The Instigator
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Losing
43 Points

Belief in the Christian god is 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,307 times Debate No: 2820
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (20)

 

Yraelz

Con

Apparently I disagree with such a statement. I feel that belief in the Christian god is rather illogical at best. I ask that my opponent present points on why they feel it is logical. I would also ask that voters vote not on the position they agree with but who did the better debating.

I now stand open for my opponents case.
Kleptin

Pro

"Apparently I disagree with such a statement. I feel that belief in the Christian god is rather illogical at best. I ask that my opponent present points on why they feel it is logical. I would also ask that voters vote not on the position they agree with but who did the better debating.

I now stand open for my opponents case."

I feel that the belief in the Christian God is rather logical, and I will make my case from a socioanthropological point of view.

The attributes of the Christian god are mainly omnipotence, omnicience, and unconditional love. It is also an intelligent, purposeful, and willful creator. It is perfectly logical that these ideas would develop because humans worship power, knowledge, love, etc.

As intelligent and willful creators, humans create a god who is a similarly intelligent and willful creator. This logically strings from the concept of things creating other things. Ugumoo and Bobo made sticks to kill mammoths with. What made Ugumoo and Bobo?

Thus, the belief in a Christian God is very logical. Whether or not it is correct is another story.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Con

Obviously this wasn't quite where I expected this debate to go.... however instead of arguing against my opponents perception of the word logical I am going to argue the idea that he has presented.

I would ask that voters vote on who did the better debating. Thank you.

I will start my round out by offering a few definitions, should my opponent feel that they are not untrue he has every right to argue them with me. In the end voters will most likely be forced to decide which definitions to go with.

Logical- According to or agreeing with the principles of logic.

Logic- Of reason or sound judgment.

Thus under the definition of logic, logical could be redefined as, "according to or agreeing with the principles of reason or sound judgment."

Please note that both of these definitions are rather simple do not take an overbearing amount of thought to comprehend. They are regular definitions we as people have seen all the time.

My opponent begins his case with the following,

"The attributes of the Christian god are mainly omnipotence, omnicience, and unconditional love. It is also an intelligent, purposeful, and willful creator. It is perfectly logical that these ideas would develop because humans worship power, knowledge, love, etc."

>>I am in accordance with his conclusion here. Paraphrased, he states that these ideas are perfectly logical for humans to develop because they worship them. This much of his contention is true. However at the point my opponent states,

"As intelligent and willful creators, humans create a god who is a similarly intelligent and willful creator."

I must disagree. While it may be perfectly logical to develop ideas of power, knowledge, love, etc... it is rather illogical to deify those ideas into an omnipotent, omniscience god. Believing in something that humans cannot see, is a completely illogical idea.

Under my opponents socioanthropological point of view humans create a logical base on foundations. These foundations need to be steady in order to support the rest of the human logical system. The idea of basing our socioanthropological logic on an idea that we cannot even see is the least logical thing to do. The most logical thing to do would be to base our socioanthropological logic system on something so grounded in facts that nothing can even attempt to disprove it.

The main problem with my opponents contention is the fact that he commits the fallacy of composition. In other words my opponent takes logical characteristics of god (power, knowledge, love) and thereby jumps straight to the conclusion that belief in god is logical.

This fallacy would be like me saying, because Hitler had three good qualities he was overall a good guy. Not true. Just because parts of god might be logical this does not mean the belief in god is also so.

Finally, in order to seal my case, I will give you an example that falls under my opponents logic but is clearly illogical.

Santa Clause:

1. He is omnipotent, he has a naughty and nice list, he knows what you've done and where on his list you are.

2. He is powerful, he has flying deer, he has an army of elves, he's generally considered to have magical properties seen by the fact that he can enter houses without chimneys.

3. He has a great deal of love, he spends all of his time dedicated to making children happy. I don't know anyone more loving or dedicated than that....

4. He is an intelligent creator, he makes toys, he's seen to have talking snowman in some movies.

5. He's wealthy, he is always portrayed as fat meaning he is well fed, he owns the entire north pole not to mention the workshop.

Wow, 5 traits of Santa Clause which are logical under my opponents socioanthropological point of view. Does this therefor mean that Santa Clause is a logical belief!? I'll let the voters answer.

Your turn. =)
Kleptin

Pro

I need not reply to most of that, your argument basically hinges on this point:

"The main problem with my opponents contention is the fact that he commits the fallacy of composition. In other words my opponent takes logical characteristics of god (power, knowledge, love) and thereby jumps straight to the conclusion that belief in god is logical."

The logic (sound reason/judgment) I am referring to is not on the part of the primitive human developing religious ideas. The logic is referring to the anthropologist studying the primitive human.

It's much like saying "It is logical for stupid people to believe in stupid things". The logic here is not on the part of the stupid person. It is on the part of me, the observer, saying that stupid people do stupid things.

Similarly, I am saying it is logical for humans to believe in the Christian God. The logic here is not on the part of the person believing in god. It is on the part of me, the contender.

The examples you provided all show that the beliefs themselves are illogical because they are derived fallaciously. I am saying that it is logical for primitive beings to develop those flawed beliefs given their status and background.

Hence, they are not quite relevant to my point.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Con

As this is my last round in this debate I will be briefly touching over my opponents points and offering a brief summary.

My opponent begins his round by stating,

"The logic (sound reason/judgment) I am referring to is not on the part of the primitive human developing religious ideas. The logic is referring to the anthropologist studying the primitive human."

Sadly even through his logic my opponents statement is completely false. He offers an analogy that is also completely false,

"It's much like saying "It is logical for stupid people to believe in stupid things"."

