The Instigator
AlextheYounga
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zbot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Athiest's Are Illogical

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,458 times Debate No: 23973
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

AlextheYounga

Pro

I couldn't help but see your debate earlier about Christians being illogical. How I agree that some Christians may be illogical (including the dude you were arguing with) this is not always the case. (Just wanting to make a point that not all Christians use irrelevant Bible verses to support their claims lol. We are represented terribly.)
I would first like to start off by saying that I am a Christian.

My argument will be that Atheists are illogical and that Theism is a much more logical conclusion.

First round acceptance.

Hope you will accept. :)
Zbot

Con

Although I am not an atheist, I accept your challenge. I would like some clarification, though. Who holds the burden of proof? I propose that we share it. I will show that Christians are illogical and you will show that atheists are illogical. The most convincing argument wins. Do you agree?
Debate Round No. 1
AlextheYounga

Pro


Okay, atheists love to say that they live by logic and reason.
Logic and reason are ways to determine whether an idea is to be considered credible or not. Let me explain how logic and reason actually goes against the idea of atheism.


First off, The Kalām cosmological argument:
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.

Basically what this means is that everything has a cause. Every cause has a cause, and so on. Since nothing 'real' (excluding ideas such as numbers i.e. Pi) in our universe can be infinite, there cannot be an infinite amount of causes.
Therefore, there must have been a first cause; some kind of designer or deity.

And no, the universe is not infinite. Scientists have discovered that the size of the universe is about 47.5 billion light years.
For years, scientists had thought that the universe was constantly expanding because all planets, galaxies, stars, ect. were slowly moving away from each other.

Here's the concept. Take a rubber band. Draw two dots right next to each other on the rubber band. Now stretch the band. Those two dots become farther away from each other. Its the same concept.

Scientists watched the galaxies spread out, but recently, scientists have discovered that the speed in which all objects in the universe become farther apart, is slowing down, and will eventually stop. This proves that the universe is not infinite, which backs up Kalam's Argument.

Since nothing 'real' is infinite, there is not an infinite amount of causes. There must have been a first cause. God.

Secondly, Pascal's Wager
  1. "God is, or He is not"
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
  4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
  5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
  6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
Basically what this means is that it is more logical to be a Christian than it is to be atheist.

Thirdly Leibniz's argument.
Leibniz argues that everything in the world is contingent that it may or may not have existed.
Something will not exist unless there is a reason for its existence.
This rests on his premise that the actual world is the best possible world, as such we can account for everything in it as being there for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole, requires a further reason for existence, and this reason must be some form of deity or designer.

Using logic and reason, one can concur that being an atheist is illogical.
Zbot

Con

Thank you, AlextheYounga, for those excellent opening arguments. I can see that this will be a great debate. I will offer my rebuttals for your arguments against Atheism then provide an argument of my own against Christianity, as we agreed in the comments section.

Rebuttal:

The Kalām Cosmological Argument:

Your syllogism ends with the conclusion that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” From there you make a colossal jump to claiming that the cause must be a deity, and you do so with little additional argumentation or evidence. I will offer a few possibilities:

  1. 1. The universe itself is infinite and the Big Bang was only the beginning of one of many eternally recurring cycles. In this case, Premise 2 of your syllogism is refuted.
  2. 2. The chain of cause and effect is infinite and stretches back to before the Big Bang, with there being no “first cause.”

Either of these is a plausible explanation for Kalam’s observations about the universe and neither requires the superfluous assumption of a deity.

Your discourse on the universe here really has nothing to do with Kalam. In addition, you are dead wrong when you say that “scientists have discovered that the speed in which all objects in the universe become farther apart, is slowing down, and will eventually stop.” Actually, the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics went to three scientists who discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.[1]

Pascal's Wager

Pascal’s Wager is one big appeal to emotion and in no way can be construed as evidence for the truth of theism. The consequences, positive or negative, of holding a certain belief have absolutely no bearing on the truth of that belief. The only valid reason, logically speaking, for holding a belief is that belief’s truth. The theist who believes in God based on Pascal’s Wager has succumbed to the fallacy of appeal to emotion and is illogical.

Leibniz's Argument

This is just another version of Kalam and my refutation above applies here as well.

