The Instigator
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Logic Analysis: These arguments are valid for the existence of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Vi_Veri
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,393 times Debate No: 10025
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.

Logic is often a poorly used commodity where religion is concerned; whether arguing for or against the supernatural, many fallacious arguments are posited and accepted as truth.

I stand against the idea that the spiritual can be proven or disproven by physical evidence, or that any system of reasoning that claims to have answered this question is failsafe. I challenge all reasoners to prove their assertions in formal debate.

I contend that the arguments my opponent will post for the existence of God are not logically valid.

RESOLUTION: These arguments are valid for the existence of God.

DEFINITIONS: By accepting this debate, you agree to accept these definitions for this debate.

God: the one Supreme Being; perfect, omnipotent, omniscient; the creator and ruler of the universe. His attributes include goodness, holiness, wisdom, independence from His creation, immanence within His creation, immutability, immeasurability, and eternity. (Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com... )

Valid: so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Exist: to have actual being; be; to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

FORMAT OF DEBATE: By accepting this debate, you are agreeing use this format for this debate.

My opponent will post:
-Any relevant definitions they choose, other than the terms I have already listed;
-Two or three arguments for the existence of God, with at least a couple sentences of explanation; not simply statements.

Please label each section clearly, to keep the arguments separate.

In my R2, I'll post my opening refutations of each of my opponent's arguments in order, and from there we have a debate. Hope this is instructional and enjoyable for both sides!

To my opponent; best of luck!
Vi_Veri

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate!

Let me first supply you, for clarification, the definition of valid provided that my opponent has clearly stated as a necessity for taking of this debate.

~Valid~

So constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

I will accept all of my opponent's definitions and stipulations. I will now produce 3 different logically valid arguments for the existence of god:

~ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE~

|1. If I am the most awesome person in the world, then God exists.|
This is my first premise. The first premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 1. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P --> Q.

|2. I am the most awesome person in the world.|
This is my second premise. The second premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 2. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P.

|:. God exists.|
This is the conclusion. The conclusion is necessitated by the premises. If it doesn't follow, there is a contradiction and the syllogism is not valid. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as Q.

P --> Q
P
:. Q

~ARGUMENT NUMBER TWO~

|1. If you're finding this funny, then God exists.|
This is my first premise. The first premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 1. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P --> Q.

|2. You're finding this funny.|
This is my second premise. The second premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 2. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P.

|:. God exists.|
This is the conclusion. The conclusion is necessitated by the premises. If it doesn't follow, there is a contradiction and the syllogism is not valid. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as Q.

P --> Q
P
:. Q

~ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE~

|1. If I've had too much to drink, then God exists.|
This is my first premise. The first premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 1. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P --> Q.

|2. I've had too much to drink.|
This is my second premise. The second premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 2. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P.

|:. God exists.|
This is the conclusion. The conclusion is necessitated by the premises. If it doesn't follow, there is a contradiction and the syllogism is not valid. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as Q.

P --> Q
P
:. Q

I wish my opponent luck in finding the invalidity in these three arguments!
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Con

I thank my worthy opponent for her swift and ingenious post.

It must be said, winning is not always important; sometimes the lessons learned by losing far outweigh any benefits of winning. In such a case I find myself tonight.

I made an error in my initial definitions and the wording of the resolution, and my opponent has used this well against me. I admit that my opponent's arguments are flawless; in each case, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. That those premises are completely absurd does not affect the validity of the arguments they are used in.

As they are all unprovable (If I am the most awesome person in the world, then God exists, I've had too much to drink, If I've had too much to drink, then God exists), almost impossible to prove (You're finding this funny, I am the most awesome person in the world), or subjective (I am the most awesome person in the world, You're finding this funny, I've had too much to drink), these arguments are useless for proving the existence of God.

Unfortunately, such was merely the intent of the debate, not the resolution. As it stands, through three completely absurd yet logically correct arguments my inventive opponent has fulfilled her burden, and affirmed the resolution.

I concede this debate.

EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE IS IRRELEVANT TO VOTING VVV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few words on semantics.

I understand that there is a strong undercurrent on this site against the use of purely semantical arguments in serious debates. The feeling is, when someone has a legitimate topic they wish to debate, it is impolite to take their debate and deny them any serious consideration of the topic.

I myself enjoy a creative semantics debate, especially in a more casual setting; to quote people and twist the meanings of their words so that they are agreeing with you, and then to watch them try to work their way out of the tangle. As such, although my opponent completely subverted the intent of this debate, I'm not overly concerned.

I enjoyed the creative way in which my opponent twisted this debate. I enjoyed the chance to laugh at myself, with the wind knocked out of my sails. But most of all, I appreciate the opportunity my gracious opponent has afforded me, in giving me a springboard for my celebrated:
==================
TEN-CENT LECTURE ON LOGIC!
==================
(Note to the weak-minded: this section is optional; if you wish to avoid the lecture due to health concerns, you may skip reading down to the next set of double lines.)

In the comments, and even in the previous round, my opponent's arguments are incorrectly referred to as "syllogisms."
Yes, they are formally stated logical arguments; but not all logical arguments are syllogisms!

A syllogism has three terms, in two premises and a conclusion. These are related in terms of "all," "some," "no;" "are/is," and "is/are not." Thus:

All A is B
All B is C
:. all A is C

All M is N
Some N is O
:. some M may be O

And so forth. Syllogistic logic was codified by Aristotle in his work Prior Analytics, and since has become the primary form of logic in the Western world: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Whether she intended to or not, the form that my opponent used is called Propositional Logic. The form (although she spelled it out very clearly) is:

If A, then B;
A
:. B

This form of logic was codified by the Stoic philosopher and logician Chrysippus, "without doubt the second greatest logician in the history of logic." http://plato.stanford.edu... see sections 5, 5.2

I was pleased when I saw her arguments, even though I knew I lost, because it gave me the perfect excuse to tell about my namesake and hero.

For more information about him:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

For more glorious knowledge about logic:
http://plato.stanford.edu...
(and I recommend digging around the rest of the site, too; many well written and trustworthy articles on philosophy :)

END OF TEN-CENT LECTURE.
=========

I return this debate to my opponent. it is up to her now; she can accept her guaranteed semantics win, or posit further arguments more in keeping with the original intent of this debate. I still have a round to refute any further arguments she may post, and she a round to defend in, should she so choose.

Either way, I thank her for this debate, and hope that she has enjoyed it as much as I have.

To my opponent; best of luck!
Vi_Veri

Pro

lol, of course I accept my clever win!

I thank my opponent for such an entertaining debate - and love his little logic lesson at the end of his argument. Logic is a brilliant field of philosophy, and is one of the hardest to master!

As a fan of logic, I wish for us to debate again on a different topic : ) I await the day

Regards,

Vi
Debate Round No. 2
Chrysippus

Con

I felt I needed to post something of wonder and majesty in this round; hope you all enjoy these...

Best wishes,
Chrysippus (the lesser :)
Vi_Veri

Pro

In similar fashion, wonder and majesty:
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Impressive guitarwork in the second video, Vi...
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
RFD:

Before: Pro, obvs : )

After: Pro : )

Conduct: Con, for taking it like a champ!

Spelling + Gram: Tie

Arguments: Pro!

Sources: Tie
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Pro got my vote for the following reasons:

1) She won the debate
2) She's super hot
3) Glory Box is my favorite song of all time :)
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
Turned out quite nicely. =)
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Handel. :)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Way to fail, CON.
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
That all depends on what the exact interpretation of "jointly" is here.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Oho tricky Vi! It took me a second there, but then a got it =D.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
lelanatty, read the definition of valid, the soundness of the premises is irrelevant, as sneakily enforced by Vi_Veri - see the opening comment. :)
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Up to you; the rest of this debate can be placeholder posts, or actual arguments.

As it is, I'd like to debate you again after I finish the four I'm doing now.. Your choice of topic.

Your round made me laugh; resolution affirmed! :D
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ciphermind 6 years ago
ciphermind
ChrysippusVi_VeriTied
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 Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
ChrysippusVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ChrysippusVi_VeriTied
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:13 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
ChrysippusVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07