Why may my voters ask, is this false? Quite simple actually. My opponent has completely and utterly dropped my Santa Clause argument from the round before. The fact is, these "stupid people" do not believe in Santa Clause as belief in him can be seen as illogical. Believing in god is far more illogical as god is of even greater powers than Santa Clause. Thus "stupid people" do not logically believe in God.

I would also like the voters to keep 3 more things in mind when voting.

1. My opponent completely dropped my definitions,

"Logical- According to or agreeing with the principles of logic.

Logic- Of reason or sound judgment. "

He thereby concedes them to me and until he can prove his logic somehow follows reason or sound judgment he has lost.

2. The resolution quite clearly states, "is logical" this means we are talking about now, not cavemen.

3. Should my opponent now try to argue arguments that he has previously dropped his arguments should be discarded as I have no chance to respond.

Thank you for the debate.
Kleptin

Pro

It seems I have overestimated my opponent.

I did not respond directly to each and every single one of my opponent's points because it was unnecessary.

Each and every single one of my opponent's points assumed that I was arguing that the conclusion for the existence of the Christian god was sound/valid (logical). In short, my opponent's second round posts in their entirety was a field full of straw-man fallacies.

My argument is not for the subject of the belief, but the belief itself. To give a nice, simple example, I will respond to the Santa example:

Yes. Belief in Santa is logical. Why? Small children are often taught about Santa Claus. They are at a lack of critical information. They are at an age where fantasy is a dominant form of grasping the world. Thus, belief in Santa is logical.

***********

My opponent sets up some criteria. I'll respond to that.

"1. My opponent completely dropped my definitions,
"Logical- According to or agreeing with the principles of logic.
Logic- Of reason or sound judgment. "

He thereby concedes them to me and until he can prove his logic somehow follows reason or sound judgment he has lost."

I haven't dropped them at all. I just applied them to a different argument. It is reasonable that small children believe in Santa. Similarly, the acceptance of a Christian god by certain people is also logical. There are bound to be people who blindly accept what they are told, there are bound to be people who accept the Christian god unquestioningly. It would be ILLOGICAL to assume that everyone abides by the rules of logic constantly.

Thus, I have satisfied my opponent's criterion.

"2. The resolution quite clearly states, "is logical" this means we are talking about now, not cavemen."

That's fine. Some people today are at a lack of information too. Some people today also have a poor grasp of science. Many people share the same type of thinking as the people of the past, since humans as a species value the same things they did in the past. Thus, it is logical that the belief in the Christian god would survive to this very day.

"3. Should my opponent now try to argue arguments that he has previously dropped his arguments should be discarded as I have no chance to respond."

I won't, and I didn't. Everything I am arguing now is but clarification for the points I argued last time. Everything I have said here was summarized in the last phrase of my last response, which I shall quote below:

"The examples you provided all show that the beliefs themselves are illogical because they are derived fallaciously. I am saying that it is logical for primitive beings to develop those flawed beliefs given their status and background.

Hence, they are not quite relevant to my point."

********

To conclude, a misunderstanding on my opponent's part jeopardized his entire argument. Though he had a chance to respond to my argument, he mistakenly spent his last response attacking straw-men instead of my actual position.

Throughout this entire debate, my opponent has been trying to prove that no one can logically conclude that the Christian god exists. He did not actually do this.

To make things worse, I spent my time giving the reasons why people believe in the Christian god and why this belief has come so far. My argument has nothing to do with whether this belief is true or not. I was simply arguing that it is logical that the belief exists.

Hence, I have fulfilled my duty of showing that BELIEF IN THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS LOGICAL.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 2 months ago
Yraelz
I don't mean the voting itself as a favor. I mean that you shouldn't vote for a side because that person did something nice for you. You should vote for a side because they won the debate in your assessment.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
I have to disagree with the notion that doing a favor for someone is a mean thing. Having said that,the rest of your post is valid.
Posted by Yraelz 2 months ago
Yraelz
dsjpk5 - Don't vote on debates either out of spite or as a favor. Both of those are super sh!tty things to do. Just be a good person.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
What's even funnier is I reversed my vote in favor of the person who reported me (Con). So now, if a new person finds this debate and votes for Pro, Con will be losing.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
When it comes to old debates, tej, there's been a change in how they're perceived, mainly because a) they are always open to more votes, and b) there was no requirement to include an RFD in any of them, so no one could opt to have explanation. Given that, and given that there have been recent instances where people have clearly voted to spite someone for other activity on the site, we decided there was a need to moderate differently on old debates like this.
Posted by Yraelz 2 months ago
Yraelz
There are very few of my debates hanging in the balance where a single voter could push them into the loss range (because most of the close ones are already me losing lol).

It wasn't a coincidence that I voted on dsjpk5's debate (http://www.debate.org...) and 20 minutes later this debate, from 9 years back, had a counter-vote.

Hilariously, before my vote on dsjpk5's vote was removed, I found that his opponent had actually plagiarized everything and I reversed my vote (see comments). I'm assuming that dsjpk5 initiated the report which means he/she effectively only removed votes for them-self.
Posted by Yraelz 2 months ago
Yraelz
Eh, it was a vote bomb. I'm not particularly surprised.
Posted by tejretics 2 months ago
tejretics
Interesting.

Moderation on debates with no required RFD seems to vary massively.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for removal*] This debate is over 9 years old, and further votes on it, particularly when they appear to be responsive to votes on current debates and provide no RFD, are removed on the basis that voting on this debate is effectively closed.
************************************************************************
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Wait, do you mean that you want you to think you're winning? :D
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
YraelzKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by jdizzle 7 years ago
jdizzle
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jam34 9 years ago
jam34
YraelzKleptinTied
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