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

It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,728 times Debate No: 30966
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (61)
Votes (3)




Motion: It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Intro: In this debate I will attempt to argue that it is logical for someone to believe there is a God. Con will present a case to establish his assertion of the resolution's negation. BoP is shared. Mediumsalsa is someone i met 5 minutes ago in a youtube discussion, and this is the result :)

Illogical: not observing the principles of logic. [1]
Suppose: to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal. [2]
God: Tri-omni creator of the universe.

1) No semantics, trolling, exessive amounts of foul language or insults.
2) Forfeiture in 1 round results in conduct point loss, forfeiture in 2 or more is 7 point penalty.
3) Case must be coherent and in English.
4) Material may not be posted in comments, material from comments may not be used in the debate.
5) If 10 or more sources are used, they may be posted in comments section.
6) No redefining the defintions set, any clarifications must be sent in pm to me before the debate, clarifications may be made during the debate if absolutely necessary.
7) Use of copywrited material is not permitted.

My opponent will be debating as Con.
4 Rounds
R1 for acceptance only
2 week voting period
72 hours to respond
8000 characters




Since my first language insn't english I'm sorry for grammar and spelling mistakes.
I guess we should start with my possition. I'm anti-religious (don't beleave in any religion, its claims, do not agree with its defenders). Sceptical about the God as a creator of universe assumption, so it is still possible to convince me. Since, as I understand, you're an christian, I will try to make my point against the god of christians.

So why it is illogical to suppose the existece of God? Lets start by looking at the universe. The universe as far as we know had a beginning. Everything we see today rests on that starting point/ beggining or god if you like. Everything depends on it and it itself is independent. The question: What (Or who in your case) is responsible for the beggining of universe, was there just an beginning or is there something more to it? This is where my first point starts.

1. The most common example is: When an person walks in a beach an sees an lost Iphone/ clock/ teaspoon beside all the rocks and sand, he knows that those objects don't belong there. As he looks closer he sees the complexity and magnificence of the objects, he understands: "There is no chance of these buetiful objects being randomly made right on the spot together with the rest of the world, it is definitely impossible to make them by chance." So therefore he knows that they were designed, that there is a desinger who made these objects. You probably say that the same applies to universe. In this case the desinger would be God. All mighty and powerful, mercful, forgiving, thinking, super intelligent, ethernal and so on. So we (intelligent beings), universe (seemingly incredebly complex and misterious) require an desinger that atomatically is more complex and magnificent than his creation, however he doesn't require an intelligent designer while we an everything we see, for some unknown reason that I would love to hear, do need an designer. If something (God) that is far ahead of his creation (universe) in any possible way immaginable doesn't need an designer, than why do we (simpler, less intelligent, not at all mighty or powerful) or our universe need one? My point is God needs an desinger an if he doesn't than we don't need one too. We require a designer just as much as God does.

2. So God is everywhere he knows everything, is all powerful and doesn't give a damn about universe litterally being destroyed by itself and his most loved creation suffering from diseases and 98% of all of planets lifeforms being extinct. You call that intelligent design or an mercful creator. Why would anyone on intention create something with so much errors and death when they actually could prevent that? Universe is finely tuned as long as it comes to giving an opportunity for something to exist (planets, stars, life). Everything starts to go terrably wrong when it comes to trying to sustain the conditions needed for something to exist by itself (Every known procces of universe is automated, and doesn't need sombody to control it). Conditions can become unfrendly to life very fast(relatively) and they are changing all the time. As I mentioned earlyer the word death is written in the core of everything we know. There will be no happy ending for the universe we live in.

If a God who let this happen(made everything so it would be destroyed/ die in the end) exists than he is no loving one.

3. Ups. I forgot he makes up for everything in aferlife.
Here comes the greatest gift: he promises you ethernal life/ existence. Just think about it. How would it be to be concious forever, to pray, thank God for all ethernity (if you wont you have never been and never will be saved, so get ready for torture because he already knows that you will stop thanking and praying for him). Even for all the though fanatics it would get boring for only the first 1000000 years of the left infinity. You would go insane, maybe even ask for a day in hell. You would have nobody like me to entertain yourself (I will be burning in hellfire, because as you already know God loves me so much he will torture me as much as he can if I ignore him), you will only have people who agree with you, there will be no real difference in the company of people in heaven, there will be no interesting conversations with different opinions, but if the will be than you will run out of them just as you will with all the other activities plus everything gets boring when you do it too much and often, there will be no challanges for you to accept, existence will become meaningless every day will start to seem the same, you will get enough of all the "great" gifts quite fast. It is very likey that you will go insane sooner or later.

4. I know I can't disprove God, I hope you know that you can't prove his existance either. God is all about assumptions that have no real backup (My fovorite definition: God of the gaps. We yet don't know how it happened, so probably God did it.) No I won't take bible as an example of gods existance. Bible is true because bible sayes so. How can anyone buy that. I don't know how the law works where you live, but here, when you are being accused of something by anyone there needs to be atleast two persons that speak about the same thing from the same perspective, so the case of hallucination/ delusion (or whitchever word you prefer) can be dissmised as an option of the real truth and you can be accused acording to what your opposition have to say. I hope you know where I'm going. In your case (Bible) there is no second point of view that maches yours and doesn't add any new details.

5. Religion had a head start for about 1000 years. Religion has almost literally stopped killing the opposition only about a couple of hundred years ago. People like Darwin, Einstein have been allowed to enter the course of history only until very recently. And look what have they done. They have done what God couldn't do from the beginning of life on this planet in only a few centuries. The ones who dare to say they can do better than God, give an better explanation than bible, try to think without taking Gods word into equation have got rid from the first world problems everywere they touch while the religious are sitting on the bible and say that non believers are narrow mind fools who won't see the only perfect ulmate truth written two thousand years ago, by the way also saying that the earth is flat ( I'm not speaking for everyone, but often it is the case).

