The Instigator
RantNRave31
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
headphonegut
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Debate #1 - The supposition"God exists" is a valid proposition for consideration in logical analysis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,160 times Debate No: 17054
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

RantNRave31

Pro

[D1] Reason, verb: to think, understand, to form judgement by a process of logic.

[D2] Logic, noun: Logic is the study of the nature of the valid argument, a reasoning tool with which we can make valid inferences from a given set of facts or premises. Logic is a tool that allows us to analyze the validity of an argument without regard for the truth value of the proposition or conclusion of that argument.

[D3] Proposition, noun: A proposition is a declarative statement to which we can assign a value of true or false, but never both. It's heads, it's tails, it's spinning(heads OR tails), but NEVER both heads AND tails.

[D4] A logical connective joins propositions together to form complex statements. Logical connectives are the words AND,OR, and NOT.

[D5] A logical variable is a symbol used to represent a proposition. We use the capitol letters A,B,P,Q,and R to represent propositions.

[Logical Analysis]
[P]The statement "God Exists" can be assigned a truth value of either true or false.
[Q] According to [D3] we have the proposition P is a valid proposition.
[R] The supposition "God Exists" is therefore a valid proposition.

My opponent should argue that the statement "God Exists" is not a valid proposition and therefore not reasonable to consider in logical analysis.

My apologies, the original debate I planned was too complex and will be divided into multiple debates with each successive argument dependent upon the previous.
I doubt anyone will debate this argument, but you never know. Better to get it out of the way so we can ensure valid reasoning through to the real debate.
Sooo, any takers on Debate #1? Remember, if you chose to argue in a successive debate, you will be asked to suppose previous arguments conclusions as true when they are used as propositions or premises in successive arguments.
headphonegut

Con

I would like to thank RNR for starting thi very intriguing debate it must be noted that when we say logical anlysis we are talking about "any arena" where logic applies of course this can mean many things in most cases involving facts it would fail but truth is subjective Like the saying goes truth is in the eye of the beholder this is relevant because logical analysis is required only when in doubt of facts or when there are too little facts and assumptions must be made. Logical analysis is done to reach a conclusion on something.

The uncertain belief that god exists cannot be a valid assertion to consider in a logical analysis mainly because it's pointless to consider it. Penguins might as well wonder about nuclear physics. Its pointless to wonder whether a being thats all powerful exists since it will never be proven or disproven first humans should figure out how our world works and how the universe works many advancements have been made mainly the theory of relativity by Einstein and quantum mechanics by several Dutch scientists. My opponent must prove that this consideration is relevant. If one believes in god then theirs no reason to consider anything. Those that don't believe but question gods existence either want to be proven wrong and want to believe or want to be proven right of course neither will happen.

So what are the facts? Since we don't have many (none) we have to make assumptions there are only two possible assumptions 1 god exists 2 god doesn't exist. We are left to choose quite interestingly though there are many religions with that worship a god and have different rules and live by them one of my personal favorites is Hasidism Hasidic Jews live by gods 613 rules it takes a life time to learn them all. Many of them don't make sense but they follow them anyway because the ones that do make sense are reasonable. When following this code hasdic Jews don't question in a logical analysis the existence of god they might question why god made them or how they came to be but never if god exists they believe and trust god implicitly.

My position is it's pointless to wonder about god therefore it's an invalid consideration since we know nothing about what constitutes god only that he exists or doesn't we can make assumptions about his character but that might constitute a false premise, therefore their shouldn't be any logical analysis on "god exists"
Debate Round No. 1
RantNRave31

Pro

I would like to thank HeadphoneGut for choosing to debate such a difficut topic. We must acknowledge the contenders bravery and his/her valiant attempt to defend the truth... As he sees it.
To properly reply to his rebuttal, I will first analyze his arguments, determine which premises and "con"clusions that Con has that are valid and reasonalbe for consideration. Secondly, I will attempt to disprove on or more of his valid premisis and conclusions. Finally, I will attempt to refute his conclusions with an example of reason.

[Analysis of Cons Rebuttal]

[Logical Analysis of Intro] = contains some premises, one conclusion, and a few opinion.
P: "where logic applies of course this can mean many things in most cases involving facts"
Q: "logical analysis is required only when in doubt of facts or when there are too little facts and assumptions must be made"
R: "Logical analysis is done to reach a conclusion on something"

Hmmm, is this true?
Q states "logical analysis is required when in doubt of facts" umm YES!
R states "THEN, logical anlysis is done to reach a conclusion" umm YES!!

