is unfounded, that it is illogical to start from an unfounded base. Thus, there is an error in logic before the first step is taken; the 3rd step is not the focus of my criticism.
It is clear that sentences with the word “ATTEMPT” involve a central point in my opponent’s rebuttal. Let’s have a look have a look at why this word could change the debate in my opponent’s favour:
"He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to argue for one, is certainly logical." Wrong again. Correct would be: "He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to ATTEMPT arguing for one is certainly logical."
My opponent’s argument here:
1) There is a difference between attempting to argue, and actually arguing.
2) Attempting to argue must always come before arguing
3) Therefore, it is possible that someone could attempt to argue, yet not actually argue
However, I’ll put it to you this way: regardless of whether someone actually argues or not, my criticism is still valid in regards to feeling the need to argue.
If I argue that, for example, “God exists because the Earth exists”, then I would, to some extent, believe this to be the case, right? If I didn’t think it were at all possible, that such a god couldn’t be proven in that way, I wouldn’t make the argument.
Now, if I ATTEMPT to argue such a thing, I would still believe it to some extent. The only difference is moot: that I didn’t voice my argument. It is this certain level of belief that I am criticising; I’m saying that it shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Therefore, it should be readily evident that the difference between ATTEMPTing to argue for something, and arguing for something, is irrelevant in regards to what I was criticising.
My opponent’s hypothetical case and the arguments extending from it
“"Unfounded presupposition ": It is of no consequence how well-executed the attempt is, all I need to do is prove that a single case exists in which initiating the attempt is the logical thing to do. So this is a moot point. You are refuting the logic of the argument, but I am talking about the logic behind starting an attempt at arguing at all.”
No, I am refuting the need to argue in the first place.
You generalised the topic, hell, I’m even arguing that it’s generalised. Your example was flawed as it created a false dichotomy wherein there are only single instances of the despair in not believing, and the joy in believing. I counter-argued that there are multiple factors involved, which could result many things dependant on the situation. For example, you could take comfort in believing in a god, yet feel despair by knowingly having to lie to yourself.
“"As demonstrated in above paragraphs, it makes no sense to argue for something that has not been considered thoroughly beforehand." The exemplary scientist has been going through a long career of deduction, reaching a dead end in his research … and these things have happened in the past: some scientists turn to religion when their paradigm is shattered. And while that may be illogical, it is NOT illogical to argue in favour of their position henceforth.”
It is illogical when the position has not been considered beforehand. Your example has no grounding in reality as the scientist has reached this conclusion based on research reaching a dead-end and his feelings hurting. Besides, it clearly isn’t logical to argue for said god based on emotions. Again, if the position were not so obviously wrong, it would be reasonable to argue for it.
Your argument is circular in that you presuppose the belief is correct. It takes this form:
1) You argue for the existence of a creator god
2) Therefore it’s logical to argue for one
3) You argue for the existence of a creator god because you believe in one
Again, you need to first affirm the first statement; you need to prove why it is reasonable to believe in such a creator god.
Yes, complexity can be the result of design. But it makes no sense whatsoever to say that because something is so complex, it had to have been designed (which is the Intelligent Design argument). That was the point of my argument; your counter-argument goes off on a tangent explaining why my example was poor (which I can now admit that it is, yet this does not address the central point of my argument here).
It’s not that there can’t be a god, it’s that an omnipotent, creator god is a logical contradiction. There could have been a creator, but that creator cannot be omnipotent.
This is precisely the reason I made this debate. You see, if the human mind is incapable of understanding God’s work, then how can you make the argument for Intelligent Design? How do you know that a god is both the creator and omnipotent, when his work is beyond your mind’s grasp?
“Finely tuned” is the phrase theists use to prove Intelligent Design. The concept of tuning is contradictory, if you consider that an omnipotent being is doing it. Why would theists use this phrase, if what they meant were something entirely different? Not to mention that you did not properly explain my “hair-splitting” and such.
The person could demonstrate intelligence via eye movement, thus there is still a way.
Again, how can you argue for such a god if you cannot prove his existence?
I wish to thank The_Scapegoat_bleats for his arguments, and I'll thank you for reading this debate =)
Final rebuttal. My opponent tries to find a way around the problem, never addressing the topic at hand, so there has unfortunately not been a real argumentation on her part, even though I took the time to react to the content of her flawed position.
"This does not address my concern, being that there should be a step before the initial step."
What should have been there is of no concern. Ironically, this is the very problem with atheism. As stated before, the energy needed for the Big Bang should have come from somewhere, raising the question of creation. This does not bother you, so it must also not bother you what should precede my example. The initial step didn't have to be logical. The attempt of argumentation has to be the logical reaction to the premise, and that you have not disproved. It is clear that illogical situations may arise in the world - if it were otherwise, logic would not have developed as a science to contrast this. But it is absolutely possible to REACT to these situations logically. Logic must be the outcome, not the initial. If you were suddenly attacked by a homeless, mentally ill person "for reading his mind", this would be illogical. But the logical reaction remains to call the police. By your account, it would be illogical to call the police, because the attack was illogical. This happened to me, by the way (just as an anecdote).
