The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,642 times Debate No: 5547
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

Kleptin

Pro

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate.

There will be 5 rounds of this debate.

1A: This introductory post

1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot overlap in terms of topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics, 2 cannot be about Music, 2 cannot be about Science), the topics cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems).

2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3.

2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON.

If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by submitting, as his or her response, the phrase "Thank you for this debate" repeatedly until the character limit is satisfied.

If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A.

The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

I'm in a mood for another debate. So here are my three topics:

1. The United States ought not to give foreign aid to third world countries.

2. It is rational to believe in God.

3. Cannibalism should be legalized.

4. Killing is morally equivalent to letting die.

5. It is better to have a small government than a large government.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I'll take number 2, "It is rational to believe in God"

I will allow my opponent to respond accordingly.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

I'll go Pro.

Contention 1: One can prove the existence of God if one makes several not so irrational assumptions.
If one assumes that a) the universe had a beginning, and b) something must have caused that beginning, God is necessary. For example, things such as the Big Bang still require creation of their own, and so something must have come first. This something must have caused itself. That is fundamentally illogical, so the only entity that could cause itself is an entity that is not constrained by logic. Enter the all powerful God. He can cause himself (He can do anything), and that is required if one makes the above assumptions.

Contention 2: Pascale's Wager rationalizes belief in God.
Blaise Pacale said that basically, if you support a religion, you have a net gain. Possibility A, God is real, you believe in him--go to heaven
Possibility B, God is real, you are an atheist--go to hell
Possibility C, God is not real, you believe--oh well, you die
Possibility D, God is not real, you don't believe--oh well, you die.

So can only win if you believe in God. There's no real point in not believing, believing however has a point, that is, I might get to go to heaven.

Contention 3: Empirical evidence can justify belief in God.
For example, many things in this world are amazing, beyond belief. For example, in mathematics, there are irrational numbers that are closely related. Euler's number and pi, both irrational numbers are in a sense, magic numbers that relate to many functions of mathematics, trigonometry, statistics, calculus... the list goes on. However, there is no good reason for this. A god could explain this. I can lsit other examples easily.

Contention 4: Pragamatism supports belief in God.
Pragmatism says the truth is unknowable, so the best thing to do is to believe in whatever makes us the happiest. Studies have shown that religion increases happiness, so therefore, one should follow a religion. Religion can entail a number of things, and one of these is belief in God.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for initiating this debate and thank you to the gentlemen and possibly the one active female member of this site for being our audience.

The issue of debate is whether "The belief in God" is rational. For the purposes of this debate, I shall define "rational" as "the product of correct reasoning" and "God" as the Judeo-Christian God (Since there was no article and the word is capitalized).

The overarching theme of my response to my opponent's four contentions is simple. Imagine if you will that you enter your house after a long night of rampant sex at your girlfriend's apartment, only to find that the windows have been bashed in and an empty spot where your expensive sound system used to be. You phone the police and when giving testimony, you describe the burglar as a 6'6" white male with a curly mustache, purple hair, a dragon tattoo on his chest and exactly 12 toes on each foot.

While it is one thing to use examples to prove that a greater power exists, it is another thing to add extra attributes to that greater power. If my opponent is to win this debate, he must not only show that a greater power exists, but that it also, out of reason and logic, matches the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God in that it is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, benevolent, forgiving, etc.

NOW, On to my opponent's contentions.

CONTENTION ONE:

The reasoning by my opponent is that since all things come from other things, it would lead to an infinite regress, which is illogical. My opponent then argues that something beyond our logic must be responsible for causing itself, as well as the rest of the universe.

My first response is the concept of a self causing cause is just as illogical as the concept of an infinite regress. If my opponent's conclusion is that an illogical thing must be the cause of the universe, why not just choose the infinite regress?

My second response is that the notion that everything must come from something is not right reasoning. We understand that things come from other things based on our day to day interactions. Thus, the premise that all things come from other things is not right reason, making the conclusion unreasonable.

My third response is that even if all the above were true, the proof only lists that a powerful "thing" was responsible for the creation of the universe. This thing is substantially different from the Judeo-Christian "God" as stated in the topic.