As "God exists" is a supposition and by definition not a fact, it appears that cons Intro Argument aggrees with my position that "God Exists" is valid for logical analysis. This argument is actually my argument reworded. DOH! Con may want to retract his intro paragraph.

[Logical Analysis of 2nd Paragraph]

P2:A1:P: "The uncertain belief that god exists cannot be a valid assertion to consider in a logical analysis"
P2:A1:Q: because it's pointless to consider it.
NOTE: though this argument P2:A1 precedes A2, it is obvious that Con needs Paragraph 2, Argument 2 to define pointless.

P2:A2:P: "Its pointless to wonder whether a being thats all powerful exists"
P2:A2:Q: "since it will never be proven or disproven first humans should figure out how our world works and how the universe works"
P2:A2:Example: many advancements have been made mainly the theory of relativity by Einstein and quantum mechanics by several Dutch scientists."

Argument A1 and A2 are dependent.
P2:A2:P is that same logical argument as unresoned men of history that "it is pointless to wonder wheter the world is round" becasue "it's stupid"
It can be noted that most men chose the same position as Con when the opposing proposition was considered stupid.
Only AFTER an unproven is knowably true or false can one consider the opposing position stupid.
Con indicates that it is only neccesary to work one side of the equation and the other side is irrelevant and as he knows the answer already, he has no need to look at the other side.
If con is asked what the square root of 4 is, he will reply 2 an overwhelming majority of the time.
WHEN we ALL KNOW that the answer is BOTH 2 and -2.
By definition, reason requires us to look at both sides no matter what you "believe" when you cannot "know".
If you are only working one half of the possibilities, then you are only reasoning half of the problem.
If you only reason half, then you have NOT reasoned well.

P2:A3:P: My opponent must prove that this consideration is relevant.
This proposition is valid, and true, and is part of no argument, therefor we can ignore it as it has no bearing on our argument.

P2:A4:Q: If one believes in god
P2:A4:R: then theirs no reason to consider anything.
P2:A4:Example: Those that don't believe but question gods existence either want to be proven wrong and want to believe or want to be proven right of course neither will happen.

AWSOME, HERE, we can see that my opponed USED logic, AND used the similar reworded proposition "If one believes in God" to conduct his own logical analysis. WOW, if we supposed his argument were true, then we MUST suppose his reasoning is invalid as P2:A4:Q is by HIS definition "stupid". How can he use it to validate his reasoning and debate that I cannot have the VERY SAME right. This is a logical contradiction and as you can see, quite absurd. BUT NOTE: it does not mean he is wrong, he just made a mistake in reasoning.

Hi argument is really another familiar argument worded differently. This one would have us suppose that nothing we don't know is worth discovering. He would propose that anything we do not know is not worth the effort of reasoning about it. If he does not mean this, then he is saying that men should be allowed to determine what other men can reason about AND if the majority agree that it is "stupid" then they should not be allowed their "ridiculous" assumptions, suppositions, and beliefts. Men such as this would have prevented us from ever circumnavigating the globe or visiting the moon. Men such as this would have us believe in democratic truths such that the majority wins and pop culture can dictate that "God Exists" is stupid. It's unknown.

[Logical Analysis of Paragraph 3]
None needed, all statments in this paragraph argue OR give example of the truth value of the proposition "God Exists" which is NOT in dispute or up for debate. Therefore, we can reduce Paragraph 3 from our analysis as off topic. The true or false value of the proposition isn't under consideration... our right to suppose as we choose is. This attempt to insert a true that has no relevance is often used to "gain the votes" of an audience that might accidently aggree an irrelevant argument supports Cons "Con"Clusion.

[Summary]
It appears that Con actually proves my points in all cases. It appears that Con, for some "reason" chooses the position that he and his peers are the ultimate deciders of what we can think about or suppose.
His closing paragraph indicates he is either young, or clearly on the left AND in a position that gets to "decide whats best for us" and what "we can think about."
This exact same arguemnt is possible with someone on on the right as well. Where they would differ in Cons opposition, they would oppose something like "The Theory of Evolution is True".
Their argument would have similarities with Cons, that" evolution is stupid, because God created man"
They too would be thought police attempting to control and direct our explorations of truth.
They too would have us NOT investigate or explore the other side of the coin.
The reasoned position is obviously my position and the unreasoned is obviously Cons.

An example of proof would be the U.S. Constitution and its ammemdments.
Reasoned, logical men fought and died for this very principle that Con and I argue.
If you truly believe that men have the right to suppose, then why would you oppose and riddicule those who believe different than you when you KNOW you can't prove them false? If you COULD prove them false, they they would in fact be stupid. If you cannot, then they ARE NOT STUPID.
headphonegut

Con

I would like to thank RNR for his response before I continue I would like to examine first my opponents argument if it can so be called that.

"[P]The statement "God Exists" can be assigned a truth value of either true or false.
[Q] According to [D3] we have the proposition P is a valid proposition.
[R] The supposition "God Exists" is therefore a valid proposition."

This is not an actual argument restating the resolution and then using definitions to vindicate your conclusion isn't logical analysis it's a semantic argument which I assume you weren't going for. definitions are used as guides in a debate to understand what one is talking about when referring to a word not making them the basis of an argument it isn't a valid argument and therefore an illogical conclusion.

Continuing,
His objection to my first paragraph isn't really an objection more he agrees with my analysis He then makes a chart explaining how I reached my conclusion then makes a non sequitur of reaching a further conclusion that I agree with his assertion that god exists is a valid proposition when did I ever say this. You can even see in his analysis that his assertion was never reached in my conclusion. I do not need to retract my first paragraph as it's letting me segway into my arguments.

"NOTE: though this argument P2:A1 precedes A2, it is obvious that Con needs Paragraph 2, Argument 2 to define pointless."

There is no need to define pointless I was assuming everyone new what it meant if you insist on a definition I shall provide one.


"P2:A2:P is that same logical argument as unresoned men of history that "it is pointless to wonder wheter the world is round" becasue 'it's stupid'"

Actually after reading this I suppose I should point out the difference between pointless and stupid.
Pointless: Having little or no sense, use, or purpose.
Stupid: regarded as unintelligent: regarded as showing a lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense.

There is another error in his argument people assumed they were right in thinking the earth wasn't round. I am not assuming anything I am asserting that it is pointless to consider whether "god exists" in a logical analysis, because there isn't a logical reason to do a logical analysis on wether "god exists" since there are only two choices/assumptions that can be made god exits or god doesn't exist. And it's relevant to consider the two theories of the famous scientists, because those theories are actually relevant they have substance and merit and concern many advancements in technology.

"It can be noted that most men chose the same position as Con when the opposing proposition was considered stupid. Only AFTER an unproven is knowably true or false can one consider the opposing position stupid."

Actually I'm saying that it's pointless to consider the supposition "god exists" that's why I'm con in this debate you still have not upheld your burden because a burden of proof requires actual arguments.

I am not goingto respond to his "argument" on the square root of two because I don't see how it's relevant to this debate or how it even matters.

"AWSOME, HERE, we can see that my opponed USED logic, AND used the similar reworded proposition "If one believes in God" to conduct his own logical analysis. WOW, if we supposed his argument were true, then we MUST suppose his reasoning is invalid as P2:A4:Q is by HIS definition "stupid". How can he use it to validate his reasoning and debate that I cannot have the VERY SAME right. This is a logical contradiction and as you can see, quite absurd. BUT NOTE: it does not mean he is wrong, he just made a mistake in reasoning."

Again my opponent like many people has already come to a conclusion on my position of peope who believe in god this assumption of his cannot be vindicated in any way nor can it be justified his "argument" isn't an actual argument against my analysis. In that paragraph I proved that people who believe in god don't question It, they trust god implicitly and do not contemplate over whether god exists they folow the religion they are in. They do not consider in a logical analysis wether god exists when following his codes/rules.

"Hi argument is really another familiar argument worded differently. This one would have us suppose that nothing we don't know is worth discovering. He would propose that anything we do not know is not worth the effort of reasoning about it."

What argument is that? And I am not proposing anything we are discussing god not nanotechnology or neuroscience I would appreciate it if you do not reach illogical conclusions to the arguments I am making since I have already done that.

"If he does not mean this, then he is saying that men should be allowed to determine what other men can reason about AND if the majority agree that it is "stupid" then they should not be allowed their "ridiculous" assumptions, suppositions, and beliefts"

What?!?! when did I ever say this or how did you extrapolate this from my argument please read my last paragraph again so you do not misunderstand what I'm saying.