Why Christians are Illogical:

There are many beliefs necessary to the Christian faith that violate the laws of logic and/or are guilty of fallacious reasoning. I will give two and show that Christians are illogical.

Jesus’ Nature

Christians believe that Jesus was both man and God.
All men are mortal.
God is immortal.
Christians believe that Jesus was mortal and immortal.

For someone to be both mortal and immortal violates the law of non-contradiction, as these two characteristics are mutually exclusive. Christians believe in this contradiction nonetheless and are, therefore, illogical.

Biblical Inspiration

Christians also believe the following circular argument:

The Bible says God exists.
Everything the Bible says is true (because it comes from God).
God exists.

To clarify, the term “God exists” in the above syllogism means “God exists as portrayed in the Bible,” namely that he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. The crux of the issue is that there is no way to glean such specific nature about God without believing the Bible, but one has no reason to believe the Bible’s claims about the nature of God unless one already believes he exists and has those characteristics. So circular it makes my head spin…

In conclusion:

My opponents arguments for theism (and therefore against atheism) have been refuted and I have presented my arguments against Christianity. I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttals and rejoinders.

Debate Round No. 2
AlextheYounga

Pro

My opponent makes some compelling arguments. I will refute them to the best of my ability.

The Kalam cosmological argument.
  1. 1. The universe itself is infinite and the Big Bang was only the beginning of one of many eternally recurring cycles. In this case, Premise 2 of your syllogism is refuted.
  2. 2. The chain of cause and effect is infinite and stretches back to before the Big Bang, with there being no “first cause.”
This was the classical argument against the Kalam cosmological argument. The rebuttal for it, is that there cannot be an infinite amount of causes, because nothing we know of today is infinite. (As I explained earlier, not even the universe)

Pascal's Wager

Pascal’s Wager is one big appeal to emotion and in no way can be construed as evidence for the truth of theism. The consequences, positive or negative, of holding a certain belief have absolutely no bearing on the truth of that belief. The only valid reason, logically speaking, for holding a belief is that belief’s truth. The theist who believes in God based on Pascal’s Wager has succumbed to the fallacy of appeal to emotion and is illogical.

Although, I will agree that Pascal's Wager does appeal to emotion, it is not really designed to prove the truth for theism. It is built on the idea that it is more logical to be a Christian because you benefit more. But, just because it appeals to emotion does not necessarily make it any less true. It does not prove God's existence, but if you weigh the pros and cons of each idea, Christianity wins.
Its more of an argument to say that it would be illogical to be an atheist.

Leibniz's Argument
This is just another version of Kalam and my refutation above applies here as well.

Actually, this is not just another version of Kalam's argument. This actually helps to prove that the universe actually has a purpose. Kalam's argument is an argument based on an initial push; a first push.
Leibniz's argument explains that, since everything has a purpose, then the universe must have a purpose. There must have been something to give the universe a purpose, such as a deity or designer.

Jesus's Nature
Christians believe that Jesus was both man and God.
All men are mortal.
God is immortal.
Christians believe that Jesus was mortal and immortal.

Actually, Christians do not believe that Jesus was both man and God. They believe he was a man, who was sent by God, who never sinned, and through the help of God, was able to rise from the grave.
This argument does not really prove anything because it rests on the premise that Jesus was a contradiction.

The Bible says God exists.
Everything the Bible says is true (because it comes from God).
God exists.

Well, now I will not deny that many (ignorant) Christians do use this idea, but it is not the argument for Christianity. Christianity, in itself, can be argued with facts rather than just the idea that the Bible says it happened.

I'm really looking forward to where this debate goes. :)
Zbot

Con

The Kalām Cosmological Argument:

“This was the classical argument against the Kalam cosmological argument. The rebuttal for it, is that there cannot be an infinite amount of causes, because nothing we know of today is infinite. (As I explained earlier, not even the universe)

You’re basically committing an appeal to ignorance here. Yes, we currently know of nothing that is infinite. That, however, is not proof that the first cause was an infinite deity. There may very well be something “real” out there that does exist and is infinite but we simply don’t know of it yet.

At some point, one does have to assume that something infinite was the first cause. I have provided two examples of conceivable infinites that don’t require the assumption of an unnecessary entity and are therefore, by Occam’s razor, more logically plausible than believing that a deity was the infinite first cause. You simply don’t need the assumption of the additional entity.