I want you to tell if I have gotten your possition right. It is hard to argue about something if you don't even really know what you are arguing against.

My questions:
What is the real proof of god?
Why do we even need him?
How can you know anything about him?
Why, for example, Big bang isn't a better explantion?
Debate Round No. 1


Deconstruction of the Negative Case

1. The blind watchmaker argument
The argument that Con employs is not so much of an argument as it is a rebuttal of a theistic argument. Since it doesn't negate the resolution in any way, and I am not going to use the argument already addressed, I will label this as irrelevant to the debate.

2. The Problem of evil, destruction and decay
I'm having to rewrite my opponents arguments in a more readable format, but from what I gather, Con seems to be claiming that the universe shouldn't be in such a sorry state, going ontowards doom and decay, with so much undesirable things out there for us.

The problem with this argument is that it presupposes what should be true. It assumes that a perfect universe should be the one we live in, and for no other reason than cultural expectation. Christians believe that the universe started perfect, then entered decay when sin entered, to each his own theory. Con however uses his personal idea as evidence that every other idea is illogical. Unless evidence can be provided that the universe should be perfect right now, and if Con can establish that we should be living in a perfect world, then this point is invalid.

3. Unlikelyhood of an afterlife.
The attack on the possibility of an afterlife is not an attack on believing in God. There is no requirement for a certain religion to be true. In this debate, I support the theistic position of God's existence, if Con wants to debate Christianity, he can challenge me to another debate. This point is irrelevant as well.

4. God's existence cannot be proven.
We shall see...

5. ? People are greater than God?
I honestly am not sure what Con is arguing in his point 5, but from what I see, man has accomplished more than God assuming he exists. Just to point out the obvious, assuming the God that Con speaks of exists, then He has acheieved the following:
        • Created an entire universe from absolutely nothing
        • Conceptualised logical laws allowing rational discourse
        • Designed extremely complex self-sustaining systems and ecosystems
        • Created humans, with sentience, souls, minds and morals
I have yet to see any human challenge God in anything. When humans have challenged God, it usually ends in tears. The atheistic driven Marxist regimes across 25 countries affecting 1.5 billion people have been responsible for the unnatural or violent deaths of some 125 million people.[1] This is why I usually get annoyed at athiests who blame religion for the horrifying, apocolytical crusades of 1 millenia ago. (The way I hear it, the world must have been close to utter ruin and human extinction, with hinduism, taoism, and other modernage christian religions sharing equal blame). Comparing 1 million deaths[2], (less than 1% of the populace) with 215 million (an ever-so-slighlty higher number) we should be able to see the pure destruction caused by atheism and the result of trying to fight religions. Notable atheistic driven campaigns was the Soviet communistic state, who executed 10 million people and the cambodian version of it, which saw 1 in every 5 man, woman and child in the country terminated.

Argument 1: Ontological argument for God (modified)[3]

God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.

2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.

3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.

4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.

5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.

6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.

7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.

C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.

Argument 2: The Transcendental argument for God:
P1: Logical absolutes exist
P2: Logical absolutes and laws transcend physical matter and entities
P3: Transcendental Logical laws should not be able to exist without a similarly transcendent author.
C: This author is God.

P1 Justification
Logical absolute are the basics of logic, principles that are always true.[4] For example, the 3 classic laws of thought: The law of identity[5], The law of excluded middle[6] and The law of Non-contradiction.[7] These established laws of logic required to perform rational discourse have objective existence, they are true for everyone. This is because they deal with both conceptual logic and reality, things our minds cannot alter or change. To defend the law of identity as a transcendent law which I will be doing next point as well, The law of identity which states that A=A does not require matter or anything physical to exist as it also deals with conceptual thought. Like all of the laws, reality is subject to these laws but the mind is as well. An idea of a frog is not the same as an idea of a deer. Likewise the law of excluded middle is not the same as the law of negation as failure.

P2 Justification
Logical absolutes do not require the existence of humans to exist. The sun would not both exist and not exist regardless if we were here or not. Similarly, they do not need matter to exist. If we destroyed half the universe, logic would not change or be altered, If matter didn't exist at all, logical absolutes would still be unchanged. Also, If I were to go forwards or backwards in time, I would notice that logical absolutes stay the same, likewise if I travelled 20 light-years away logic would not be different. The fact that it is not reliant on matter and energy to exist, and is not physical, thus cannot be observed via scientific instruments. Logical absolutes are transcendental. I do not claim that all logical laws are not contingent on matter existing, since many logical laws deal with what nature must be like (fractal geometry etc). However the premise claims that there exist laws tha transcend the universe and must therefore be accounted for. If God didn't exist, we would have no reason to conclude that a transcendental law could exist. There is no reason for it being possible, and thus a transcendental mind that conceived these laws must exist.

P3 Justification
There is no possible answer for the existence of logical absolutes with the exception that a higher mind conceptualised it. The existence of the universe cannot explain the existence of something purely conceptual that doesn't require the universe to exist in order to exist. So we can rationally conclude that these laws were conceived and put in place by super-intelligence, as all thoughts conceptual need to be explained for their existence. A Similar Argument that justifies this premise is that thoughts reflect the mind. If the concepts were faulty or irrational, they would originate from an irrational mind, if they were rational, then vice versa. The conceptual logical laws that exist are transcendent, absolute and perfectly consistent. Therefore they reflect a perfect, transcendent mind.[8]

The Conclusion necessarily follows if all premises are true. There exists a transcendental mind that exists independent of the universe.

