Is Christianity Logical?
Debate Rounds (1)
There is indeed a God. For if something exists now, then something has always existed. This is self-evident. Now then, the question is was the original THING a force, blob of matter or an intelligent spirit? The odds of a force or a blob of matter causing in any way an organized universe are less than 1/100,000,000,000,000. The odds of that universe following natural laws (like the ones our universe follows) is non-existent. In other words, even if the universe was made by a force or explosion, it would continually fall out of order (instead of follow organized laws). Then of course, there are intelligent beings like humans who prove an intelligent being must have made this world, for an effect cannot be greater than its cause. (See theory of non-contradiction if you disagree) Okay, we have established logically that there is no doubt a God.
There is little disagreement in any group across the world that the Bible is indeed an accurate historical document. Jesus claims many times to be God. He was either lying, insane, or telling the truth. We have no reason to believe that He was a liar or insane (we have much reason to believe quite the contrary). Therefore, logically, we must assume He was telling the truth. Furthermore, Jesus worked many miracles, and in fact chose the moment of his death. That is right, on the cross one dies of asphyxiation, but right before Christ died, he cried out in a loud voice giving His spirit to the Father. One dying, especially of asphyxiation, could not have cried out in a loud voice. Thus, Christ CHOSE the moment of His death (seconds before an eclipse and an earth quake). The Resurrection is also proof of His divinity, but I think Christ needs no more defense than I have already provided.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum!
The premise is, "the Christian religion is indeed logical", and BoP is, or I guess was, on you.
The most relevant definition is: "Logic: n., reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."
Your first argument concludes, "We have established logically that there is no doubt of a God." I won't, however, go into details of how the premises provided to support it are not valid, partly because it's irrelevant to the argument but mostly because I attempted to and ran out of Characters (This is not to suggest your argument is so fallacious that there aren't enough words available, but simply that your argument itself is already pushing the character limit, and I could figure out how to fit in a rebuttal.) That would simply be done for posterity, however, as the argument is already invalid. Even if the premise that, "we have established logically that there is no doubt of a God," it is a non-sequitur, and has nothing to do with the Christian religion following principles of validity.
Your second argument follows suit. The argument attempts to prove, a, that the Bible is historically accurate, and b, that Jesus is divine. Regardless of whether these two conclusions are true, neither of which provides any proof that Christianity is logical.
There are so many differing opinions on Christianity at this point it can't be taken as a whole when considering it's logicality, I can't address all of them with the room I have left, so I'll focus on one to make my case. The Biblical proof, in so far as, "The Bible is true because it states within the Bible that it is truthful," Is not logical. To state that something is true because it says so is the very definition of circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. This alone, given how frequent an argument it is, I will use to prove that Christianity does not follow principles of validity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by hutch976 4 months 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:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This indeed, as Con pointed out, is kind of a dumb debate. Having only 1 round does not allow for much back and forth. I would also suggest to Pro, that you position yourself to not be on the defensive when you set up debates like this. For example, I could propose a debate that claims Abortions are the same as Pagan Child Sacrifice, and all someone has to do is show how they are in the slightest bit different. I've set myself up for failure, though my intention was to propagate a view I hold. Wording your statement and setting the tempo of the argument is crucial in debating.
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.