The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

God is 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 31616
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




The first round will be one of acceptance, and an opportunity for me to give the following definitions:

God - We shall concern ourselves with the Christian God[1], as depicted in the Bible and worshipped by billions worldwide.

'Illogical' - an impossibility by the laws of logic, the reasoning system that establishes truth

In the next round I will begin my case. Please simply accept and wait for my opening argument in Round 2. Thank you.



Accepted. Bring yo game!
Debate Round No. 1


1. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say. Science can explain our universe's creation without complex theories added. If there is no need for a complex theory, it is illogical. In syllogistic terms:
a. God creating the universe is more complex than the universe not having a cause (a realistic theory)
b. Occam's razor advises we deny the more complex theory in favour of the simpler
c. We must deny the theory that God created the universe
The Christian concept of God is thus illogical.

2. The Christian God is described with the traits of omnipotence and omni-benevolence. It follows, however, in the presence of evil that the two traits cannot both be correct - God would want pain to cease and would be able to cause the cessation of the pain, and yet the pain remains. The Christian concept of God is thus illogical.

3. The Christian God is described with the trait of omnipotence. Omnipotence is a contradictory state, because by logic, either God is unable to be unable, or able to be unable, both of which result in impotence. This is often summed in the phrase, "can God create a stone He cannot lift?" Because either response results in the denial of omnipotence. The Christian concept of God is thus illogical.

I await rebuttal and perhaps an argument for God's logic...? Up to you. Thank you.


Occam's razor

This would be a good argument. If it didn't favor God. I can prove it. Open a science book, now open the Bible. Witch is more complex? Is all these math things with all this speculation and quantum. Way more complex! Just say God did it.

Problem of evil

If God didn't allow evil then there wouldnt be good. For good and evil to exist we need a standard above that which is evil and good. If such a good didn't exist we would be in deph to hell. The fact is, the evil and the Good must exist to be one in the same.The yin and yang! In the universe everything is conserved! Meaning even the good is conserved. How can we have an a temporal existence with a force of the existence of our goodness as a sentiant bay without evil?


The argument is self defeating. If God is Omnipotence he can both lift and not lift the stone. He God has unrealistic Omnipotence he can make it so its not contradictory yet let the contradiction exist without being contradictory!

1. The Problem of Induction

The problem of induction is a bad bad thing for atheists. It kills there reasoning since atheists don't start with a conclusion but want to get to a conclusion by induction

The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (THN, 89). Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively—by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved.

There must be a God, because our reasoning can't be dependant on induction alone. This means we can assume God with nothing else.

2. Argument from contingent motion of atoms by Science and Philosophy

What is the binding force of the atom? You would probably Gluons. Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate theory to explain away truth! We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second... and that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral --BUT-- Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren't the answer... what is?

The answer is Jesus.

This is supported by the Aristotelian idea of motion. For Aristotle and Aquinas, motion did not mean spatial movement, it meant change. For the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, change is nonexistent; for this entails that a state of affairs, such as my microwave oven blaring obnoxiously, must come from another state of affairs, my microwave oven’s silence. To Parmenides, this is impossible – the being of my microwave’s blaring comes from the non-being of my microwave’s silence, but ex nihilo, nihil fit, Parmenides says: out of non-being, no being can come. Aristotle responded to this argument with the distinction between potentiality and actuality – that is, the new state of affairs exists as a potential within the previous state of affairs, until it is actualized by that previous state. Now, we know that a potential cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist as a state of affairs yet. So only something actual can raise a potential to actuality. In the case of my microwave oven, the microwave oven must exist before it can raise its potential to trumpet cacophony. So what is actualized is actualized by an actual. However, we must stop somewhere – for only can we observe change if something is changing it; thus, an infinite regress of actuals is meaningless and would not be able to produce change. We come to Christ as a hierarchical system of motion (not a linear system of motion).

  1. Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on.
  2. Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality. (An actual oak tree is what produces the potentitality of an acorn.)
  3. Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take away the potential. (Hence, which came first for Aristotle, the chicken or the egg?)
    1. (E.g., the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert.)
    2. (Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such, the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series.)
  4. Thus, a First Mover exists.

Debate Round No. 2


You ought to be careful, Anti-atheist, in your reasoning. Let's talk logically; the universe does not need a cause, but it does need rational theories into how things exist. These theories are (for the most part) provided, tested, and being steadily regarded as true. The theories that puzzle you so much make a lot of sense if you will only think logically about it. 2+2=4, and no matter how complex the reasoned sum, its course is infallible. Adding some bizarre stories to explain away the gaps of our knowledge without science or reason is like throwing curtains over a window and saying that everything outside is fabric. It may appear simpler, but it has no rational basis, and so, as I defined Occam's Razor earlier, Sure, so Lot's wife is a pillar of salt. A staff can become a snake. It's a crazy world. But when the Bible defies logic, that's when we call it illogical. Occam's razor favours the simple rational theory over the complex rational theory, and any rational theory over an irrational one. the Bible is an irrational stack of theories; A simple example of the Bible's irrationality would be Exodus 15:3: "The Lord is a man of war..." and yet Romans 15:33, "Now the God of peace be with you all..." Wait... How can anything be both wrathful and jealous and kind and loving? The divide of the Old and New Testament is littered with similar contradictions... but maybe the Lord just changed? Oh no, Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change..." So perhaps we should just look at the New Testament? In which John 10:30 states "I [Jesus] and my Father are one..." But even in the same chapter, it is stated by Jesus in 14:28 "...for my Father is greater than I..." So, 'Father' = 'Jesus', and 'God' > 'Jesus'. A flagrant contradiction. Let's face it, the Bible may give us moral teachings here and there, but it is no scientific or logical book.