[1]Johnson, modern times, p.788.
[2]John Shertzer Hittell, "A Brief History of Culture" (1874) p.137
[6]Frist Staal (1988), Universals: Studies in Indian Logic and Linguistics, Chicago, pp. 109–28 (cf, Bull, Malcolm (1999),Seeing Things Hidden, Verso, p. 53
[7]Dasgupta, Surendranath (1991), A History of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, p. 110
[8]see source 1



Argument 1.
First of all which deinition are you representing?God is that which nothing greater is possible or God the creator of the universe?
I don't see how God as the greatest possible being makes him the creator of the universe.
If there is a greatest representer of darwins theory, that doesn't neceserally make him the creator of the theory itself.
However,I would't like to ignore the argument.

Imainable: to believe or assume without foundation: he imagines he knows the whole story.
Possible: Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

1. God the greatest possible thing IMAGINABLE.(Changing the definiton by using the similarity of Gaunilos Island argument only this time replacing the definition.)

2. It is at least possible for God to exist only in our mind and not exist in the real world,whether or not God actually exists in the real world, he atleast doesn't exist in some possible sets of circumstances.So god might have not existed in the real world and only in our minds.

3. If something only exists in the mind as an imaginary object, then that something might have been made up and not exist in reality because of being an imaginary object in the reality. For example: An majestic mountain existing only in the mind might have been made up:the mountain not existing reality.

4.Suppose God only exists in the reality and not mind.

5.Then God is the possible greatest being imaginable in reality , namely god is not existing in reality.(from 2.and 3.)

6.So it is possible for something not to exist since it is being made up/ imagined.

7.Since God is the greatest possible thing IMAGINABLE, then it's possible for someone to imagine that there is something greater that the greatest possible thing imaginable.

8. Premise 7 is not possible and therefore god exists- the gratest possible thing imaginabe(he exists only in the mind).

Defining God as the greatest possible being imaginable has a number of interesting consequences. It doesn't matter if God is the greatest thing, if he is the creator of universe, if he likes me or not, if he would prefere you and not me, because god is the greatest thing imaginable and therefore he doesn't exist in reality, but only in our minds and so none of the preaviously mentioned possibilities matter in reality.

Now you're going to say If God exists, then he necessarily exists. (And this premise is true in all possible worlds.) It is at least possible for God to exist. I agree.
1. Now when I have applied the new definition to argument I can say that God does necessarily exist.
(It doesn't matter where God is imagined, because he is the greatest imaginable being in all worlds.)

2. It is at least possible for god to exist ONLY in our mind.

Conclusion: God exists in our mind.
The same can be applied to A Symbolic Logic Approach you just need to change definition of G.

Argument 2..
It all boils down to that logical absolutes exist.Plus these Logical laws should not be able to exist without an author (God).
I can think of only one logical absolute: You can't be 100% sure of anything. You can't even be sure that you exist in reality, in a physical world. This could be a dream or a supper advanced simulation that simulates what could have been if it where.
Law of Identity:
1. Something is what it is,and isn't what it is not.

When you are looking at your computer screen you can't really tell what it is and what it is not, or if it isn't what it is not.For example, you only know that you were dreaming when you get up in the morning. While you were dreaming you didn't know that the world you were dreaming of is out of this reality and that your mind suspended the laws of nature plus you didn't even notice (there wasn't a second world that you could compare the dream world to.) When you got up you knew that your dream didn't change the reality or the laws of it. The question is: When you compare the dream and reality how can you tell which one is true or is it what it is not? (Is the dream the reality though you think/ it seems that the dream isn't real.) When you dream, you dream of things that actualy don't exist at that moment in reality. The same can be applied to reality(reality is an TRANSLATION of information(untrue in a dream), putting together patterns of random information in one specific way to create a world that looks like ours.) But a dream is a generation of information(untrue in the real world.), but how can you tell if the real world is a just being generated and your dreams being translated by actual laws of reality or maybe in both cases you/somthing are/is just generating fake information and therefore not represanting the reality.(dreams don't represent the reality, they are a product of your imagination.)
Conclusion: you can't say that this is the reality and therefore you can't be sure where you really exist or if you actually exist. Plus, the only logical absolute is: You can't be sure of anything(even this statement).
For example, a cloud could be generated by your mind, therefore not actually existing and representing the reality.( It is just an simulation like the one you see in your dreams.)
Something cannot be true or false at the same sense. I totally agree. However you can't know if that something is true or false.
2. There is no possible answer for the existance of logical absolutes with the exception that a highter mind conceptualised it.
Logical absolutes wouldn't change if we didn't exist. A rock would be a rock (for the sake of the argument lets ignore my preavious point.) A star would be a star.
The existance of universe cannot be explain the existance of something purely conceptual that doesn't require the universe to exist in order to exist. A rock is a rock is only true in the universe, because a universe is required to have a rock in the first place. The sun wouldn't exist if the universe didn't exist, everything about our universe wouldn't exist if the universe itself didn't exist. The logical absolutes exist because there is a universe/a place where they can exist. Logical absolutes require a universe or a place where they can exist they don't require God or a conceptualiser. Things to exist in a universe require rules, so that something could form.To get a rock you need a universe and those rules. To give an example of logical absolute you need a universe. So the logical absolute rests on the universe an its laws. The universe and its laws rests on the big bang. The big bang rests X(this is where the real mistery starts). Theorytically in the quontum world even nothing is unstable. There are theories being developed about how something can come from nothing. I say, that before you start assuming that God did it be more sceptical and replace it with an X. With so much that we don't undersand it is illogical to assume anything beyond the big bang, there is no reason to say that god did it. I personaly see it just like an nice idea. It is more likely to have started from simplicity(X) and then going on to complexity(universe).Just like life evolved. Simple cell organisms, more complex, even more complex organisms and so on to the present day. God is incredably compex, the most complex thing. It is more likely to start simple and get complex than to be complex before anything has even started. You don't invent a spaceship and then start inventing the things needed to get it. You first invent the things needed to get it(simple to complex)

Conclusion. For a logical absolute to exist you need to be sure of it and a universe and laws are required (no universe, no rock, no nothing = no logical absolute). It is illogical to assume the existance of God.

sources from previous debate:
also sources from my previous debate
Debate Round No. 2


Con concedes his case as he failed to defend his arguments. This leaves my arguments on the board. I have duly noted Con's difficulty in grasping the definition of God. In relation to the this, we know that a being that exists in reality is greater than one that doesn't. This is justified when comparing a being that has nessecary existence vs. a being that has possible/contingent existence. God is the former, He has nessecary existence, this doesn't mean that he exists however, it simply means that if he exists, he exists in both the mind, and in reality.

Defence of the Ontological argument:
It should be noted that God's definition is not allowed to be changed without 2 party consent, so Pro is not allowed to relabel God as being the greatest thing imaginable. What struck me as amusing in Con's round is that he altered Gaunilos island critisism of the model ontological argument by replacing the definition instead of the subject. This is most humorous as it seeks to disprove the new definition of God instead of the old one. I support the old definition. God is the greatest possible being, not greatest thing immaginable. Human minds do not change anything in reality, this rebuttal is defunct.

To further illustrate the failure of Gaunilos island, it can be refuted thus:
1. Gaunilo's island is the greatest possible island
2. There still exists an island greater, an island which is not physically restricted to being an island.
3. Such a thing would be conscious and have a person.
4. Such a being would be tri-omni and not confined to reality at all.
5. Such a transcendent being would fit the definition of God.
6. Gaunilo's island is actually just God.

Changing the definition of God doesn't actually acheive anything, it simply means you are arguing against a different definition. So why is Con's definition wrong? To visualise, imagine there are an infinite amount of possible worlds all with different characteristics. If God exists in one but not the other, then he is not a nessecarily existing God. He would therefore have possible existence. But the God I am trying to prove has nessecary existence and either exists in all possible worlds including reality, or none at all. The definition does not allow God to exist in some worlds but not others, as that would not be the greatest possible being.

Defence of the TAG argument for God:
Summarising the TAG argument, which explanation best accounts for the existence of logical absolutes? I have established that they exist wether the universe exists or not, so how does something transcendent exist? Its existence does not account for its own existence, that would be circular reasoning. We need something else to account for its existence, and that is God.

In his post, Con claims that there is only one logical absolute: 'You can't be 100% of anything.' This statement is invalid as it is self-defeating. Is it possible for Con to be 100% sure that you cannot be 100% sure of anything? If Con is correct, then he is wrong. Statements like: this statement is false, are definiately not logical absolutes as they do not even have a truth value.

Logical absolutes are laws that are true in any circumstance. Contradictions do not exist is one of them. 2 things that negate each other cannot be true at the same time:
a) My name is Benjamin Smith
b) My name is not Benjamin Smith
Either a is true, or b is. Both of them are not true simutaneously.
Such logical absolutes like this exist, as I have demonstrated in round 2. Other logical absolutes that exist are the other 2 laws of mind that allow rational discourse. The law of identity and the law of the excluded middle, which I explained in the previous round.

As a premptive rebuttal, I am going to assume that my opponent will claim that logical laws are contingent on human minds. This is demonstratable false. Does a triangle with 3 sides gain the ability to become a 3 sided shape with 1 side as soon as all humans are gone? No, nothing changes. Contradictions like these will still not exist regardless of our existence. I had also mentioned this in round 2.

In defence of the laws of mind, I would remind Con that he is attempting to discredit solid logical laws and will ultimately fail.

1) The law of identity
Cons argument against this law is that sometimes we cannot tell wether something is what it isn't. Con's example was dreams, you cannot tell that you are dreaming while you are dreaming (unless it is a lucid dream). The problem with this argument is that it changes nothing. A dream is not reality regardless of wether you cannot tell the difference or not. Perception has got no say whatsoever in wether something is something else. Con brings up a counter-argument which is entirely unjustified evidentially. In a nutshell, his claim is that what we perceive might not be true, and thus the laws of logic that we percieve as true might not be true. In this case, the BoP is on Con to establish that what we see is not true. There must be a reason why what we percieve is actually different to what reality is, so Con must prove that we do not percieve reality in order for this argument to have minimal effect. Understand now Con that it is not possible to establish this claim. But good luck trying.

His other attack on the law of identity is that it is contingent on reality existing. However, this too is demonstratably false. God is God, and not something else. God does not physically exist, and thus this objection is false.

This was the only law of mind he attacked. The rest stand as clear proof that logical absolutes independent of the universe exist, and give more credit to a similarily transcendent author.

Since this is round 3, and I have characters to spare, I will introduce the Kalam Cosmological argument for God's existence.

Kalam Cosmological argument

P1: Whatever has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence

P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence
P4: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal, and infinitely powerful in order to exist and create the universe
C: This first cause is God.

P1 Justification
This is intuitively obvious. and is not one of the premises that I would expect to be contested. Since we do not and beyond reasonable doubt will not ever see material objects randomly pop into existence, Con will have a BoP to claim otherwise. Osama bin Laden was not killed by a falling piano that materialised in the sky above him.

P2 Justification
Using this reasoning, we can also safely assume that like any material object, the universe did not spontaneously pop into existence, it was caused by something as per the law of causality.

P3+4 Justifications
The cause of the universe couldn't have been physical, since we are talking about the start of everything physical. Since It came before time, this cause is also timeless. A being transcendent, timeless, immaterial, powerful and knowledgeable enough to create the universe is what we will refer in this debate as 'God.'

If all premises are true, the conclusion that God created the universe follows necessarily.

My thoughts on this debate currently:
I dont really care if Con focusses all his effort on attempting to refute a single argument, all I need to do is let one slip throught the gap and the debate is mine. At the moment I have all 3 argument currently suceeding. First we saw Con drop all his arguments, then give more attention to the TAG than the ontological. Playing this 3rd argument in the middle of the debate should cause a headache for Con's already unstable position. I'm curious to see what he will have to say about the Kalam Cosmological argument, but I think I have a rough idea that the ontological argument rebuttal will simply be a roundabout series of conjectures and ideas to try and slip through the net. The TAG argument in my opinion is beyong hope for Con, he attempted to attack a single logical absolute I put forth, but I only need at least 1 of the three to win that argument.



To sum up: Con changed the definition of God while there was clearly only one he could use God: the creator of the universe. Con was talking about Gaunilos island. Cons God has possible existence while mine has necescary existence, even though we used the same way prove that god has necessary existence. Con was telling that if you are correct you are wrong. Con didn't agree with the excluded middle law. Con says God is God, and something else. Con says why logical absolutes depend on universe, but it is not worth telling why it is untrue.

First of all Pro also changed the definition from God: creator of the universe to God: the greatest being possible. I explained why this wouldn't work if Pro is trying to defend God the creator of the universe definition.(But it wasn't worth noticing I guess.) You started arguing about a different definition. Human minds don't change anything in reality, so does our definitions.(Defenition doesn't represent the reality they represent our understanding.)
1. The new definition seeks to disprove the old definition.(God in the mind is greater than in reality, where it's just a product of imagination therefore not actually real in reality.) It proves that the God isn't real in reality while the other proves that God is real in reality.( It is the opposite. And again as I explayned my point had nothing to do with gaunilos islands argument, I just modified the idea of it.) God is the greatest possible being imaginable. By using this definition I made it true everywhere, just as did the original definition, I applied the same logic. If you would have read my argument to the end, maybe you would have noticed that I explain how this God neccessarily exists. Since I disproved (Just the same way "you" proved) the existance of god in reality. My argument still stands. It is just as valid as the original one. This definition allows God to exists neccessarily, since he is the greatest possible thing imaginable 'if God (defined as the greatest possible being imaginable) exists he would (by definition) have the greatest possible form of existence (which is NECESSARY existence). Evidential justification: Again, God is defined as the greatest possible being imaginable. If it is possible to imagine a being, it cannot be impossible. The being was perfect imagination to an extent that is not possible, it would not be the greatest possible being imaginable. Given its coherent meaning then, it would be irrational to claim that the greatest possible being imaginable cannot possibly exist(since imaginable not in reality).' This is taken from the original website, I just added imaginable and it is still as true as it was before.

So nothing is wrong with my argument, it tries to disprove the existence of god in reality the same way "you" try to prove it. It is exactly as valid as the original argument. This God has nessecary existence and that is proved the same way the old definitions Gods nessecary existance is proven. How can it not be he greatest possible being imaginabe?(See point 7. from preavious round.) This case is just as likely true as the case of God existing in reality since I prove it the same way.

1. "The law of identity which states that A=A does not require matter or anything physical to exist."
2. "The existence of the universe cannot explain the existence of something purely conceptual that doesn't require the universe to exist in order to exist.'
2.1 The law of identity just says that A=A and A doesn't equal B.
2.1 I just explained that it can. You din't tell me any absolute that doesn't depend on the universe we live in, its laws, space and time.( My name is Benjamin Smith, you wouldn't be able to conclude that without this universe and its laws because then you yourself wouldn't exist, nothing would exist. If there is NOTHING than that nothing also includes the absolutes, since there is exactly nothing.) There can be no logic without a place for logic to actually exist. I explained that in the previous round.
However Pro completely ignores this point. I expected Pro not accepting the first part of the argument so there was a second part written independent(the part Pro ignores) of the first one, Pro is talking only about the first part. My second point still stands.

I didn't claim that there is only one logical absolute I said I can think of only one. You can't be 100% sure of anything, example: I'm sure I can't be sure of anything. How can I be sure that I can't be sure, because I can't be sure if its true or false, therefore I can't be 100% sure, even though it is true or false. This absolute (it also predicts itself being untrue and that isn't against what it is saying, so it's valid) means that I can't be sure what is and what is not. I know that it is true or false, but I don't know what is true or false. Your name is Benjamin Smith. Your name isn't Benjamin Smith. I know that one of those statements are true, but I don't know which one. Another example: There are two levers, one can be pulled, the other can't. Which one can be pulled? You can't be totally sure witch one can be pulled, but you know that one can be and the other can not.
I exist. I don't exist. Again, I know that one of those are true, but I don't know which one. Even if you disprove this point(you haven't done that) the other one stands. If ,in fact, if there is only a universe required to have logical absolutes(Pro didn't even tell me an example) than logical absolutes can do perfectly fine without God. If this is true a God isn't necessary it would just complicate everything. You don't need annoying, loud neighbours to go to sleep you can do perfectly fine without them. So therefore it would be illogical to suppose the existence of God just because of something he isn't even required for.(In the TAG case.)

Cosmological argument.

The cause of the universe couldn't have been physical, this cause is also timeless, this is how far Pro explains why that is very clearly. Therefore I agree with these two statements. Then Pro basically says this:
That cause had to be transcendent, powerful and knowledgable enough to create a universe. Pro fails to explain why it is so. This is because Pro doesn't know why God has to be transcendent, powerful and knowledgable. He gives no reason and it seems like he can't even think of a reason why the cause of the universe requires these properties. As I explained Pro and me too can't know anyhting beond the first moment of the universe. before that moment comes assumptions. You try to escape trought the net by making assumptions you can't back up. I won't make blind guesses about anything before the first moment of universe. In this argument Pro is the one making the ideas. I am saying why he shouldn't. Pro doesn't know the cause Pro can only guess what it is.

Back to the Blind watchmaker argument. This argument applies to all God and logically suggests why God needs a creator(Dissmised because it's 'irrelevant' to debate.) Destruction and decay argument says what would be expeted if universe had a designer. People are greater than God, I never mentioned such a thing. I was trying to say that people and not God moved the OUR world forward so we could live where we live. Arguments 3. 4. 5. are for an different debate I thought you were going to fight for a crhristian God(God represented by bible) as I had explained.

Debate Round No. 3


What my opponent has failed to realise in the previous round is that his alteration of gaunillo's critisism doesn't attack the God being debated. The ontological argument can only be used to prove the greatest possible being, as nothing is greater than the greatest being possible. Furthermore, Con's attempt to accuse me of changing the definition of God is what he is guilty of, not me. In round 1 I specified God can be further defined for clarity, as I did in the ontological argument, by adding greatest possible being to his status. Con however, changed the definition of God to greatest thing imaginable, which I demonstrated to be fallacious.

Defending the Ontological argument:
To put Con's argument in a sentence, the definition of God I gave was interchangeable with another definition that could be used to prove that God as well. There are a few problems with this which I will point out:
1) There is no such thing as the greatest possible thing imaginable
As everyone has different intellectual capabilities when it comes to imagination, one cannot define a greatest possible thing imaginable, neither does imagination have any impact on the actual world
2) The argument becomes false under Con's definition.
By changing the definition from greatest possible being, to greatest thing imaginable, Con actually causes the premises to disagree with each other and others to become false or logically unsound. The greatest possible thing imaginable doesn't actually exist, yet the argument assumes the being in question can exist. The greatest possible being can exist, but the greatest thing imaginable is a figment of imagination, and does not have existence except in the mind.

Cons entire rebuttal can also be refuted like this: The greatest possible thing is chocolate. That's right, the greatest possible thing is subjective to each individuals opinion, the ontological argument cannot prove it exists, it can only be used to prove the greatest possible being.

Defending the TAG argument:
Con is under the impression that "There can be no logic without a place for logic to actually exist." False. This assumes firstly that logic can only exist where we as humans can percieve it, in 4 dimentional space/time. If we didn't live in space with the geometry we observe, but instead lived under different circumstances, there would be no reason why the laws of logic would suddenly cease to exist. Logic doesn't need a place to live, however it is only useful when there is someone to understand it and use it. But it is arrogant, ignorant, and self-centered to say that you have to be in the forest for the falling tree to be able to make a sound. As I stated before, if you were to go into the past, logical laws would be the same, if you were to travel 5 million light years from here, logical laws would be the same. There is no such point where you can travel that contradictions can suddenly exist.

Pro also fails to understand certain implications, he argues that I, Benjamin Smith, would not be Benjamin Smith if the universe didn't exist. At first glance, this seems to present a problem for the law of identity, however, it remains that I wouldn't be Benjamin Smith only because I wouldn't exist to be me. If everything ceased to exist, the law of identity would not die with it. Consider this statement: Nothing is nothing. This statement is true regardless of the universe existing or not. Likewise with God is God, there need be no universe for statements like this to be true, except without the universe, these statements would not be statements, they would simply be logical laws and functions; transcendent logical laws and functions.

Con has also failed to demonstrate why the other logical absolutes I postualted were not actually transcendent after I had established them as thus.

Furthermore, con believes that there are 3 states of being. Existence, non-existence or unknown. This last one however is false. Our knowledge or understanding of the universe doesn't change anything and does not warrant a separate catergory. Either something exists or it doesn't: The law of the excluded middle, a likewise transcendent law.

Defending the Kalam Cosmological argument:
Con did not read my justification of premises 3 and 4 and thus attacks me for not justifing them. So lets put this into simple English
God is not physical because:
The universe is physical and was created by Him. God is not the universe since that is what was created, and God did not create Himself, as He would have had to exist before His existence which is a paradox.
So therefore God is transcendent to the universe, he doesn't require matter to live, since He made matter.
God is extremely powerful because:
He made the universe from nothing
God is extremely knowledgable because:
He designed the univserse from nothing (conceptualised everything that exists)
God is eternal because:
He isn't affected by time, he made time and existed before time existed.

If the universe was created, as this argument seeks to prove, then the creator which we will label as 'God,' fits all of these criteria to be able to create the universe. We can use occam's razor to rule out anything more than this.

In Con's very last paragraph, con makes a suprise attempt at a stab to revive 3 of his arguments. To demonstate what a nice guy I am, I will spend a lot more than a short paragraph further rubbishing his arguments.

The blind watchmaker argument refuted:
Here is how Con defended it: 'This argument applies to all God and logically suggests why God needs a creator.' Not much of a defence, but anyways. This argument does not at all show why God would need a creator. It attempts to show however, that the universe might not need one, if there were to be an infinite number of universes, then we might be in the universe that 'got it right.' Good luck with the immense BoP Con, this argument is still demonstratably false even if we were to suppose an infinite number of universes. But mindful of character limits, I won't touch on that since Con hasn't said anything about it.

Argument of destruction and decay: (hehe)
This argument originally said that if there was a God, there should be no destruction. I have already refuted this and Con didn't actually do much to defend it, so I'll leave it at that. The same story with his 'people are greater than God' argument.

Concluding, there's not much more to say, Cons arguments have ceased to exist, I would reckon that all my arguments are still standing strong in light of a rather weak rebuttal. Since this is the last round, and Con posted his arguments in the first round, please leave the last round empty, but short conclusion is acceptable.
In all, this has been a fun debate, Con was a guy I met in the youtube comments section after approaching me while I was making fun of an atheist, so the fact that we got a debate out of it left me quite rapt. Thanks for the debate.

To voters, be aware that you may penalise Con for posting a defence or argument in the last round, him taking rond 1 as an argument round already violated our structure.

Hail Smithis!



I hope that saying what I said won't count as a new point.

1. My argument HAS NOTHING TO DO with gaunillo's argument, except for the idea of changing something. Nothing is greater than the greatest possible being imaginable since it is the greatest. Using 'your' own argument I showed that it is possible to imagine something greater than it actually is. My argument is still as valid as the old one. If changing definition from God: the creator of the universe to God: the greatest thing possible doesn't count as changing definition than I don't see the difference between God: greatest being imaginable God: the creator of the universe.
1) There is a greatest thing imaginable(it EXISTS in the mind) since greatest means absolute, nothing is greater than the greatest being imaginable, therefore I have shown that it can EXIST.(This isn't a new point.) Absolutes also aren't affected by humans(your an also my, not new point.)
2) The argument becomes false under Con's definition. That is exactly my point! I have proved that God has got existence, but only in the mind. That was the whole argument! I know that this makes the actual argument become false. That also is my whole point! And Pro doesn't even disagree that I haven't done that. Pro actually has just made clear what I wanted to make clear. This is where "hehe" comes.
'It can only be used to prove GREATEST possible being.' Well I have news for you. I have done that, only this time the being is the GREATEST possible immaginable being.

2. There can be no logic without a place for logic to actually exist. It doesn't say: there can be no logic without humans preceiving it. If you were to go to past, if you were to go 5 billion miles out in the universe logical laws would be the same. Yes, however there would be no past to go to, it would be impossible to change location if there wasn't a universe. If there is nothing, there is exactly NOTHING. My point still stands. It would be waste of time to copy- paste it here. Your critics doesn't disprove my point, they even have nothing to do with it.

Since there would be no logical absolutes with no universe I don't even have to disprove them. This destroys the argument in its main idea: No God, no logical absolutes, therefore God.(not a new point.)
Without the universe there would be nothing. Nothing is NOTHING. With nothing there would be no laws or functions.(These are not new points since I said that nothing is nothing in my previous rounds.) how many times I have got to tell what is nothing.
I have agreed with the law of excluded middle. I though I explained it. Where do I mention that I belieave in 3 states of existence? My first TAG point was about: you exist or you don't, you can't know which one is true. I don't remember mentioning unknown as a state of being. I said there are still many things unknown to us.

I will be a nice guy and won't tell what's wrong, in my opinion, with the cosmological argument. I don't want to be overly penalized. This is why I wouldn't mind to have part 2 of this debate so I can continue arguing without fear of almost definitely losing for posting new arguments in the last round. (Pro actually does exactly that.) in P3+4 you only explain why this cause has to be timeless and immaterial, then you add transcendent, powerful, knowledgeable (Not a new point, I have explained this in my last round.) and explain nothing.

One could see me doing nothing wrong in the first round, because my whole point is that god is not the creator of the universe, so I basically disagreed with your definition of god, and that isn't against the rules.

The blind watchmaker argument. Since the debate went far away from this argument, it wouldn't even change anything if I started protecting it, I also can't as you already know.

Argument of destruction and decay.
You almost seem to try to provoke me to protect my arguments, I know that my defence in comment section doesn't count(I explain myself there). Sorry, not taking your trap this time.
None of my arguments have ceased to exist. But I guess this would be making a new point to. It actually doesn't change anything, No new points in last round, I have covered all your points, your defense here shouldn't count. By the way your Hail Smithis made me go more like Hail Sithis, if I have understood correctly what you're saying.

Its been a great time for me. I made my mistakes, but I hope to make everybody(and myself included) learn from them. This is my first 'real' debate, I have never done this before. I'm sorry if I made anyone angry with my probably- not so good- skills in this language. For the ending I want to thank Pro for his motivation: "please leave the last round empty, but short conclusion is acceptable." Not to be rude, but that almost made my day. It has been a great debate, I thank Pro for spending his time trying to make me believe in God, that is why I actually wanted to do this in the first place.

Now go and vote, I have made enough excuses :)
Debate Round No. 4
61 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Ha Ha Smithy,
I've provided genuine Neurology, Scientific references that confirm that actual Neurologists have the same concepts and they are from genuine, real science.
Something you appear to know very little about.

These concepts are from Neurologists and Psychiatrists, not pseudo-scientists.
From the research of great Neurologists like VS Ramachandran, Robert Sapolsky, and medical research by Dr Daniel Siegel.
Much of their work will change the way we view Consciousness.
And will reduce your concepts to being nothing but Irrational junk.
Watch this space! 8) :P
You have no evidence to counter the work and discoveries of modern Neurology.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Sagey, I'm not going to continue a discussion with some spiritualist who believes in pseudo-scientific doctrines and Mystic nonsense about consciousness maps and pan-physical senses. I believed this would be a scientific discussion, but seeing that I was misled, I am no longer going to indulge you fanaticism for a chat on the ether. Good day.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Hmm, here's Siegel's page:

Apparently we have a seventh sense?
LOL :-D~
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Oops I almost 4got:
On the Prefrontal Cortex.
<"The prefrontal cortex is the latest structure to appear in the evolution of the brain, and is the structure that shows the greatest development between humans and our closest biological relatives. Furthermore, it is known to mediate a great deal of the abilities considered distinctly human, such as planning, reflection, and empathy, all of which apparently require conscious awareness. Surprisingly, however, a vast abundance of the projections that the prefrontal cortex sends back to more primitive, sub-cortical structures are inhibitory"they function largely to suppress activity in these regions. In fact, this has led several researchers to rethink the concept of free will and, somewhat amusingly, refer to it rather as "free won"t," in that we are mainly choosing what not to do, of all of the responses recommended by sub-cortical structures. And this is where we might find a reason for conscious awareness.">
I hope you get the picture by now!
Phew! :-D8
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Here's a few references:
Also <"According to the logic of the brain-imaging paradigm, the area where there was a large
difference in blood flow for the two tasks should indicate where the self-representation
was in the brain. This would occur because the excitation of the self-representation area
would increase metabolism there, producing a greater demand for blood. LaBerge is clear
in specifying that the prefrontal cortex must excite both the cortical area representing the
object and the cortical area representing the self for awareness to occur.">
Which indicates that I have deliberately oversimplified the subject for the sake of keeping my posts short, as the prefrontal cortex is a central hub in the connection between our consciousness of ourselves, especially our own bodies and of others, but it works in conjunction with every other structure in the brain, which it has connections to.
The prefrontal cortex appears to be the master control unit for consciousness of ourselves and others.
In the future, to make it even more simplistic to save typing, I'll adopt Dr. Siegel's maps.
Even though I disagree with some of his concepts.
As far as I and many neurologists are concerned the brain is and orchestra, and consciousness the Concerto. Every structure in the brain, major and minor is an Instrument which plays it's part in constructing the concerto, Occasionally they will all play equal roles and on occasions one Instrument (structure) may dominate or attempt to do a solo.
Though, it does appear that the prefrontal cortex may have the role of Conductor of the Consciousness Concerto.
Posted by mediumsalsa 3 years ago

Given the fact that the majority of your debates starts with words bro, wtf, u mad exc. And the only two debates you have won can't even be called debates you are not in a position to comment on how easy this argument was or on my intelligence or even if my english is good for something.

But just to give your comments some weight you could perhaps show the great debater you are and prove this easy argument wrong once and for all. You could accomplish this by asking Smithereens on a debate as he appears not to mind you doing so.

I am sure that you will do a lot better than the three dumbasses including me have done.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Completely Wrong Smithy:
The consciousness maps we create are called "You Maps" for people we meet, hear about or our own family members.
We create "Me Maps" for our own consciousness which we often use as a comparison with the maps of others around us.
We create "We Maps" for the groups we belong to which maps our relationships and bonds with those others, such as the loving relationships that exist in the family unit. These we map in our We Maps and this map allows us to see ourselves (Me Map) as an integral part of the Group of associated You Maps.
This is how we consciously relate to others in our lives.
<" Anyway, after a frontal lobotomy, people are different; they have diminished intellectual capacity and lose some of their personality. This deficit after anterior frontal lobe tissue removal indicates that this brain region really does hold our thoughts and personality.
The anterior portion of the frontal lobe is called the "prefrontal" cortex. This is where our personality and intellect reside."> As I've been stating: From:
These functions of the prefrontal cortex have been well confirmed, some neurologists considered them as consciousness maps, but in treating a patient with damage to these maps, Dr Daniel Siegel, gave these maps a name by calling them Mindsight Maps, and has based an entire Midsight theory on trying to manipulate these maps.
Brain injuries in patients has confirmed that such maps indeed do exist, though it is doubtful that they can be manipulated in the way that Dr. Siegel believes they can.
I've just received a copy of his book on techniques from my daughter (a scientist) so I can try it on myself.
I don't expect it to do anything, but, after all, the brain is supposedly plastic, so you never Know.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
This was an easy debate, and I didn't know/didn't care that he wasn't too good at English. He and I got into this debate after an argument on Youtube, and this is how we sorted it out. If you want me to demonstrate to you your lack of debating skill, don't feel ashamed to ask. Otherwise comments about the debate made from a position insinuating greater skill than either debater is usually considered rude and insolent. If you didn't mean to appear that way then I'll appologise for taking it incorrectly.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
I come back only to be accused of being a bad debater. The irony is powerful, as you only debate a man who is bad at English, and isn't smart enough to refute easy arguments such as the Ontological argument. Your points are honestly outdated, and I feel this was an easy debate.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Apologies for my untimely responses, which will be the norm from here on, but my final exams for college this year are in 4 weeks. Two of the subjects I am studying for is psychology and biology. Neurology/neuropsychology is a big thing in both of them, so I find this discussion highly relevant.

However, I'm having trouble believing that you have formally studied neurology in any serious degree due to strange beliefs you hold to. Let's start with your misconceptions:
>There is no scientific reason to believe the existence of a consciousness map, let alone a consciousness. The idea was proposed by a guy called David Hawkins some time ago, and since then it has received absolutely no support from the wider scientific community. This is because consciousness map is a form of spiritualism, aka a pseudo-science. I was actually quite surprised when you told me about this. I had originally mistaken you for an atheist, but in actual fact you were a spiritualist.
>Morality is not experienced in any one part of the brain, experiments have been done to try to dictate moral decisions, but have only been able to slightly repress our sense of morality.
>I don't call this idea of a conscious map a soul. I don't care if other people are doing it either. I call the soul simply the consciousness that survives death, undetectable via conventional scientific methods and machines. How then can this definition fit your definition of being a neurological electrochemical reaction?
>Apes don't have morals, other Apes don't allow one of their own to beat up others of their own because they believe it violates their 'rights,' they allow it because they are dumb apes who don't recognise that it would be moral to help the victim.

I believe you are a seriously misguided spiritualist who supports science even when scientific evidence is against you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: God is the reason why we are here right now!
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Kudos to Con for jumping head-first into something so new and different compared to youtube comments, however it's still the case that his arguments were hard to follow. Smithereens has much more experience not only in these arguments, but in debating in general and so, ironically, Pro did a better job of representing Con's argument than did Con. As such, pro has provided reason to suppose the existence of God, reason which Con failed to refute.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Awful, just awful. Con violated the debate structure, making conduct go to Pro. Con has poor S&G. His rebuttal to the ontological argument was incoherent. The only thing I got out of it was the island, which Con didn't defend. Tag response was again incoherent and it seemed like he denied the laws of logic by committing the proving too much fallacy. To deny LA is insanity, they're self evident in the nature of existence. Con then resurrects arguments from R1, just no... It's clear who won