CONTENTION 2

Though Pascal's wager is quite convincing, I myself have a problem with it. You see, I worship the God Bareth'Napal, and the believers of Bareth'Napal get to go to the Christian Heaven as well as bring any loved ones with them. However, if I am not a believer, Bareth'Napal will send me AND my loved ones to the Christian Hell. Thus, I would much rather believe in MY God than the Judeo Christian God.

In all seriousness though, there are hundreds and thousands of religious beliefs present today. Pascal's wager holds absolutely no power. To throw in another response, I'm not sure that God, being as omniscient and benevolent as he is, would be too keen on people falsely believing in him just for the after-death perks.

CONTENTION 3

The wizard Merlin was feared by all for his ability to throw fireballs. Today, we have grenade launchers that essentially do the same thing. The amazing, beyond belief things of today are not quite so impressive tomorrow. The examples that my opponent produced, namely, the mystical magical numbers, are relevant to those fields of mathematics purely because mathematics is a perfect science, created by man. It is akin to looking at a 10,000 piece puzzle and being amazed that each piece seems to fit in perfectly with its neighbors. Of course it does. That's the nature of the puzzle. It is the same case with mathematics. Mathematics operates under perfect principles developed by man, so doubtlessly, perfection will arise from it.

Contention 4

My first response: Nothing would make me happier than having rampant, unprotected sex with numerous, unbelievably attractive women day after day after day. And you don't need a scientific study to show that sex makes people happy. However, this is unreasonable to dedicate my life to. This argument is quite weak in that there are SO many ways in which one can find happiness, adopting a religion is only one out of millions.

My second response: There are a number of different religious beliefs that entail the pursuit of happiness or an equivalent state that does not revolve around God, or even any god. Even if you were to conclusively show that Religion is a necessity for happiness, you cannot specify which and thus, cannot complete your proof.

TO SUM UP

My opponent has not offered any solid reason why it is rational to believe in God. I will now dedicate the rest of my argument to why I believe that the belief in God is irrational by giving my own rational conclusion as to why belief in the Judeo-Christian God is unreasonable.

The concept of a God and the concept of afterlife developed from ignorance and fear. Much like how small children would create superheroes with their friends on the floor of their bedrooms to thwart bullies and give them toys, people also gave attributes to a being much like themselves. Humans feared death, so gave God the attribute of immortality. They gave God the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience because they crave power and knowledge.

The story of God spread like the story of the boogieman. If you're bad, the boogieman will eat you. Similarly, if you're bad, God will turn you into a pillar of salt, strike you with lightning, give you boils, destroy your crops, and/or kill your firstborn children.

Problem is, the boogieman only scared children. Over the course of the years, humans grew up too. Boogieman hasn't eaten me all these years and similarly, there have been no Godly acts over the past few thousand. Now it's time to change the story. To appeal to a wiser, more skeptical crowd, God is now benevolent and works behind the scenes rather than directly impacting human life. The more and more learned we become, the less of a place God has in our society. We can reasonable conclude that as this pattern continues, The Judeo-Christian God will have less and less human-like attributes and revert back first to the Deistic God, than to an Agnostic "force" to answer the cosmological argument, and at the end, ignore the existence of such a thing altogether.

Thus, it is irrational to believe in God.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"My first response is the concept of a self causing cause is just as illogical as the concept of an infinite regress. If my opponent's conclusion is that an illogical thing must be the cause of the universe, why not just choose the infinite regress?"

God is all powerful. This gives him the power to break logic. If he is all powerful, nothing stops him from self-creation. Infinite regress is simply impossible under my premises.

"My second response is that the notion that everything must come from something is not right reasoning. We understand that things come from other things based on our day to day interactions. Thus, the premise that all things come from other things is not right reason, making the conclusion unreasonable."

Inductive reasoning allows us to generalize this principle, and it is a principle which virtually all science and reasoning rests on. If cause and effect are not necessarily in existence, we cannot answer any question. That is the more illogical idea.

"My third response is that even if all the above were true, the proof only lists that a powerful "thing" was responsible for the creation of the universe. This thing is substantially different from the Judeo-Christian "God" as stated in the topic."

God is an all-powerful thing. I can choose any of the all-powerful things. It is just as rational to believe that God is the all-powerful thing as it is to believe that Freddy the Unicorn was the all-powerful thing. I choose God simply because I want to. He is one of many similar answers.