Wow, that's a lot of wishy-washy reasoning there! So evil has to exist. I'm prepared to believe, as two sides of a coin, there must be dark for light, wrong for right, no for yes, etc. But even if we have evil, why must innocent babies across the world suffer horrific diseases? Why must poor families starve to death while others become overweight with food? Why is there no justice, freedom, equality? Surely if suffering 'had' to exist, God could make it happen to one person (e.g. Jesus?) and let the world live happily?
We remain in trying times, in which organs fail, dictators rise and the people are without support. People grow old in painful ways and hurt each other - what kind of sadistic God would let these things happen, just because apparently 'evil has to exist'. And according to your reasoning, there must be evil for good, but not good for evil (If such a good didn't exist we would be in deph to hell.) There is no backing ultimately to your assertion, because whatever you say about evil having to exist, if there was a God that was all powerful and all loving, the innocent would not suffer for the nonsensical polar opposite. Your final sentence here intrigues me - please elaborate.

If 'God is omnipotence', as you said, 'he can both lift and not lift the stone'. There are two reasons I want to pull my hair out upon reading this statement:
  1. Logic is infallible. You cannot have something that is true and false at the same time in the same respect. A law of logic states, "It is that the same attribute cannot, at the same time, belong and not belong, to the same subject and in the same respect..." You are effectively saying that it is logic that is wrong, 2+2 = 4 and 5 at the same time, which is an inane idea as logic is not to be questioned!
  2. Even if, let's just say, what the heck, feeling a little crazy, we do choose to question the very foundations of logic, it is pointless, because this argument is that God is illogical. In effect, you have just added to my case that God is not logical.
Thank you for introducing Hume's old Induction fallacy into the case. Great Atheist, Hume. The argument, Anti-atheist, is useless, however. Our argument is with logic, not science or evidence. Logic is a priori, and thus needs no experimenting. 2+2=4 without having to test it. We don't need to induce our logical arguments; if the logic is sound, the case is closed.

Anti-atheist, no one has ever seen a neutron, proton or electron with their naked eyes, and yet you yourself believe they exist...? We have evidence for the atomic particles just as we have evidence for gluons [1] but I think your argument also fails when you remember that the forces holding the nucleus together are the two nuclear forces that are some of the strongest known to man. There is no need for a dead preacher to hold parts of an atom when we have a tried and tested force.

Your splayed out argument is poor, because for one thing, you take statements made hundreds of years ago by philosophers like Aristotle who himself believed flies have four legs and heavy objects will fall faster than light ones. Not everything needs a cause. The virtual particle [2] is a particle, we believe, that has no cause and yet has a temporary existence. This, I believe, is a small piece of evidence in the face of centuries of blind theories. This is enough to challenge your entire argument, which I believe is not based so much on logic as untested speculation.

I await your next round with eager anticipation. Thank you.



Yes all of those things in the bible are logical. Logic is subjective. Maybe contradictions in the bible arent contraditions at all! They can both be true because God can make contradictions true! It much more simple to say God done it than to say all this other bs thats complicated.

He then talks about evil but I already responded he failed. He still hasn't responded to this question

How can we have an a temporal existence with a force of the existence of our goodness as a sentiant bay without evil?
He hasn't answered.

If you expect God to do an illogical thing expect illogical power! We don't understand God God can do anything illogical and make it logical! Othergu failed.

His response to the induction part fails. He is using induction to say it! Thus he fails

There's no evidence of gluons. If gluons existed they would force centipical force to be in a spherical motion instead of a curved motion, becuase a gluon would bind the atoms to a spehical motion when applied force is happening.

My philo argument isn't from Aristotle's physics, but from his metaphysics of motion. It doesn't matter that heavy and light objects drop at the same speed because there still must be a herarichal mover. The heavy objects and light objects are still potentialized by the speed of cir air. And still follow this motion laws of Aristotle. A virtual particle is still potetaled by the vacuum. Also by the laws quantum mechainics a virtual particle must be caused by a pomped vaccum energy growth. Since you calulate the energy before and after in the vaccum youll find no increase in energy so the particle is just a theft of energy to be caused.