My exemplary scientist finds himself facing despair and narrowly escapes by believing in god. He is attacked for this by a former colleague. It is the logical thing to ATTEMPT AND DEFEND YOURSELF. It's called self-preservation, as despair is an undesirable state. Self-preservation (not a new point, just a synonym) is logical.
"The fact is that the initial step is unfounded, that it is illogical to start from an unfounded base."
This is a contradiction to your whole argument. You start with my argumentation, which you call illogical, and start from there to prove your point. You start with the assumption of a creator god, call it illogical and then disprove it. So starting with an unfounded base is the core of argumentation.
"regardless of whether someone actually argues or not, my criticism is still valid in regards to feeling the need to argue."
It is not, as you do not address the example at all. The need to argue arises from the very logical self-preservation in this case.
"It is this certain level of belief that I am criticising; I’m saying that it shouldn’t exist in the first place."
By that account, you could also argue that the universe should not be there in the first place, validating the point of our scientist. The laws of physics state that energy cannot be created, only transformed. That's the dead end the exemplary scientist has reached. The energy should not exist in the first place. If you allow an argument like yours, then you MUST concede it is logical for the exemplary scientist to argue that the universe needed an outside force to be created in the beginning, before the Big Bang, making the assumption of a creator god logical BY YOUR OWN LOGIC.
Either you accept that the premise need not be logical for the ARGUMENTATION to be logical, OR you accept that my example follows your own logic and still holds by your OWN terms.
"Therefore, it should be readily evident that the difference between ATTEMPTing to argue for something, and arguing for something, is irrelevant in regards to what I was criticising."
No, it's not. The logic behind the attempt is self-preservation in my example, and you have not proved that to be illogical.
"No, I am refuting the need to argue in the first place."
So you claim, but I see no arguments to that end. You continue to evade the example, because actually, you don't seem to know how to counter it. May I remind you that YOU started a debate about this topic? So you clearly have demonstrated a need to discuss the topic of a creator god. By your own account, starting an argument requires this:
"‘Argue’ has built within it the implication of debate, meaning argumentation between people."
You came here seeking someone to debate the logic behind defending the existence of a creator god, yet now what you say is you didn't expect someone to feel the need to debate WITH you, as you are now "refuting the need to argue in the first place."
In that case, you came here either expecting to find no one to discuss with you - which is unlikely, since you THANKED me for my arguments - OR you came here not taking this debate seriously in the first place - which would then have been a waste of my time and disrespectful to this entire community - OR this is just an ad-hoc argument out of the blue, without real meaning. Either way, you just dissolved your own argumentation into a giant contradiction:
YOU ADMIT TO COMING HERE FOR A DEBATE YOU SEE NO NEED FOR AN OPPONENT TO ENGAGE IN.
"Your example was flawed as it created a false dichotomy"
My example follows a number of documented REAL cases presented by Thomas S. Kuhn. So the dichotomy is proved and real, despite your claims to the contrary. People feel this way. It is a truism that feelings are not logical. So where you are going at is this: "Feelings SHOULD be logical, everything else makes no sense."
This is a contradiction, as feelings are the great antipode to logic. Popular culture knows this through Mr. Spock. Reactions to feelings can be logical, nonetheless.
"Again, if the position were not so obviously wrong, it would be reasonable to argue for it."
We already established that argumentation by its definition is independent from its content.
YOU PRESUME THE POSITION TO BE WRONG, HENCE ARGUING FOR IT IS WRONG. This is an illegal presumption, as it can only be determined after the debate whether the position is wrong or not - it's what we are here for. "Obviousness" is a classic fallacy.
"Your argument is circular in that you presuppose the belief is correct. It takes this form:"
"1) You argue for the existence of a creator god ...
3) You argue for the existence of a creator god because you believe in one"
NEVER DID. I tire of your straw man arguments. I argue for the logic of defending that belief, never for the existence of a creator god. It can be logical to defend something that isn't there - in my example, out of self-preservation.
"an omnipotent, creator god is a logical contradiction. There could have been a creator, but that creator cannot be omnipotent."
I still see no valid argument for that, see my round 3 rebuttal. There's a contradiction in your sentence: if there IS an omnipotent being, he can well be anything he so desires. Omnipotence would obviously include the ability to resolve paradoxes. Including omnipotence and the word "cannot" in one argument is a contradiction.
"if the human mind is incapable of understanding God’s work, then how can you make the argument for Intelligent Design?"
Most children will actually be awed by everything adults do, even though they do not understand it, because they acknowledge the complexity. Again, you cannot presume to understand the intent of an ALL-intelligent being. If god exists, there may be reasons for him to keep us wondering, to instigate this very discussion, for example.
"“Finely tuned” is the phrase theists use to prove Intelligent Design."
Never heard of it. Pity you failed to present evidence for this. I refute this.
"The person could demonstrate intelligence via eye movement, thus there is still a way."
Not all waking coma patients can do that. Some are completely incapable of communicating. Your argument is wrong.
Final statement: I presented an example - taken from factual reports - how arguing for a creator god can be logical out of self-preservation. My opponent never faced that example full-front, failing to disprove me, instead complaining about the premise of the example. Thus I have demonstrated that not "ANY" attempt to argue for a creator god is ILLOGICAL.
The core arguments of my opponent are all contradictions, thus rendering the point invalid to begin with.
Thank you all.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|