The Instigator
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points

It is Logical to Assume That a God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 21 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,507 times Debate No: 12131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (69)
Votes (21)

 

FREEDO

Con

This debate will be on whether it is more logical to assume a God exists than to otherwise not assume existence of God, as in the position of an Atheist or Agnostic. God being defined as a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-righteous entity, who is the creator of the Universe.

I will be on the Con side of the debate which means I will be arguing it is not logical to assume a God exists.
Marauder

Pro

I will be arguing for the Pro side of this debate, that it is logical to assume Gods existence.
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It should be a blast!

===Arguments===

1. An all-powerful God is impossible.

It is logically impossible for a God to be all-powerful because that causes contradictions.
I'm sure you've heard it before; if God is all-powerful it means he can create a stone which he cannot lift. To not be able to lift it means he is not all-powerful but to not be able to make it means the same.

2. A perfect God is impossible based on the nature of things.

If God was perfect it would mean he would never create anything because perfection is already obtained; things could only become worse.

3. An all-powerful God is further more impossible if he is also all-righteous.

Suffering exists in this world. All that is pleasure is good and all that is displeasure is bad. If a God was all-righteous, it would be in his will to stop that which is bad. If God is all-powerful he would have complete power to act on his will. Since suffering exists in this world, an all-righteous and all-powerful God is impossible.

4. An all-righteous and all-knowing God is impossible if he is the creator of the Universe.

To say that God created all is to say that he sent all things into motion to what they are now. To say that he is all-knowing is to say he knew what effects it would have. There is currently suffering in the world. God would have knowingly created suffering which means he cannot be all-righteous.

===Epic quote===

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]
Marauder

Pro

Before Rebutting my opponents points, I shall set up a case of my own.

Is it logical to assume the existence of 6 legged horses? Probably not, but bear with me a minute and pretend all the facts I tell you about them are true, I promise this has a point.

One could argue forever about the apologetics behind is it even possible for a 6-legged horse to exist. Points like 'there are no documented mammal species with 6 appendages' on one side and the other 'creatures with extra legs or arms are born sometimes, though its uncommon for them to survive' for the other. At the end of the day you might be left thinking 'well, I suppose its conceivable one could exist' But you've never seen one and a man with a camera has never been lucky enough to be there at the right place at the right time to take a pitcher of one. In lack of being able to definitively prove them or disprove them what should believe until proof can be provided? What should you assume?

Here are those facts that can help you decide what to think about 6 legged horses. You may have never seen the 6 legged horse but I, along with other friends of yours have. You know us well enough to understand were not liars, when we play poke and try they don't fly by you anyway. Also, unless your judging with a biased view towards the belief in the 6-legged horse no one would ever call us crazy.
In fact there is a very long history of people who seem to think they saw a 6-legged horse, some of the personal accounts vary a little in description but you would expect that to a small degree even if the accounts are true ones.
The option robbed from you to explain it all away under, 'crazy people' and 'liars' Its going to take really abstract reasoning to explain why their still false by psychology. Or you can take the simple explanation that takes less assumptions about these sightings and believe their true and there must be some breed of horse out there with 6 legs.

How does that pertain to this debate? well though none of that may be true for horses it does hold true for a God. I am not afraid to testify I have a personal relationship with him and know he exist. You may have no experiences to let you know there is a God yet but you know many who have, and the fact is this goes back a long way into history, the phenomena is not new. beliefs about god vary some but again, even if God is real you would expect that. In most instances, calling the believers 'liars' or 'crazy' can not be justified.
Given all this data it is going to take way less assumptions to explain how God is real than it will to explain how he is not. Occam's Razor tells us that makes the assumption that God is real most logical. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

Now for my rebuttal.
1) Stone cannot lift.
I prefer C.S. Lewis response to this supposed paradox, 'nonsense is still nonsense, even if your talking about God' *
o H. S. Leigh (1837-1883), The Twins
* Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.
o C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, Part 4 (1961)
* No one is exempt from talking nonsense. The great misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Consider this; if a scientist cannot create a robot that is more perfect than he does that make him a imperfect scientist? No. If something is truly the limits of power can ever be then to propose the notion that something greater can be made means you don't truly believe in the first place that what you recognized as 'all-powerful' was actually the limit. Just because you can use grammar to state an unfathomable thought doesn't actually challenge the concept of all-powerful, Its an attack on logic itself to even take it seriously.

2) perfect god wouldn't create.
My opponents reasoning or point number 2 is based purely on cynicism. saying things could only get worse means your taking the position that an all powerful being remaining the lonely single existing entity existing in oblivion. things can only get better from that situation. God could have only created Hitler to exist with him and it would still be a better situation.

3) Suffering; all righteousness
My opponent is mistaken to think being all righteous would mean you decide to personally stop all suffering in the world. All-righteous naturally includes all-loving and that kind of love would make one choose to allow its creation to make its own mistakes for I think we can agree free will itself is a good thing, though like many good things can be used badly. Besides the problem of free will it still important though that God not only allow us to suffer, but perhaps even provide the trails for us to endure himself. the fire of suffering helps forge you into what you are today or will be tomorrow. If you wish to grow to be perfect, then you should hope you suffer during sometime in your life so that you can become so. plus listen to what butters say's about to good part of suffering at 19:25 or this South Park episode http://www.southparkstudios.com...

4) foreknowledge of suffering
This argument is just a continuation of y opponents 3 point, and thus has all the same incorrect prejudices against suffering. so I give a continuation my arguments for point 3; pain is part of the thrill of being alive. Indecently some people cant get enough (see video).
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Con

"Here are those facts that can help you decide what to think about 6 legged horses. You may have never seen the 6 legged horse but I, along with other friends of yours have. You know us well enough to understand were not liars, when we play poke and try they don't fly by you anyway. Also, unless your judging with a biased view towards the belief in the 6-legged horse no one would ever call us crazy.
In fact there is a very long history of people who seem to think they saw a 6-legged horse, some of the personal accounts vary a little in description but you would expect that to a small degree even if the accounts are true ones.
The option robbed from you to explain it all away under, 'crazy people' and 'liars' Its going to take really abstract reasoning to explain why their still false by psychology. Or you can take the simple explanation that takes less assumptions about these sightings and believe their true and there must be some breed of horse out there with 6 legs."

>>Complete argument failure. The only logical position in this circumstance would be to either assume it does not exist or remain agnostic to the existence of a 6-legged horse until in has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that one actually exists. Arguments that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Further more, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Which actually brings me to my next argument.

===Next argument===

Burden of proof.

Even if you managed to dismiss all my arguments why it's impossible for a God to exist(which you did not, and I'll get to that) it still doesn't affirm your case. I actually don't need to do anything. I might as well post nothing each round. The only one who has any burden to offer an argument here is you. You must prove that it logical to assume the existence of God.

===reply to argument-rebuttals ===

" I prefer C.S. Lewis response to this supposed paradox, 'nonsense is still nonsense, even if your talking about God' "

Another quote from my opponent in the comment section:

"the stone paradox is joke, and an embarrassment for all who take it seriously.

can you make a stick with one end?
draw a square circle?
a triangle with angles that equal something other than 180 degrees?
make a pentagon with 9 sides?
thumb wrestle with arms or legs?

all these things are non-sensacle statements, yet for some reason a person try's to take them seriously when talking about god."

>>You fool, these are not statements. It is nonsensical to say a question is nonsensical because it is not asserting anything. Only statements can be nonsensical. "Can you make a stick with one end?" is a perfectly acceptable question. It is only the answer "yes" to such a question which would be nonsensical.

The paradox still stands.

"All nonsense questions are unanswerable."

>>Intellectual laziness. I can easily answer all the "nonsense questions" you provided in the comments.

"Just because you can use grammar to state an unfathomable thought doesn't actually challenge the concept of all-powerful, Its an attack on logic itself to even take it seriously."

>>This is blasphemy to rationality. I know this logical-fallacy, but I can't remember the name. Could someone please point it out in the comments? To say that we just can't understand it so we might as well accept it is not only wrong but makes absolutely no sense.

"My opponents reasoning or point number 2 is based purely on cynicism. saying things could only get worse means your taking the position that an all powerful being remaining the lonely single existing entity existing in oblivion. things can only get better from that situation. God could have only created Hitler to exist with him and it would still be a better situation."

>>No, again, you fail. The very definition of perfect is that it cannot get any better.

My argument still stands.

"My opponent is mistaken to think being all righteous would mean you decide to personally stop all suffering in the world. All-righteous naturally includes all-loving and that kind of love would make one choose to allow its creation to make its own mistakes for I think we can agree free will itself is a good thing, though like many good things can be used badly. Besides the problem of free will it still important though that God not only allow us to suffer, but perhaps even provide the trails for us to endure himself. the fire of suffering helps forge you into what you are today or will be tomorrow. If you wish to grow to be perfect, then you should hope you suffer during sometime in your life so that you can become so."

>>My opponent assumes there is such thing as free-will in saying all this. But what is free-will? How is it even possible? No matter if you believe our thoughts and personality come from a soul or from chemical reactions in the brain, it still follows some kind of bound system and sequence of events which lead to producing each thought. It's the domino effect. What my opponent fails to see is that if a God started everything and knew what effects they would have then he would have absolutely in effect made all our decisions for us. Even if there isn't a God, this is true for nature. Free-will is logically impossible. Whatever happens in the future, whether by human action or not, must happen that way due to the sequence of events which lead up to it.

My argument still stands.

" This argument is just a continuation of y opponents 3 point, and thus has all the same incorrect prejudices against suffering. so I give a continuation my arguments for point 3; pain is part of the thrill of being alive. Indecently some people cant get enough (see video)."

>>No, it's not the same. It comes to the same conclusion but by a different means. If you don't attempt to refute it you are essential forfeiting the debate.

My arguments still stands.

My opponent have made absolutely no progress in this debate.

He now has the floor.
Marauder

Pro

It seems my opponent has chosen to not give a final round case for the most part. the bulk of his round 3 post was quoting me from this debate and from the comment section witch is not supposed to be considered in the debate. What little he did give as a 'response' I shall address now.

Let me remind all to look above and read the resolution to this debate. 'It is Logical to assume....' ; When dealing with what to 'assume' this is not a debate about evidence, or definitive proof, it is about what is the rational choice to believe in the absence of that definitive evidence for one way or the other. And I have shown we use Occam's Razor when we come to this point. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.xs4all.nl... http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Could I provide arguments for 'proof', sure http://www.intelligentdesign.org... but going into that would be like starting a whole different debate. It shouldn't interest any of us hear at debate.org anyway for we know that and given 'evidence' can be viewed in a different perspective. many out there have even abandoned the very thought of accepting anything as provable, that it could not even be proven that anyone else exist, that the only thing proved is 'I think therefore I am'. What should concern us is what your going to think in the absence of that unattainable evidence for two opposing theories. which of the two is more logical to assume? its the one that takes less assumptions in itself (Occam's Razor).
My opponent did nothing to address my point about Occam's Razor, witch is a shame considering it was is was the final round. Instead the closest he came to opposing the point was 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' Make no mistake though, its just as extraordinary to claim there is no god as is to claim there is http://www.earthage.org... as you can see from the video, its unbelievable to think Richard Dawkins is ever going to win that first single cell organism. And if we were to learn that it was fact that somehow all 250 of those slot machines lined up with the right cells in right order, it would be rather irrational of us to not believe it was rigged (video 2). The thing you could expect the Ocean 13 crew to translate metaphorically into what could rig the casino of life is a God. You can make one assumption that the machines were rigged by god, or you can make 250 assumptions for how each slot machine turned out by chance, and that's just the first life form.

My opponent states its logical to assume against something if there is no evidence for it; well that's only true if doing so takes less assumptions. Why do so many people say they've seen the 6-legged horse? you could make one assumption 'there is a six-legged horse' or you make many to explain why all these people are lying, crazy, or neither but still wrong. In this case it take less assumptions that there is a God then for there being none.

Stone paradox:
The only blasphemy against rationality is made by my opponent for asking the stone question. Its the closest I can imagine to trying to semantically explain away the existence of the all powerful god.
'what does a triangle look like with 4 sides' just because its a question doesn't make it not nonsense. even asking it shows I have somehow failed at grammar or logic. if I had not then I would know that what I am thinking is not a triangle, it is a square, or what I am thinking of is 3 sides and not 4. Likewise with the stone paradox what you are thinking in your question is either and all powerful god that can make himself not all powerful should he chose to, or your not referring to an all powerful god at all.

Indecently voting audience to take note my opponent appeals to others to start debating for him by asking for help in the comment section 'I know this logical-fallacy, but I can't remember the name. Could someone please point it out in the comments?'. this should be considered ether a breach of conduct or reflective of his own weak argument skill.

perfect:

My opponent fails to understand what is being refereed to as perfect. God is still perfect by creating. if something is perfect you would expect it would try and spread its perfection. the perfect being can still exist in the not so perfect existence. God remains just as complete weather or not he creates. the act of spreading more existence about does not affect the one creating it or reflect upon how 'compleate' it is.

points 3 & 4:
It seems my opponent was distracted by my mentioning free will that he failed to even grasp what my argument was. That or he is deliberately ignoring it so he can start a debate over free will and cause and effect, and call that leaving his argument unadressed. For those of you who have any common sense, you probably picked up that my case was about suffering and its good function in our lives. God allow suffering and even invoke it for the sake of the trial it provides if he is truly righteousness, for this reason alone you should vote pro on arguments since Con failed to even recognize this one.

But just so that the issue of free will is not left totally alone; read this debate, consider the thoughts it invokes you to think. now read another that's a political debate, consider how the thoughts you think because of that are different. do you think the chemicals in your head would 'domino effect' any differently if you had read the debates in the opposite order? Too often we are faced with the reality to two outcomes are both possible decisions of ours, and like scrimgoeres cat, until there made you would have to consider both valid as true, but what determines the occasions were both are equally possible? all that is left is who you are. If you wish to sulk around believing your such a victim of the chemicals in your body then I of course cant stop you, but the fact is you make choices all the time.

I have shown with Occam's Razor that the God assumption is more logical than any other, and even if that leaves you unconvinced because my opponent failed to even address that argument you should vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
I just did copy/paste from the article I linked to.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@Dingo7:
yes that was what I was attempting to spell. I knew it looked wrong when I typed it and thought spell check would fix it, but it came up with nothing that wasn't also clearly wrong.
How did you get the sideways : over the O? I figure that character presence in the correct spelling must be why spell check came up with nothing.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
FREEDO, there is no difference. by the very fact that you insisting upon all powerful as being grammatically different than Omnipotent proves my point that your just semantically trying to argue against God. The point has no real strength in reasoning and thus is pointless to bring up.
Posted by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
Was I the only one saddened by Pro's mentioning of "scrimgoeres" cat? I assume and sincerely hope he means Schrödinger's cat. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_cat
I think if you're going to use an example or source like that you should probably at LEAST do a Google search to find the correct spelling. Randomly guessing at the spelling doesn't help you win any votes with people who know you're wrong.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
I hate to vote on one side of the grid but aside from manners Marauder did a terrible job.

I suppose I should believe in Zeus now, too.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
FREEDO,

Omnipotence = ability to actualise any logically possible state of affairs.

There we go, problem solved. :)
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
It is incredibly nonsensical. Absolutely.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
No, I didn't. You obviously aren't getting what I'm saying.

You asking if there is a stone that an all-powerful being cannot lift and then concluding that this makes an all powerful being impossible is the same as me asking, "can an all powerful being make itself not all powerful?" and then concluding that it's impossible for an all powerful being to exist because it can't actualize an incoherent, non-sensical state of affairs.

Are you seriously suggesting that something all-powerful should be able to take the square root of the color red? Because that is exactly what kind of non-sensical proposition you're using to try to disprove God.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
"An all-powerful being could not create a stone that it couldn't lift because that's a logically impossible task."

Yes, exactly!!

To say that there is anything an ALL-POWERFUL being CANNOT do means it is impossible.

You just proved my point be saying he could not do it.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
An all-powerful being could not create a stone that it couldn't lift because that's a logically impossible "task". It's incoherent to speak of a stone that an omnipotent being couldn't lift.

Saying that an all-powerful being can do anything implies "anything possible" as, naturally, things with logically contradictory properties aren't possible in the first place.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by robbiesp 6 years ago
robbiesp
FREEDOMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by AlahE 6 years ago
AlahE
FREEDOMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Joe_Vulgaris 6 years ago
Joe_Vulgaris
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by surfride 6 years ago
surfride
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Volkov 6 years ago
Volkov
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
FREEDOMarauderTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00