Pro hasnt made a good case
Debate Round No. 3


Woah, I'm afraid you've missed something. Definitions of logic[1] all base themselves as a system of ascertaining proof. It is not subjective in any way, shape or form, and the very suggestion that logic is subjective reveals your ignorance in the subject, I'm afraid. Please read up on logic, as it is an a priori system of proof, not speculation or belief. If we believe that one day it might rain and not rain at the same time, 2+2 might just equal 5 and 4 at the same time, or that everything is both in existence and not at the same time, we are not leading ourselves down a simpler path. Logic is the basics; we agree that some arguments exist by definition. That's why it is infallible.

I'm afraid your question is so badly worded I quite scanned past it before. Let me try and understand the jargon you use and respond, and you may say whether I have understood you... "How can we have an a temporal existence with a force of the existence of our goodness as a sentiant (sentient, please!) bay without evil?" I believe you are saying "How could we exist on Earth with ethics without evil?" Really, I think that's the best I can gather - last round, but I'll take a crack at it. How can we have good without bad, in other words, and my answer is that we can't. They're both invented concepts, frankly, that we use most often to describe our own views. You think your views are 'good' and I believe mine are, but it has no real truth behind it. If God did exist, however, and we must assume the existence of morals on the premises that He is 'omni-benevolent', a phrase that would mean nothing otherwise, then, however, He would be able to prevent all evil. You say, however, because God is sadistic and must allow evil into the world, I ask in response, why then does He not discriminate against 'sinners' or cruel people when it comes to dishing out the most severe punishments. Let's face it, pain and death come arbitrarily to people of all faiths and creeds, showing that if God is allowing evil, He is not even limiting it. He is letting evil fall on the innocent and kind as much as the cruel and murderous, which is surely wrong? There is no good reason that young children suffer agonising injuries, and until you can explain this, the logical argument that omni-benevolence and omnipotence cannot permit evil, despite the existence of evil, will continue to scar God with a flagrant contradiction.

Please refer to me as Cloud, Anti-atheist, not 'otherguy' or even more insulting, 'othergu'. It is impossible to do the impossible. That should be obvious BY DEFINITION. Have you noticed the repetition of the phrase 'by definition'? This is because the basis of logical theorems is that they are true by definition. They cannot be incorrect, and you yourself are claiming that God is illogical. I would at this point like to remind you and the reader that most of your case is explaining why God is exempt from logic, and how He can do the illogical; however, by following this line of argument you have done nothing by corroborate my argument - that God if exists, it can only be by being illogical, which is an impossibility, as it is impossible by definition. Thus, you have led me to the same conclusion in your reasoning; God is illogical.

I am not using induction to say it. I am using simple logic. Our argument is whether God is logical, which is an argument over reason and not empiricism.

If you had bothered to look at '[1]' of my previous argument, you would have been immediately redirected to some Wikipedia evidence of gluons, but if you're like most college teachers and have a phobia of dreaded 'Wiki' pages, I can guarantee gluons with more trustworthy links from ScienceDirect [2], [3], [4], though we're missing the point, as the whole 'gluon' argument of yours is based solely on empiricism and straying well away from logic. Keep on topic!

I'm actually rather tired of this, Anti-atheist; you insist on using empirical arguments, completely skirting my logical arguments; you're doing the debating equivalent of straying off piste, and should suffer an according penalty for deviation.

You have failed to tackle the paradox of omnipotence and the problem of evil, which leaves your God very much illogical. You are a poor opponent, Anti-atheist, because you have a poor understanding of logic. I advise you brush up before accepting arguments on logic.

Thank you never the less for this debate.






Your whole thing on logic is inductive and therefore self refuting. It's also self refuting again becuase to know about logic you must read about logic using logic! But that would assume you know about logic. Fail

" I believe you are saying "How could we exist on Earth with ethics without evil?"

Oh my what?! No thats not what I was asking. Pro failed to answer. The question refutes the poe good its deader than elvis.

You think your views are 'good' and I believe mine are, but it has no real truth behind it.

So evil doesn't exist then? Wow he refuted his own argument! Since theres no absolutes theres no evil self refuting!

Pro ignores me on the gluons. Wikipedia sucks it's ot accurate at all. He doesn't refute this

If gluons existed they would force centipical force to be in a spherical motion instead of a curved motion, becuase a gluon would bind the atoms to a spehical motion when applied force is happening.

He drops the argument from motion

Vote COn! Pro failed
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Cloud 3 years ago
@Anti-Atheist, please explain to me what you meant by "How can we have an a temporal existence with a force of the existence of our goodness as a sentiant (sentient) bay without evil?" Thanks.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar: Obvious. Persuasion: Con conceded the resolution: " If God is Omnipotence he can both lift and not lift the stone. He God has unrealistic Omnipotence he can make it so its not contradictory yet let the contradiction exist without being contradictory!"
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I stand with CON on this topic and he made very well arguments which pro seemed to have lacked to answer. Pro used invalid resources to rebuttal Con's arguments, but clearly as Con even said that Wikipedia is not an accurate website at all.. Anyhow, I don't think either had great conduct so I'm leaving it at a tie.. I also don't think that one had better grammar and spelling over the other so I'm leaving it as a tie..