The Instigator
SyndIca
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
St.Alphonzo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God is refuted by logic

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 30633
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

SyndIca

Pro

God is refuted by logic, this is a tricky statement to follow if you don't analyze it carefully.
God- an all powerful being, who is supposedly the reason for life and existence.
Refuted- to prove someone wrong, this does not mean that I am asserting that 'there is no god' I am simply saying that the statement 'there is a god' is incorrect.
Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Here is where I will state my principles of validity, using numbers to explain.
1+1=2. The panda is holding an edible, the panda is chewing the edible, therefore the panda is eating. This requires evidence showing that 1+1 indeed equals 2 and is acceptable.
2-1=3 the panda Is eating, but i dont hear the panda shitting, therefore the panda is not shitting. This is more of a statement but I see people use this regularly to try to make their lack of proof into 'proof'.
2+2not5 so 2+2must be6. I can't see the panda shitting, an I can't hear the panda shitting,but it is shitting. Therefore the panda bust be pissing because I can't hear or see that either. This also isn't acceptable.
2not1 so 2is5. The panda is not a seagull, therefore the panda is a giraffe. No evidence explained at all here, again, unacceptable.
1-1=0 the panda is not walking, and the panda is not growling, therefore the panda is dead. Yes you asserted that the panda isn't doing anything a live panda would do, but you haven't presented evidence that he IS in fact dead. Again unacceptable.
And finally 1/0=god. The panda can't see any other explanation for this evidence, therefore god. Absolutely unacceptable.
St.Alphonzo

Con

I accept your challenge. Let's allow Round One to be occupied solely by rules, and we'll do opening arguments round 2. Keep in mind this is my first debate on this site.

Suggested Rules -
A. No new arguments in final round (it should be used only for closing statements)
B. No semantics
Debate Round No. 1
SyndIca

Pro

SyndIca forfeited this round.
St.Alphonzo

Con

St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SyndIca

Pro

SyndIca forfeited this round.
St.Alphonzo

Con

St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SyndIca

Pro

SyndIca forfeited this round.
St.Alphonzo

Con

St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SyndIca

Pro

SyndIca forfeited this round.
St.Alphonzo

Con

St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SyndIca 3 years ago
SyndIca
I defined what I would accept as logic, that is why it's so vague, thank you for your concern however
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
I'm surprised nobody's sniped the obvious technical fallacy in this: logic in and of itself cannot refute anything, and thus cannot refute God. Now, logic can be used to refute God. Logic often is used to refute God, or perhaps it'd be better to say 'God's existence.' But logic no more refutes God than anger refutes thinking. Or something like that.
Posted by Consummator 3 years ago
Consummator
What?
No votes have been placed for this debate.