The Instigator
KILLUMINATI
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism Cannot Be Logical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
KILLUMINATI
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,057 times Debate No: 22616
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

KILLUMINATI

Pro

Most Atheists believe that everything that exists is material, that everything that actually exists is part of the physical world. The laws of logic are not physical. The Atheistic worldview eliminates the possibility of logic being real or reliable. At the same time, Atheists try to use logic to reason. When they do so, they are demonstrating that their worldview is not internally consistent and that their worldview is not valid. The worldview of the Atheist cannot be a valid worldview because the worldview requires that the Atheist use the laws of logic, yet the Atheist's worldview does not allow the laws of logic to exist since they are not material. Atheism is self-refuting because the Atheist must assume something (logic) that disproves Atheism in order to prove Atheism.

(1)Atheists try to use the laws of logic to argue against the existence of God. But in order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

(2)Atheists can be logical since they were created by God but they cannot make a logical case (that is consistent with Atheism) for trusting logic. In the same way Atheists can be moral since they were created by God, but they cannot make a logical case or a moral case (that is consistent with Atheism) for their morality. They can be moral, but it is not logical for them to do so.

(3)Atheist does not believe in revelation. Christians believe in the real God of the bible who is able to reveal knowledge and understanding about himself and his universe to any person. This means that the only means of reason that an Atheist has is logic. Christians reason together with God. God reveals.The Christian receives God's revelation.If God reveals through the Bible, then the Christian receives the revelation that God gives through the Bible. It is a two step process. Atheists, believing their worldview, say that this is circular reasoning. It would be if there were not God or if God did not reveal himself and his universe.But God does reveal so it is perfectly rational to say, "God says..." The Atheist, however does not have a self-consistent worldview and from the atheistic inconsistent worldview the Atheist position that the internally consistent relationship between God and His people is not rational.

All the arguments against God fail.

If there are any Atheists out there, I'd be curious to hear what knowledge you are in possession of that allows you to logically rule out the possibility that the Universe has (or had) a creator.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Palpability and Logic: A big part of my opponent's case basically centers around the idea that atheism only looks at what is palpable and material, and while atheism does analyze what is palpable and material, my opponent has a very superficial scope on the nature of atheism. It is not just what is palpable and material, but what can be analyzed, measured, and utilized in order to make conclusions or observations about nature. Hence, atheism looks more toward a scientific perspective in understanding the world whereas religion looks more toward faith. To say that atheists only look at the material is not only superficial, but also unfounded. A scientific perspective is not only looking at the material. The material is certainly included, but not the complete fixation of science. Take for example light, which is literally a transmission of energy with no sort of mass or material substance, and this measured by the bounds of science. Regardless, logic comes from the mind, and while logic itself is not material, it stems from something that is: the human mind. The other three points rest on this same idea, meaning that if I knock this general idea down, the entirety of his case goes down except perhaps for his third point.
Debate Round No. 1
KILLUMINATI

Pro

My opponent stated "logic comes from the mind, and while logic itself is not material, it stems from something that is: the human mind"

This is not a valid response. First, this assumes that the mind is the brain which can only be argued using circular reasoning. Second, if the laws of logic are in the brain, then they only apply in the brain today. There is nothing to say that they existed in the human brain thousands of years ago. There is nothing to say that they would exist where human beings do not live. There is nothing to say they could not change tomorrow. Plus there would be nothing to say that people haven't "just evolved" to believe that they are being logical when in fact they are not. In that case, logic could not be used to prove anything. It would be hard to explain, were logic hard wired into the brain why there would not be a wide range of competing and evolving "logics," especially among various groups of people. Think of this in terms of the logic that might be used for designing and building an airplane. Think of this in terms of the law of non-contradiction. Among some people, you could be both here and also not here at the same time. But no matter where we go, you cannot be both here and not here at the same time. You are either here or you are not here at any given
time.

Also thinking is not a sense found is nature thus you cannot use it for any basis for thought or logic.


Theist understand that logic is under the control of God, but God is not bound by every rule of every logical system. God goes outside of the constraints of His creation at will. These are the events that we call miracles. In addition, we, as humans, only understand a small portion of the
mind of God.The logic that God gave us gives us some insight into how God works and thinks, but God is infinite and we are finite.


My opponent stated "logic itself is not material"

If logic is not material, then how does it fit into the Atheistic worldview? Why do laws of logic exist? Where did these laws come from? How do the laws of logic interact with the physical world? Why does the physical world follow the laws of logic if the laws of logic are not material? If you are able to admit that logic is not material, then why are you so opposed to God? Why is the obvious answer so abhorant to the you? The answer to this final question reaches the root of the problem, does it not?

To claim logic you must determine what determines logic or who?


Atheism by definition is the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Logic by definition is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

***Atheism is not logical simply because the theory that God does not exist has no validity.***




ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
KILLUMINATI

Pro

Most Atheists believe that everything that exists is material, that everything that actually exists is part of the physical world. The laws of logic are not physical. The Atheistic worldview eliminates the possibility of logic being real or reliable. At the same time, Atheists try to use logic to reason. When they do so, they are demonstrating that their worldview is not internally consistent and that their worldview is not valid. The worldview of the Atheist cannot be a valid worldview because the worldview requires that the Atheist use the laws of logic, yet the Atheist's worldview does not allow the laws of logic to exist since they are not material. Atheism is self-refuting because the Atheist must assume something (logic) that disproves Atheism in order to prove Atheism.

(1)Atheists try to use the laws of logic to argue against the existence of God. But in order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

(2)Atheists can be logical since they were created by God but they cannot make a logical case (that is consistent with Atheism) for trusting logic. In the same way Atheists can be moral since they were created by God, but they cannot make a logical case or a moral case (that is consistent with Atheism) for their morality. They can be moral, but it is not logical for them to do so.

(3)Atheist does not believe in revelation. Christians believe in the real God of the bible who is able to reveal knowledge and understanding about himself and his universe to any person. This means that the only means of reason that an Atheist has is logic. Christians reason together with God. God reveals.The Christian receives God's revelation.If God reveals through the Bible, then the Christian receives the revelation that God gives through the Bible. It is a two step process. Atheists, believing their worldview, say that this is circular reasoning. It would be if there were not God or if God did not reveal himself and his universe.But God does reveal so it is perfectly rational to say, "God says..." The Atheist, however does not have a self-consistent worldview and from the atheistic inconsistent worldview the Atheist position that the internally consistent relationship between God and His people is not rational.

All the arguments against God fail.

If there are any Atheists out there, I'd be curious to hear what knowledge you are in possession of that allows you to logically rule out the possibility that the Universe has (or had) a creator.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zeromander 4 years ago
Zeromander
(@owen99999) The inference does not depend on the premise of theism, but demonstrates through logic and by logic, that a strict notion of a naturalistic worldview is not valid in reason. It is like saying the inductive reasoning of gravity is not valid because it relies partially on the premise that gravity exists. This is circular reasoning, as the premise is not relevant or dependent upon the logic of post discovery.
Posted by owen99999 5 years ago
owen99999
Wow pro your arguments really are hopeless given that they partially rely on the premise god exists! Haha no debating sense at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
KILLUMINATIScarletGhost4396Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit