The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

It is more logical to assume that god exists than not

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: 9/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 79240
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




This debate is whether or not it is logical to assume god exists rather than not.
These are some ground rules:
-Please no trolling, Thank you
-I am AGAINST the resolution (as I am debating Con)
-Round 1 is for acceptance only
-Don't forfeit unless you have some specific argument that involves you forfeiting (?)
-The god I'm referring to is one of Christianity

I look forward to a great debate!


I accept.
This debate sounds a lot like Schrodinger's Cat.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting and I look forward to a great debate

As a preamble to my arguments I would like to not only define logic but to also explain what that means in the context of the debate.

Logic- a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. From Merriam Webster

As the definition of logic infers in order to be logical in what you believe you need to have evidence or "criteria of validity". If there are two different criteria of validity (or evidence) that contradict themselves that would make that point mute. To sum up, something automatically becomes invalid or illogical if it contradicts itself and if god is proved contradictory that is an automatic vote for con.

First Argument- God of the Gaps:
Before human culture had the renaissance, scientific ways of explaining how things work were very scarcely accepted and usually treated as either magic or stupidity. The way these people did explain how things worked? God did it. Seasons changing? God did it. Sun rising? God did it. Etc. This was known as fact in the time and it was widely assumed that if there was something we couldn't see happen or do ourselves God did it. But as the human race advances in discovery and scientific technology we can understand more of how nature functions. This stomps on the god did it mentality as we now can understand how the seasons work and how the sun rises. This leads us to 3 separate possibilities. 1. There is an ever receding god with less and less ability to change the world as time goes on, which would contradict it's own literature as it is displayed as omnipotent.("Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please" (Isaiah 46:9-10)) 2. We know absolutely nothing about how nature around us works which would be considered illogical as there is a ton of evidence to support it. 3. There is no god, thus more logical to assume that he doesn't exist than does, as to believe in something with hardly any evidence and a contradictory history proves that it is illogical to assume he exists.

Second Argument- Contradictions:
Here's a list of contradictions:

1. If he made us in his image (So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)). How come we are outclassed by almost every animal in the world in terms of vision, smell, hearing, and reflexes. If god is all powerful (omnipotent) then we should have the best senses ever. Also why does god have reproductive organs if he will never have sex (again his own image). Why does god have a stomach if he doesn't eat? Why does god have legs if he doesn't need to walk? Because he wants them? This contradicts with the bible as the bible says that god is perfect in every way and he would not have useless things in and on his body.

2. God can literally do anything he wants as he is omnipotent. This means that for someone to assume he's real they would have to believe in something that can be it's own father, go right and left at the same time, and even (as the metaphor goes) create a rock he couldn't lift. This contradicts itself and thus would be illogical to assume.

3. The only evidence that god is real comes from a book called the bible (I'm sure you've heard of it :-) ). This book provides no evidence to why god is real other than saying that God himself says he is real. This is circular reasoning and is not evidence to his existence. He is real because I say so -> I say so because he's real.

All three of these reasons are simple yet potent ways to prove that god is contradictory and thus believing in a being that would be contradictory in nature is an illogical point of view.

Third Argument- The bible:
The bible is the crux of the Christian religion. Without the bible god would not exist in the minds of the human race. The bible is thoroughly connected to god. The bible is highly contradictory itself. The most glaring being that god loves all of us (But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)) yet will send divorced women, disobedient slaves, atheists, and the entire LGBT community to eternal damnation. (I can pull up bible verses on all 4 of those if requested). This is the ultimate contradiction through the bible as this love is what describes the massive amount of worship that comes to god by people all around the earth. My opponent will attempt to describe these verses as metaphors or not to be taken literally. but who are you to cherry pick the bible? If the bible is the book of the most powerful being ever why do you get to decide what is true and what isn't. This contradiction is huge and mandates a vote for Con.

To summarize my argument:
God and God's scripture is full of contradictions and according to the definition of logic, believing in something with obvious and blatant contradictions would be illogical netting con the votes. My opponent must not only defend that god exists but also that there are a total of zero contradictions within the belief system.

I also predict something my opponent may say. "Believing in a god through faith doesn't constitute logic". This is not to be accepted as the idea of believing in something without logic is the crux of why this debate exists. I want to have a good structured argument on the logic of god, not on if god can even be defined by logic in the first place. To elaborate a little further, we live in a world defined by things that make sense. Logic is how you determine if something makes sense or not. if something is illogically impossible (like omnipotence) than it doesn't matter in real life or in the debate round. The only place it belongs is in people's minds.

I thank my opponent for following the rules and for accepting this debate. I look forward to it.


Thank you for instigating this debate. This will prove to be a challenge for me, a deist, because I don't believe in the Christian God, but instead that we'll wake up from some video game or something like The Matrix.

My line of stance is this. Everything happens for a reason. We have two arms, not three for a reason. Some species died out for a reason (mainly being they couldn't adapt fast enough). In fact, we should assume everything is logical in a way we can't see yet, unless we have proof something isn't ( 2+2 will never equal 16 ). Therefore, it should be the assumption of all that God is logical, and it should be the duty of the CON to prove he is not.

Next, I would like to challenge my opponent's definition of logic. I don't believe a dictionary definition would apply here, as my opponent's definition of logic tells us contradictions mean something is not logical. Then how about Schrodinger's Cat? It is one of history's most famed logical paradoxes in which both cases of the cat being alive and dead are perfectly, logically valid fitting the "criteria of validity". Saying Schrodinger's Cat is illogical would be defying ALL definitions of "logic" possible.

