Belief in the existence of God is Justified.
Debate Rounds (3)
I present to you a variation of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God:
Point 1: Logic Exists, this is self explanatory, we all know that logic exists.
Point 2: All things that exist are either physical or conceptual. There is no other option, my opponent would need to show that something exists that is an alternative to this, which my opponent will not be able to do.
Point 3: Logic is not physical. There are not physical properties to logic
With that said we get our first conclusion, this conclusion is as follows: Since logic exists it must either be physical or conceptual, and since it is not physical it must then be conceptual.
Next points: Concepts come from minds.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.
Logic is not from the human mind, therefore there must be a greater mind that logic depends on. This greater mind must be god. God is the only mind capable of making a concept that the entirety of the Universe depends on.
This is why God is the logical conclusion, the atheist has no way of explaining logic so therefore is irrational, as a person's worldview must be able to account for the existence of logic and you can only do that through god.
What is this debate to be about? Well in the premise you stipulated not only the burdens you beloved me to have to carry but also that the existence of god should be "justified by good reasoning." You then preformed an analysis on logic, your deduced origin of logic and how you feel that this proves your point.
I have a number of issues with these stamens which I will address and reference throughout my substantive.
Firstly however the burdens,
To win this debate all I have to do is point out the flaws in your logic and to prove that logically -as that is the premise of your debate- there is no evidence of God.
You have asserted without real annalisis that logic is outside of the human mind that it is somthing only attainable from god. This does not make sense under your loose definition of logic. Logic is the method by which we assess the outside world and predict the actions and reactions that will occur if we do certain things it is not an exclusively human ideal. It is the root of most of the life on earth's reason for surviving. If you are unable to recognise danger, food, and other necessities of life you are unable to survive and procreate. Therefore only those being which use logic or some basal form of reasoning will survive. As the animal becomes more advanced there social and logical codes become more nuanced and it is these subtle nuances which have led you astray, for we are animals and we are not that special.
We are not born with a fully formed logical brain in the simplest of examples is that the first caveman who had fire burnt himself and then didn't do it again because of the memory of the pain of fire. When we are born we do not have these innate logical ideals, no new born can play chess. Where as if logic is a gift from god we should be born with some if not all the capacity?
So from this we have a better and clearer understanding of logic, not a dictionary definition but a real practical definition. Logic is the method by which to some extent most life on earth observes and makes decisions based upon previous observations.
This not only clashes with your belief that there is no root to logic but in also brings up a major problem with a debate based on one "infallible point" just like Rene De Carts your faith placed on one idea has led you to wrongfully askew assertions.
"Justified by good reasoning."
Now we move onto the meat of the problem and this is the "good Reasoning" which is completely ignored in your speech. What is this good reasoning? As has been stipulated Logic is the bases of your argument, Logic requires evidence. There is no evidence. Religion as a whole is based around the idea of belief. You cannot have a religion with proof. They don't exist they go against the fundamentals of religion. If there is no leap of faith then what is religion? It is not something you prove and for this reason the debate on your side was lost from the start. If however we ignore this and just look to the possibility that you are just justifying the belief in religion under other premise we come to the unfortunate multiple religion problem the huge number and diversity of faiths which have a rainbow of different moral and ideological ideals upheld within them, not only pulls us away from justify one religion but further attacks your idea that God is the origin of logic if he was why then are there such a diverse medley of religions with such divergent morals two men cannot walk the same road in the same direction and get to different places?
These two reasons are why not only is your definition of logic shoe-string at best but also how an initially compelling case is actually self destroying and that is why logic and reason fall against God.
Logical absolutes are true outside the human mind and are actually transcendent:
Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
So again I restate my case:
Logical absolutes exist.
They must be conceptual since they are not physical
If they are conceptual they must come from a mind.
Since human minds are different and these absolutes are true independent of differing human opinions
there must be a transcendent mind that creates this concept of logical absolutes
That mind we call god.
My opponent has yet to refute this, and before he can even try, my opponent must first even attempt to justify how he can accept logic and logical absolutes in his worldview. Since his atheism has no way to employ logic, atheism itself is self refuting hence god must exist. If god must exist it is absolutely proven that belief in god is justified.
Throw in these other arguments like Kalams Cosmological argument:
Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Also we know that this cause must be transcendent and personal, and what we call god.
and The Ontological argument:
There is existence
Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
God is perfection and perfection in existence
Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
Hence God exists.
and it seems to me the atheist worldview is shattered. The theists worldview can make sense where as the atheist worldview is just flat out self refuting.
TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 4 years ago
|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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: forfiet
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.