Pascal's Wager

Allow me to present to you Zbot’s Wager:

One must choose between believing in Santa Claus or not. There is no third option. If you believe, he will give you gifts every year on Christmas. If not, you’ll only get a lump of coal.

By your reasoning, the wager itself is reason enough to believe in Santa Claus. Sounds ridiculous, right? Obviously an appeal to emotion and illogical. Well, that’s how Pascal’s Wager sounds to someone who has not illogically presupposed God’s existence.

By the atheist’s reasoning, the only justification for believing something to be true is a logical likelihood that that belief is true, not the consequences of holding that belief. The consequences do not affect the truth value of the belief.

Leibniz's Argument

Both arguments go back to the beginning of all things and seek to explain that the first cause/purpose inherently exists outside the normal order of things as we know them.

In either argument, one must assume that the origin of all things exists in and of itself without cause and without a purpose. Both Kalam and Leibniz assume the existence of an entity to fulfill this role.

I contend that the universe itself could be infinite and exists without cause or purpose OR that the chain of cause and effect could be infinite and exists without cause or purpose. In either case, I account for the existence of all things without the unnecessary assumption of another entity, which violates Occam’s razor.

Jesus’ Nature

“Actually, Christians do not believe that Jesus was both man and God.

This is yet another flatly incorrect statement.[1][2][3][4][5] I could go on with the sources but it’s getting a bit ridiculous. Yes, Christians do believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Therefore, as my syllogism shows, they believe in the logical contradiction that he was both mortal and immortal. That is one example of how Christians are illogical.

Biblical Inspiration

The only source for specific information about the nature of God is the Bible itself. At best, one can attempt to make philosophical arguments for Theism, but to believe in the specific nature of God as Christians do, they must believe in the Bible.

For example, my opponent cannot “argue with facts” that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. If he can, I invite him to do so.

No, Christians believe what they believe about the existence and nature of their God because they believe the Bible is true. Why do they believe the Bible is true? Because they believe in the existence and nature of their God as described by the Bible. And around and around we go. The fact that they think this way is another example of how Christians are illogical.


Debate Round No. 3
AlextheYounga

Pro

AlextheYounga forfeited this round.
Zbot

Con

I feel my case is strong enough to withhold any further arguments at this time. I have shown that my opponent's arguments for theism are on shaky ground and that Christians necessarily believe in at least one contradiction and circular reasoning. Accordingly, we must conclude that "Christians are illogical" is a more truthful statement than "Atheists are illogical," which is what was decided in the comments section would be the criterion for judging this debate. I hope my opponent has not simply given up on this debate, as I am enjoying it greatly.
Debate Round No. 4
AlextheYounga

Pro

AlextheYounga forfeited this round.
Zbot

Con

What a shame. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zbot 4 years ago
Zbot
Somebody please vote..don't let this end in a tie.
Posted by Zbot 4 years ago
Zbot
AlextheYounga, just create a 3-round debate if you're not going to debate 5 full rounds. Not cool man.
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
@truin Good luck with finding a christian who won't ignore that you said anything or dismiss it completely because of something unrelated.

I would like to use pros argument against him/her
"there cannot be an infinite amount of causes.
Therefore, there must have been a first cause"
ok then things must have a first cause acording to you. God must have a cause. He must have a cause. He must have a cause. And so on. So if there needs to be an infinite amount of creators.

Therefore according to you-
god needs to have a creator(therefore infinite creators)
there cannot be infinite creators(according to you)
god cannot exist.
Posted by Truin 4 years ago
Truin
"Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence."

I took this as your meaning that everything has a creator of some sort. I ask who created god?
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
These can be easily refuted, especially Pascals Wager.
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
And my apologies, I assumed you were an atheist. I should have looked a little on your profile
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Interesting argument, looking forward to the rebuttal
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
You know what, that's a little harder, but i'll give it a go. Haha.
Posted by Zbot 4 years ago
Zbot
I propose Atheism v. Christianity specifically, with a shared burden of proof.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Really? Your going to call Atheists illogical? Your going to call a group that lives souly by reason and evidence illogical? .... :/
No votes have been placed for this debate.