"None needed, all statments in this paragraph argue OR give example of the truth value of the proposition "God Exists" which is NOT in dispute or up for debate."

I am not being argumentative I am taking a conclusion from my arguments and telling you my position which you seem to disregard and substitute your assumptions.

Here is my last paragraph again in case you missed it

My position is it's pointless to wonder about god therefore it's an invalid consideration since we know nothing about what constitutes god only that he exists or doesn't we can make assumptions about his character but that might constitute a false premise, therefore their shouldn't be any logical analysis on "god exists"

And for the record "many religions with that worship a god and have different rules and live by them one of my personal favorites is Hasidism"-headphonegut

It seems my opponent is not objective to my arguments he does not attack them with what flaws there are in logic but uses his misplaced view that he has of who I am to debunk them he has not made a single argument nor a valid objection to my arguments

"It appears that Con actually proves my points in all cases. It appears that Con, for some "reason" chooses the position that he and his peers are the ultimate deciders of what we can think about or suppose."

How do I prove your points? And when did I say I'm the ultimate decider and what makes you think that I even like my peers? And what gives you the illusion that Ad hominems are going to win this debate for you?
Debate Round No. 2
RantNRave31

Pro

RantNRave31 forfeited this round.
headphonegut

Con

I suppose that you'll end your string of debates?

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
whoops
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
round 2 response.
THAT's what I'm talking about reason. validity. OUTSTANDING comeback.
You hit exactly what I was looking to learn from this excercise.
Was my reasoning valid or not.
This one will require careful thought. I like your counter.
Come on NOODLE, don't fail me now LOL.
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
I've seen papers begining "If the quark exists AND "some number of propostions" THEN "some conclusion".
I'd have to say a paper that began "If God exists AND "some number of propositions" THEN "some conclusion" would be rational and probably a very easy read. Better than someone stickin it down yer throat eh?
Now that I think of it, I can think of a quite a number of quite valid "If God Exists then" and "If God does not exist then" theories.
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
Got it! Yer gonna have to werk for this one ;-)
teaser: for the same reason we suppose theoretical particles exist. <evil grin> to explain effects we have observed in systems under analysis. I guess that means theology is a science and gods are theoretical particles. The one God being the hypthetical mac daddy particle. Same principle, probably can use the same logic.
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
Lol well I hope it's a good counter
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
i think i have a counter... maybe... but it needs buffing up.
Dude! did hit that on your own or did somebody tweak you?
That was reasoning... using the old noodle. I missed it completely.
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
whoops, dude.
Note your paragraph 3. There were some valid point that it appears I may have attempted to "diminish" when I got on the attack. now, I'm like WTF, you need to bash my disrespect of a logical argument... where you noticed... there's no need to use the proposition because it's already accepted as true or false... as it we could reduce it from the argument as there are no arguments neccessary on either side... only when you try to look at both. you might be on to something.
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
It's to make sure you classify me as your bud and not your enemy ;-)
I'd hate for you to think I was oposing you because I was Right<grin>
Get it? "Right?" You can always tell who they are, because they tell you they are absolutely and without a doubt "right" and you are "wrong" lol.
ROTLMAO. <haw haw> <snort>
I prefer to correct the mistake in the formula, than to tell someone they got the wrong answer. I mean, who gets mad if they got a minus sign wrong and got the wrong answer? I only get mad when the problem is valid and and someone opposes it...er me lol. <evil grin>
But there are those that can't tell the difference. You try to help em out, to show em their mistake an before you know it, you get smacked like Bambi's Momma. Just mindin yer own biz, eatin' some grass... too do loo... tryin' to help out a bit with the formula an BAM!!!! Boot to the Head.
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
Lol you're funny
Posted by RantNRave31 6 years ago
RantNRave31
geesh, sorry dude, In round 2, i tried to turn pointless to stupid and then used "stupid" wayyyyyy to many times. I read it back and it was sounding pretty lame. I hope I didn't come off too hard on you. logic is sort of kewl to use and then my darn pride sticks in too much commentary and then tried to go for your throat. I apologize, I got excited and attacked. i too appear to be guilty of unreasoned opposition. BLECH.. Point to you for my bad behavior.
I was trying to make my crowd manager be a bit more realistic when I discovered this, and now, I see it in people, AI, and me. I do not like it, or the green eggs and ham. Sam I am? <grin>
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RantNRave31headphonegutTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
RantNRave31headphonegutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited and made fallacious arguments that were quickly refuted.