The definition of logic should simply be thus:
The use and study of valid reasoning. As long as an argument has a valid reasoning, even for each variation of contradiction, then it is logical, although in some very special cases not always true.

I would recommend all viewers of this argument to read this site, as it shows many correlations to my arguments.

A. It is foolish to think that we are "alone".
There is never nothing. Everything leads to another. Bacteria led to multicell organisms. Multicell organisms grew fins, then legs. Likewise, there must have been something before the creation of our universe; it is only logical to think so. This is undeniable. Hence, it is foolish to think that our world is simply a complicated crossword puzzle of biology. All beings must have a creator, and God fits the bill perfectly. God may not have built us with his own hands, but he did set in motion of what would be us (ANALOGY: If we push a boulder down a hill and the boulder kills a person below, we are charged with a crime. Likewise, it can be logically assumed that God pushed the boulder of evolution down the hill of biology by creating our universe to create humans and all other life).

B. We can be in a multi-dimensional state.
While this is not meant to be in lieu of my argument, I would like to introduce a story of Flatlanders, adapted by internationally acclaimed and renowned physicists Michio Kaku and Edwin A. Abbott.

"To understand some of the mind-bending features of higher dimensions, imagine a two-dimensional world, called Flatland (after Edwin A. Abbott"s celebrated novel) that resembles a world existing on a flat table-top. If one of the Flatlanders becomes lost, we can quickly scan all of Flatland, peering directly inside houses, buildings, and even concealed places. If one of the Flatlanders becomes sick, we can reach directly into their insides and perform surgery, without ever cutting their skin. If one of the Flatlanders is incarcerated in jail (which is a circle enclosing the Flatlander) we can simply peel the person off from Flatland into the third dimension and place the Flatlander back somewhere else. If we become more ambitious and stick our fingers and arms through Flatland, the Flatlanders would only see circles of flesh that hover around them, constantly changing shape and merging into other circles. And lastly, if we fling a Flatlander into our three dimensional world, the Flatlander can only see two dimensional cross sections of our world, i.e. a phantasmagoria of circles, squares, etc. which constantly change shape and merge. Now imagine that we are "three dimensional Flatlanders" being visited by a higher dimensional being. If we became lost, a higher dimensional being could scan our entire universe all at once, peering directly into the most tightly sealed hiding places. If we became sick, a higher dimensional being could reach into our insides and perform surgery without ever cutting our skin. If we were in a maximum-security, escape-proof jail, a higher dimensional being could simply "yank" us into a higher dimension and redeposit us back somewhere else. If higher dimensional beings stick their "fingers" into our universe, they would appear to us to be blobs of flesh which float above us and constantly merge and split apart. And lastly, if we are flung into hyperspace, we would see a collection of spheres, blobs, and polyhedra which suddenly appear, constantly change shape and color, and then mysteriously disappear. Higher dimensional people, therefore, would have powers similar to a god: they could walk through walls, disappear and reappear at will, reach into the strongest steel vaults, and see through buildings. They would be omniscient and omnipotent. Not surprisingly, speculation about higher dimensions has sparked enormous literary and artistic interest over the last hundred years."

It is not improbable to think that God could be our creator, the creature from a higher dimension. We visualize him as someone looking like us because we can only comprehend 3D images. Just like how a Flatlander can't process nor visualize our arms, the best we can "see" God is to describe him like a human. He created us in his own image; that is, he drew himself in a lower dimension, like how we would draw a stick figure to represent ourselves. The stick figure would not be able to perform the same "miracles" as we can, but the figure is still "made in our image". It is important to us to remember that WE are made in GOD's image, NOT the other way around. Basically, we are a downgraded, preschool version of him. You might now be wondering about how the Bible and the Ten Commandments (and all the accompanying religious texts) were created. Just like how we can add words in front of a Flatlander's eyes to his astonishment, why can't God? Expounding upon my first argument, as everything must have a reason, God can be our reason for life.

C. Benefit of the Doubt.
As my opponent said, years, centuries, even millennia of doubting what we cannot sense has led us nowhere. At first we didn't believe in cells because we couldn't see them. So then we made up dances, rituals, and other "medications" that didn't affect nor heal diseases. Then we didn't believe in string theory because we couldn't detect strings. Decades of astrophysics work went down the drain when string theory was later supported. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt? If we believe him, and we follow what he say, but he doesn't exist, we have followed a life of sharing, helping, and cooperation. I would like to remind everyone that this debate is about the logicality in the assumption of God, not the proof of God. There is a thin red line that makes a world of difference. There is nothing to lose by believing in him, so why not?

This is my constructive case. I will make my rebuttals in the next round, and I wish everyone enjoyed reading my arguments. Again, I would like to emphasize, this debate isn't a game of spotting errors in the Bible, it is debating about assuming in God. Thanks!

Flatlanders and a Higher Dimensional Being
Debate Round No. 2


Anthro forfeited this round.


The CON has forfeited the final round. Nevertheless, their arguments are speckled with cannon holes while ours are unchallenged by the opposition. By the laws of debate and common sense, the PRO claims their victory.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Yes. god is our fun.. Not for the believers/no believers..............Ilogical.
Posted by DeltaMed910 1 year ago
well, where's the fun in that?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
logic is not used in determining faith based beliefs.
Posted by Sarra 1 year ago
Since pro sounds like s/he does not believe in any god, I feel the need to contribute this link:
Please ignore the bias in that link and focus just on the math regarding creation of the first one cell organism. After the first one cell organism is created, evolution and mutation explains a lot.
Posted by DeltaMed910 1 year ago
Just throwing it out there, just because I'm arguing a certain side doesn't mean I believe in it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF