God is an illogical concept
Debate Rounds (4)
i. There is no evidence for a God that science, our most reliable system for finding truth, can base any small claim on.
ii. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say. If there is no need for a theory that science can explain with the Big Bang, then it is illogical.
iii. The Problem of Evil shows a logical flaw in the Christian omni-benevolent, omnipotent God, as evil still exists without lasting intervention from heaven.
iv. The paradox of omnipotence, as summed in the old question, "Can God create a stone he cannot lift?", shows that there is no way anything can be all powerful as it would be unable to do something it couldn't do.
v. Religions have many mutually exclusive traits (e.g. belief in a jealous God vs belief in a loving God, a vengeful vs a forgiving, one vs many, etc.) If the Christian God can be broken by logic, we're just as safe turning to Zoroastrianism or Falun Gong. Fundamentally it shows that there is no correlation between commonly accepted stories and the truth, only a story which is most pleasing, and this is not logic.
So I await the kind opponent who will correct me.
i. Science does explain God. In every scientific field there are unanswered questions. As each field evolves with time the number of unanswered questions increases. Science therefore proves that the unknown exists and it expands with time and magnitude. This unknown generated by science is real. Therefore you have something real that is not explained by science.
ii. There is a need for God logically. A simple logical question: What caused x where x=(what caused x) leads us to a place beyond our current 4 dimensional world.
iii. You are assuming that Evil is outside God. You can have an Evil God
iv. You are exploiting a "glitch" in logic. If logic was a computer and the glitch was the occasional crash, you can still make the computer lead you to a specific accomplishment.
v. You should make a distinction between religion and the concept of God. All religions could be false and God could still exist.
i. Science does not explain God. I agree there are unexplained questions in most scientific fields, but it does not believe, however, that there is a reality to the unknown in itself. Science is expanding in answers and questions, but it does not follow that this is a proof of the unknowable. Just as dark is an absence of light, the unknown is simply waiting to be understood. Science is expanding in answers and questions, but it does not follow that this is a proof of the unknowable.
ii. I apologise but I do not understand what you are trying to say. I gather you may be using the Cosmological argument or First Cause argument, to which I can say the observation of 'Virtual' particles shows that not everything needs a cause. Sorry if I've misunderstood you.
iii. I totally agree you can have an evil God, but this argument was aimed simply at the Christian God which is the most believed God in the world, pretty clear evidence that billions are believers in an illogical concept, but I agree not logical proofs.
iv. Woah, sorry but I have to stop you there. Logic is infallible, I would argue, by definition - there are no glitches unless there is incorrect input. I am saying:
1. God is able to do anything. Ergo God is unable not to do anything.
This works BY DEFINITION, as we are simply rearranging the terms of the initial statement. It follows therefore, as the two are mutually exclusive, that it is illogical to believe in a God that is all powerful as there is a paradox in the very concept.
v. You have my apologies, again this is good evidence for common illogical beliefs, but I gladly admit this is not logical proofs. It adds to my case nevertheless.
(I would have appreciated some counter arguments rather than just rebuttal, but I'll add another few arguments to my case all the same.)
vi. 1. God is omni-present. 2. Evil is present. Ergo God have evil in Him - again just evidence against common perceptions of God 
vii. Another contradiction...
1. God is omnipotent.
3. Ergo if God decides 2+2=5, it is so. An impossibility. 
This whole argument is flawed, because while there in no fault in 2, and 3 is an impossibility, it follows that 1 is a false claim, thus defeating the common concept of an omnipotent God.
If I may, since you partially agree on my discussion of point ii and v, let us put those two aside and focus on the rest.
As far as science explaining God, I apologize but my wording did not reflect accurately my thought. What I was trying to say is that by examining what science is and how it works; you will realize that there is an unknown. I disagree with you about no proof of the unknowable. I might dare to say, the proof of the unknown is the drive for science. Science will never venture anywhere if it doesn"t know that there is something out there that is real but unknown, therefore it wants to discover it. The most noble and purist cause for scientific advance is scientific curiosity, and this human "itch" that wants to know what exists beyond what we know today. Of course I am talking about pre-savage capitalist era, where we started charging people money for our discoveries. But this is another debate.
As far as the cosmological argument, yes it is somewhat similar to my logical question, but without making the final assumption. The cosmological argument says since my question exists, therefore there is God. I do not claim that. I do not know what lies at the end of this logical "journey" but I only want to say this place exists. We might find the famous south park rat for all I know but the point is, logic does take you there. As far as the virtual particles sorry I did not understand how this means "some things do not need a cause"
As far as point iv. Sorry if I explained my idea wrong. I was not saying logic can be wrong. I am saying logic is incomplete. To go back to my computer crash simile, the computer will always compute that 2+2 = 4 but sometimes it will crash. Crash in this sense is failure to achieve the intended task. The most famous proof for what I am saying is what you mentioned, which is paradox. Paradox in a way is the "crash" of logic. There are countless paradoxes out there, they are known, predictable and reproducible.
A final point, you finished your rebuttal talking about a quality of the subject matter, and I believe we are not discussing the qualities but the idea of God and whether it is logical or not. We are also not discussing whether God exists or not so I did not feel the urge to come up with arguments supporting the existence of God. I am trying to exactly tackle the frame and content of your initial statement that says "God is an illogical concept".
In conclusion I would say, logic takes you to the concept or possibility of God but that"s it. After that you"re on your own. It is like hitchhiking to the beach. Logic offered you a ride to the coast but then you have to find the beach on your own.
Thank you for your time.
The unknowable is not in existence in itself, but rather a word we use for the lack of knowledge. Science, however, is gaining knowledge all the time, thus revealing that there really is no evidence for a God. Why have you taken me up on this point, when it comes under the evidence-not-logic arguments? I don't understand what you are saying exactly, but it does not show any evidence for a God, which was my point.
Virtual particles are spontaneous particles, if particles at all  They give rise to the accepted modern beliefs that not everything needs a cause; we no longer live in a Newtonian clockwork universe but in one where there is not always a cause. It follows by Occam's razor that the more simple cause, or lack of one as the case may be, is a better theory than expanding the answer with a God that needs no cause itself.
Your computer-crash analogy is a poor one, as logic does not work in this way. When there is a paradox, it is because the input is wrong. Paradoxes highlight an error in ourselves or in our working, not in logic. The statement that "God can do anything, ergo God is unable not to do anything", shows us a classic paradox that our initial statement is false.
You ought to argue that God is a logical concept, but we have seen no evidence for this so far.
Right. Beaches. I don't really see the connection. Logic is the surest system for ascertaining fact, as it is based on mathematics, a truth that cannot be altered. Sure, it doesn't give you details that evidence gives, but we have seen no evidence for God (i), and seen arguments against common conceptions of God which I intended to crush (ii, iii, iv, vi)
Logichaos forfeited this round.
Logichaos forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.