"Though Pascal's wager is quite convincing, I myself have a problem with it. You see, I worship the God Bareth'Napal, and the believers of Bareth'Napal get to go to the Christian Heaven as well as bring any loved ones with them. However, if I am not a believer, Bareth'Napal will send me AND my loved ones to the Christian Hell. Thus, I would much rather believe in MY God than the Judeo Christian God."

Actually, I'd believe in both. Because if I do that, I am more likely to go to heaven.

"In all seriousness though, there are hundreds and thousands of religious beliefs present today. Pascal's wager holds absolutely no power. To throw in another response, I'm not sure that God, being as omniscient and benevolent as he is, would be too keen on people falsely believing in him just for the after-death perks."

God is the only god that is considered all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, all-loving, and all-just. This God is much more likely to uphold his end of the deal than Zeus is. I anticipate you will object that you could come up with Uthmal, another all-powerful, all-knowing, et cetera god. This logic does not overturn Pascale's Wager because a god with the same characteristics as God is effectively God, so belief in Uthmal is belief in God, just with a different name. For example, Allah, the Muslim God is God, and to extend this even further, Dios, the Spanish name for God, is still God, just because He has another name does not change the fact. Also, Pascale said that this wager was not why we should believe, but why belief was rational. So, I'm not believing in God because of perks, it's just that my belief has potential advantages that make it rational.

"The wizard Merlin was feared by all for his ability to throw fireballs. Today, we have grenade launchers that essentially do the same thing. The amazing, beyond belief things of today are not quite so impressive tomorrow. The examples that my opponent produced, namely, the mystical magical numbers, are relevant to those fields of mathematics purely because mathematics is a perfect science, created by man. It is akin to looking at a 10,000 piece puzzle and being amazed that each piece seems to fit in perfectly with its neighbors. Of course it does. That's the nature of the puzzle. It is the same case with mathematics. Mathematics operates under perfect principles developed by man, so doubtlessly, perfection will arise from it."

I could offer more examples, but I feel like giving you this point. However, one conceded point does not lose me the debate.

"My first response: Nothing would make me happier than having rampant, unprotected sex with numerous, unbelievably attractive women day after day after day. And you don't need a scientific study to show that sex makes people happy. However, this is unreasonable to dedicate my life to. This argument is quite weak in that there are SO many ways in which one can find happiness, adopting a religion is only one out of millions."

William James, founder of Pragmatism says "Pragmatism asks its usual question. 'Grant an idea or belief to be true,' it says, 'what concrete difference will it being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized...What, in short is the truth's cash value in experiential terms?'"

On God says that we must determine whether belief in God improves life, or if it makes no difference/has a negative impact. Belief in God makes one happier, gives meaning to life, and gives one a positive outlook on life. Whether God exists or not is unknowable, but the benefits of belief are numerous, and this rationalizes belief. My opponent misinterprets Pragmatism. Pragmatism is an answer to metaphysical questions, not a system of action.

"My second response: There are a number of different religious beliefs that entail the pursuit of happiness or an equivalent state that does not revolve around God, or even any god. Even if you were to conclusively show that Religion is a necessity for happiness, you cannot specify which and thus, cannot complete your proof."

There is no reason to like vanilla cake more than chocolate cake, yet it is not irrational to like vanilla cake more. Also, it makes sense for me to be Presbyterian because it is the socially accepted religion in my family, and it makes sense for my friend to be Hindu, because his family accepts Hinduism. It depends which religion one ought to believe in, just based off Pragmatism. I use Pascale to further justify belief in God.

"The concept of a God and the concept of afterlife developed from ignorance and fear. Much like how small children would create superheroes with their friends on the floor of their bedrooms to thwart bullies and give them toys, people also gave attributes to a being much like themselves. Humans feared death, so gave God the attribute of immortality. They gave God the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience because they crave power and knowledge."

Although this is a rational explanation for why God was believed in, it does not negate my argument. People can often create imaginary things that end up being real. Just because the creation of the concept of God may not be divine, it does not disprove God's existence.

My opponent then relates God to the boogieman. Fact: some children also believe in lions eating them. Some beliefs are false, others are true. I contend that belief in God is like belief in lions.

Summary of the debate so far:
I have made four contentions.
Contention 1: Proof of First Cause
I said a first cause is necessary, and that God provides a first cause. My opponent attacked my assumption that everything had a cause, and attacked the rationality of self-creation. I rebutted these attacks by using inductive reasoning, and showing that an omnipotent being could reasonably self-create.
Contention 2: Pascale's Wager
I used Pascale's Wager to justify belief in God. My opponent then said Pascale's Wager can apply to all religions. I rebutted this by arguing that only God will definitely uphold the deal.
Contention 3: Empirical Evidence
I conceded this point.
Contention 4: Pragmatism
I said Pragmatism justifies belief in God. My opponent's attack was based off a misinterpretation, and is therefore dropped.

My opponent also made the case that God is a primitive explanation for man's fear. I answered this by showing that God can still exist, regardless of these men's motives in
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

CONTENTION ONE:
PART ONE:
"God is all powerful. This gives him the power to break logic. If he is all powerful, nothing stops him from self-creation. Infinite regress is simply impossible under my premises."

My opponent's argument:
1. Something creating itself is illogical
2. God is outside the realm of logic and is all-powerful
3. God must then be the only thing that can create itself

First of all, if my opponent makes this case that God and the concept of God is outside the realm of logic, he will have conceded the debate because it would be definitively irrational.

Second, my opponent can only use contention 2 if one develops the idea of an all-powerful being that operates outside the realm of logic. Conceiving of such an idea is the same as dividing by zero. We can speak about it, but cannot accurately conceptualize it and thus, any use of it is void.

Third, I can simply argue that a thing existed such that it had the power to create itself. I need not state that it exists today, nor state that it is omnipotent. Occam's Razor: All things being equivalent, the simplest answer is the best. Why attach unnecessary details if our only concern is the ontological argument?

CONTENTION TWO:
PART TWO:

Inductive reasoning that leads to a contradiction in inductive reasoning is similarly rejected by the scientific community. Traditionally, "God did it" is not an answer that can cut it in terms of math and science. The inductive principle of "everything falls down" was replaced with "everything falls towards Earth" and then refined to our current concept of gravitation in terms of mass because it contradicted with other data. Similarly, this inductive principle of causality must and will be modified because it leads to an infinite regress and/or an equally illogical prime cause. Thus, as the product of this conclusion as well as the process by which it was contrived are both faulty, we cannot say it is the product of right reason.

CONTENTION ONE
PART THREE:

In that case, I argue that in a potentially unlimited field of omnipotent things, the choice to believe in God becomes meaningless in this regard. If 20,000 omnipotent things were potentially the cause of the universe, then my opponent's entire first contention is nullified. If all those omnipotent things are equally rational to believe, then the choice to believe God is not objective.

CONTENTION TWO
PART ONE:

Sadly, one cannot believe in both.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The first commandment states that the Judeo-Christian God shall not tolerate those who put other Gods before him. And as a necessity to worship Bareth'Napal, you MUST put Bareth'Napal before all other Gods and believe in no other. Thus, I must rationally choose to believe only in Bareth'Napal because his punishment is far worse than the punishment of the Judeo-Christian God's.

CONTENTION TWO
PART TWO:

Bareth'Napal is quite different from God. As I have stated before, his believers get to send all their loved ones to heaven too. Thus, it would be IRRATIONAL to believe in the Judeo-Chrisian God (Doing so would have bareth'Napal send you and your loved ones to Hell).

CONTENTION THREE
My opponent has conceded this contention

CONTENTION FOUR
PART ONE:

My opponent's flaw is that he assumes that all people value things equally. While the belief in God may be beneficial to some, the possibility that all the benefits come about according to a lie may violate greater values in others. The plot of the Matrix was about the escape from a false land of mass human complacency to the illusion. Similarly, the belief in God restricts our very freedom. We give up the search for truth in exchange for false hope. We give up out own, personal meanings to life in exchange for the one the Bible gives us. Our outlook on life is skewed towards that which the Bible teaches us, not a result of our personal decisions. Assuming that people value their freedom more than superficial happiness, this belief is then irrational, because accepting this belief would be forfeiting the value they hold highest.

CONTENTION FOUR
PART TWO:

My opponent has just stated that base don Pragmatism, the rationality can develop in the belief of many gods, not just the Judeo-Christian God. As his position is to prove the rationality of believing in the Judeo-Christian God, he has essentially forfeited his position by conceding that it is rational to believe in *any* God, since the core tenet of belief in the Jude-Christian God is to not believe in any others.

RESPONSES TO CRITICISMS
"Just because the creation of the concept of God may not be divine, it does not disprove God's existence."

I was not trying to disprove God's existence, I was offering a more rational possibility that the concept of God may have developed out of need. Yes, I admit that people can create imaginary things that happen to be real, but it is highly unlikely that one fashioned to be perfection is real.

"Fact: some children also believe in lions eating them. Some beliefs are false, others are true. I contend that belief in God is like belief in lions."

I contend that since I have seen lions but have never seen God, my opponent needs to give his explanation as to why he believes so.

My opponent's points have all been addressed, and he currently has no outstanding argument as to why the belief in God is rational. I have defeated his ontological proof and shown it to be illogical and thus, irrational. I have shown that belief in God as per Pascal's Wager is irrational given the multitude of beliefs in which belief in God would be detrimental (Bareth'Napal). My opponent has conceded his third point. In his final point, his argument that Pragmatism supports the rationality can be disregarded given that there is always a subjective exchange between two actions. Subjective reasoning is not right reason because only objective reasoning can be valid for this debate.

I await my opponent's final response, Thank you.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"First of all, if my opponent makes this case that God and the concept of God is outside the realm of logic, he will have conceded the debate because it would be definitively irrational."

That is not true. It can be rational to believe in a being that is outside of the realm of logic, if it is necessary for the truth to be true.

"Second, my opponent can only use contention 2 [I assume he means 1] if one develops the idea of an all-powerful being that operates outside the realm of logic. Conceiving of such an idea is the same as dividing by zero. We can speak about it, but cannot accurately conceptualize it and thus, any use of it is void."

Just because we cannot conceptualize something does not mean that we can not use it. For example, i. The square root of one is fundamentally impossible to conceptualize, but it is necessary for many mathematical operations. We defined as i, because it is impossible for us to comprehend, but it is essential in advanced mathematics. I am contending that although God is fundamentally incomprehensible, He is necessary for creation of the Universe.

"Third, I can simply argue that a thing existed such that it had the power to create itself. I need not state that it exists today, nor state that it is omnipotent. Occam's Razor: All things being equivalent, the simplest answer is the best. Why attach unnecessary details if our only concern is the ontological argument?"

How is something that existed only long enough to create itself, and the universe simple? That seems even more complicated than the concept of God.

"Inductive reasoning that leads to a contradiction in inductive reasoning is similarly rejected by the scientific community. Traditionally, 'God did it' is not an answer that can cut it in terms of math and science. The inductive principle of 'everything falls down' was replaced with 'everything falls towards Earth' and then refined to our current concept of gravitation in terms of mass because it contradicted with other data. Similarly, this inductive principle of causality must and will be modified because it leads to an infinite regress and/or an equally illogical prime cause. Thus, as the product of this conclusion as well as the process by which it was contrived are both faulty, we cannot say it is the product of right reason."

You claim that the concept of God is as illogical as a an infinite regress, but that is not so. An omnipotent being can literally do ANYTHING, including self-creation. This inductive reasoning does not lead to an illogical conclusion unless you deny the existence of a Creator.

"In that case, I argue that in a potentially unlimited field of omnipotent things, the choice to believe in God becomes meaningless in this regard. If 20,000 omnipotent things were potentially the cause of the universe, then my opponent's entire first contention is nullified. If all those omnipotent things are equally rational to believe, then the choice to believe God is not objective."

Here I bring in other contentions to defend God. First, it is pragmatic. Most people live in a society where Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is socially acceptable, and most other religions are not. It makes perfect sense for someone in this situation to choose God, because that is the socially acceptable deity to believe in. Also, as I said earlier, God, being perfectly good, and omniscient is most likely to ensure that you are allowed into Heaven if you are good. Also, these 2000 deities would all have to be distinct. If they are the same, that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, et cetera, they are God, just with another name.

"Bareth'Napal is quite different from God. As I have stated before, his believers get to send all their loved ones to heaven too. Thus, it would be IRRATIONAL to believe in the Judeo-Chrisian God (Doing so would have bareth'Napal send you and your loved ones to Hell)."

As I said earlier, God is most likely to uphold his end of the deal and actually send you to heaven if you're good. Bareth'Napal either is not as likely to reward you, as he is either not perfectly good or he is not all-knowing, and may make a mistake, or he is perfect, just like God. If he is just like God, he is God, he just happens to be named Bareth'Napal, and the rational thing would be to simply treat him as God, yet call him Bareth'Napal.

"My opponent's flaw is that he assumes that all people value things equally. While the belief in God may be beneficial to some, the possibility that all the benefits come about according to a lie may violate greater values in others. The plot of the Matrix was about the escape from a false land of mass human complacency to the illusion. Similarly, the belief in God restricts our very freedom. We give up the search for truth in exchange for false hope. We give up out own, personal meanings to life in exchange for the one the Bible gives us. Our outlook on life is skewed towards that which the Bible teaches us, not a result of our personal decisions. Assuming that people value their freedom more than superficial happiness, this belief is then irrational, because accepting this belief would be forfeiting the value they hold highest."

God does not restrict freedom at all. He gives us free will. Otherwise, we must succumb to the belief that all is pre-determined, and that is most restrictive of our freedom. You obviously have never read The Brothers Karamazov, in which Dostoevsky demonstrates this point. Also, as John Stuart Mill, my homeboy, has shown, all that can be desired is pleasure. Freedom has value because it makes us happy. Furthermore, belief in God is not belief in the doctrine of the Bible. Quakers believe in God, yet they reject the Bible.

"My opponent has just stated that base don (sic.) Pragmatism, the rationality can develop in the belief of many gods, not just the Judeo-Christian God. As his position is to prove the rationality of believing in the Judeo-Christian God, he has essentially forfeited his position by conceding that it is rational to believe in *any* God, since the core tenet of belief in the Jude-Christian God is to not believe in any others."

As I said, the Judeo-Christian God is the most socially accepted God to believe in. That creates a feeling of a filial bond with your fellow man, which makes you happier.

"I was not trying to disprove God's existence, I was offering a more rational possibility that the concept of God may have developed out of need. Yes, I admit that people can create imaginary things that happen to be real, but it is highly unlikely that one fashioned to be perfection is real."

I have shown that God=i, and i exists, does it not?

"I contend that since I have seen lions but have never seen God, my opponent needs to give his explanation as to why he believes so."

You should try going to a Seventh Day Adventist Church with a lot of LSD. I guarantee that you will see God that day. But anyways, I say this because God can be rationally shown to exist (Cosmological Proof).

In summation, I say that I have three arguments, and that I have shown that belief in God is very rational and beneficial, and therefore you vote LR4N6FTW4EVA.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

This has been a long debate, and my opponent has circled around my counterpoints. In order to address my opponent's concerns and to clean up the mess, I have simply decided to organize my final response in a manner easy for the audience. The first section will be my rebuttals and the second will be a summary of how I have categorically debunked each and every one of my opponent's contentions. Please skip the first section if you are tired.

*********REBUTTAL

"It can be rational to believe in a being that is outside of the realm of logic, if it is necessary for the truth to be true."

Incorrect. I will now show the extraordinary flaw in my opponent's argument.

My opponent's argument string

P1: The universe is a thing
P2: All things come from other things
Thus, something must have come before the universe.
This repeats ad infinitum, thus, a being outside of logic must rest at the top of the chain for P2 to be true.

The flaw in his argument is that his initial premise that all things come from other things may not be true. My opponent goes to great lengths, even trespassing outside the realm of logic and possibility to give an irrational argument in order to prove the premise of an argument. If my opponent were to abide by the laws of logic at all, he would know to abandon the faulty premise before appealing to an impossibility. Thus, his cosmological argument is debunked.

"I am contending that although God is fundamentally incomprehensible, He is necessary for creation of the Universe."

Incorrect. Your argument only tries to show that an omnipotent being is necessary for the creation of the universe. You have not yet proven that this being MUST be the Judeo-Christian God. In addition, your argument fails in that it relies on a faulty premise, that all things must come from other things. Inductive arguments are inherently flawed and open to exceptions. The principle of causality is the result of an inductive argument, and this is one of the exceptions. It is more logical to declare this the flaw of the principle of causality than to invent a meta-logical being.

"How is something that existed only long enough to create itself, and the universe simple? That seems even more complicated than the concept of God."

My opponent misinterprets my argument. I am saying that my opponent's ontological argument would only fulfill PART of his case. He may be able to show an omnipotent being, but what about benevolence, omniscience, and omnipresence? What about all the other aspects of the Judeo-Christian God? Thus, even if I did not debunk his ontological proof (which I did), he would not have done enough to prove his case that the universe was created by "God" of the Bible.

"Here I bring in other contentions to defend God. First, it is pragmatic. Most people live in a society where Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is socially acceptable, and most other religions are not."

Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. The truth of an issue does not rest with how many people believe in it. The question is whether the belief is the result of right reason.

"Bareth'Napal either is not as likely to reward you, as he is either not perfectly good or he is not all-knowing, and may make a mistake, or he is perfect, just like God. If he is just like God, he is God, he just happens to be named Bareth'Napal, and the rational thing would be to simply treat him as God, yet call him Bareth'Napal."

My opponent has ignored the main issue. Bareth'Napal is exactly like God, except that when you go to Hell, your loved ones go with you, and when you go to Heaven, your loved ones go with you. He has never addressed by debunking of Pascal's Wager, wherein belief in God as opposed to Bareth'Napal would be irrational since the loss and the gain is greater for Bareth'Napal.

"God does not restrict freedom at all. He gives us free will. Otherwise, we must succumb to the belief that all is pre-determined, and that is most restrictive of our freedom."

False Dichotomy Fallacy. I can also believe that we have free will that is not imposed on us by God. In addition, my opponent's counterargument is a strawman. I never argued that God himself limited our free will, rather, that the devotion of irrational belief in God (as there are preconditions to the imaginary Heaven) limits what we can and cannot do.

"As I said, the Judeo-Christian God is the most socially accepted God to believe in. That creates a feeling of a filial bond with your fellow man, which makes you happier."

Happiness is subjective. So is social acceptance. One man may wish to worship the Grass and Sun god that his tribe members worship. He would be a social reject if he did not. Thus, my opponent's counterpoint is invalid.

"I have shown that God=i, and i exists, does it not?"

Non sequitor fallacy. The fact that the concept of I exists does not go to show that it exists in reality (even though it does). You cannot argue that God exists purely because the concept of God exists.

"You should try going to a Seventh Day Adventist Church with a lot of LSD. I guarantee that you will see God that day. But anyways, I say this because God can be rationally shown to exist (Cosmological Proof)."

Proof has been debunked.

"In summation, I say that I have three arguments, and that I have shown that belief in God is very rational and beneficial, and therefore you vote LR4N6FTW4EVA."

*************SUMMARY

Cosmological proof:

I have thoroughly debunked this argument. To summarize, my opponent declared that the only way for all things to come from other things, is that a being that is omnipotent and free from logic must have created the universe. Thus, The Judeo-Christian God must exist.

His argument fails on 3 points.

Fail #1: He is referencing something illogical to prove something logically.
Fail #2: Causality is the result of induction. All inductive proofs have exceptions and are open to exceptions. If use of an inductive premise leads to an impossibility, REJECT the premise. Instead, my opponent chose to tell a fairy tale.
Fail #3: My opponent's faulty argument would only lead to the faulty conclusion that an Omnipotent being created the universe. He needs to prove that the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN God was the one who created the universe, and did not prove benevolence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.

Pascal's Wager

Believe in God, God exists >> Heaven (100% Pleasure)
Believe in God, God doesn't exist >> Nothing (0)
Do not believe in God, God exists >> Hell (100% Pain)
Do not believe in God, God doesn't exist >> Nothing (0)

My opponent uses this as justification for believing in God. However:

Given: Bareth'napal's existence is just as likely as God's existence, and Bareth'napal is the same as God in every single way except in how he deals with people in the afterlife.

Believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal >> Heaven for you and your loved ones (300+% Pleasure)
Believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal doesn't exist >> Nothing (0)
Do not believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal exists >> Hell for you and your loved ones (300+% Pain)
Do not believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal doesn't exist >> Nothing (0)

Thus, one must rationally choose to believe in Bareth'napal over God since both gods require total loyalty.

Pragmatism

My opponent contends that the belief in God leads to happiness and wellbeing, and thus, the belief is rational. However, happiness is defined differently for everyone, and everyone's route to happiness is different. Given this subjectivity, my opponent's argument cannot be viewed as valid since we are trying to analyze the validity of the belief in God, ensuring that it is the result of right reason.

I have debunked each and every single one of my opponent's contentions, and no outstanding case is left for the belief in God being rational.

Since this is the case, I urge you to vote KLEPTIN.

Thank you to my opponent, and thank you to the
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"It is not rational to believe something that works outside the laws of nature. Ergo you lose."
"I is often necessary, for example quantum mechanics, ergo I win."

If it occurs within nature - it cannot be outside of i.e it is inclusive of nature.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
""lrn2logic"-Rezzealaux Yeah, I said it."
> Putting faith into something that claims it's a flawless system but has no proof of being flawless = u can't logic

"Name them."
> The other Abrahamic religions, for starters.

"Okay, so that means that Water123 should not have been banned, you don't even exist, et cetera, as I believe that Water should have been banned and that you do exist (in some form)."
> I no longer take you seriously.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"> So you put your faith in anything that claims it's a flawless system."
"lrn2logic"-Rezzealaux Yeah, I said it.

"> Wrong."
Name them.

"> Unless God doesn't exist. At which point it's zero chance times infinite payoff, which makes no sense."
No proof that he doesn't.

"> lrn2logic. unspecified means everything."
Okay, so that means that Water123 should not have been banned, you don't even exist, et cetera, as I believe that Water should have been banned and that you do exist (in some form).
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"God will not make a mistake, so I best put my faith in a flawless system."
> So you put your faith in anything that claims it's a flawless system.
"Also, most world religions don't damn me to hell for believing in another god."
> Wrong.
"Belief in God is the safest position, and the one most likely to pay off."
> Unless God doesn't exist. At which point it's zero chance times infinite payoff, which makes no sense.
"So you don't take me seriously for "..or what?" Weird."
> lrn2logic. unspecified means everything.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"Whether or not you prove it more likely, you're dismissing the wager entirely as it is based on the notion that "Just be safe and secure my afterlife assuming it exist, I shall support religion "X." However, if you haven't eliminated every other religion, it matters little as even if you do support religion "X", it is still possible that you will end up losing your chance at an afterlife only to be sent straight to hell. This is quite different than the actual intention of the wager as the actual intention is to make sure that there is no chance of you ending up in hell."

It may not be AS strong, however it still has weight. The god YahYahNeuMaharate is less likely to let me into paradise because he is not perfect, and may make a mistake. God will not make a mistake, so I best put my faith in a flawless system. Also, most world religions don't damn me to hell for believing in another god. Christianity does. For example, Hinduism, I might end up as a grasshopper, but that is a short life, and I can easily advance from there. Buddhism does not specify a god, nor does it punish me for belief in a god, I'm fine there. Belief in God is the safest position, and the one most likely to pay off.

"If it's from within the debate please quote the relevant points. I do not feel like scanning a wall of text while doing my calculus homework."

I summarize it above.

"The latter."

So you don't take me seriously for "..or what?" Weird.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"I ADDRESSED THAT POINT!!!"
If it's from within the debate please quote the relevant points. I do not feel like scanning a wall of text while doing my calculus homework.

"What, for arguing for an all-powerful being, or what?"
The latter.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"PW allows for other religions. I show that Christianity is most likely to pay off, ergo I win."

Whether or not you prove it more likely, you're dismissing the wager entirely as it is based on the notion that "Just be safe and secure my afterlife assuming it exist, I shall support religion "X." However, if you haven't eliminated every other religion, it matters little as even if you do support religion "X", it is still possible that you will end up losing your chance at an afterlife only to be sent straight to hell. This is quite different than the actual intention of the wager as the actual intention is to make sure that there is no chance of you ending up in hell.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
">It relies on the assumption that there is ONLY ONE POSSIBLE RELIGION, and that it is not necessarily true.
Therefore, 'PW is crap' - LM"

I ADDRESSED THAT POINT!!!

">I can't take you seriously anymore."

What, for arguing for an all-powerful being, or what?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
It seems I worded that poorly. What I mean is that all other religions must be dismissed; you must disprove others, with one religion remaining, so that it is a comparison between that religion and atheism.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"It relies on the fact that it is possible, but not necessarily true."
>It relies on the assumption that there is ONLY ONE POSSIBLE RELIGION, and that it is not necessarily true.
Therefore, "PW is crap" - LM

"An all-powerful being can do ANYTHING, breaking logic is SOMETHING, ergo God can do it."
>I can't take you seriously anymore.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by symphonyofdissent 8 years ago
symphonyofdissent
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:50