The Instigator
JesusIsTruth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Logic Proves the God of the Bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,133 times Debate No: 10556
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

JesusIsTruth

Pro

The basic question is this: Where do the fundamental "Laws of Logic" come from? I will argue that the fundamental laws of logic can only be accounted for if the God of the Bible is true; it is essentially impossible for the contrary to be true. In saying this, I am stating that any other "Worldview" that is inconsistent with the Christian "Worldview" is false because no other "Worldview" is logically coherent and can account for the "Laws of Logic". The Christian's explanation to these laws is that they come from God. Logic is the way God thinks; because He created us in His image, we are, therefore, by nature logical creatures that live by the laws of logic. I have a firm belief that no other "Worldview" whether Atheism, Relativism, Naturalism, Evolution or even another religion can account for the fundamental Laws of Logic. If your "Worldview" can explain these laws feel free to state your point. I am highly confident that if you are on a debate website, you believe in the laws of Logic because without them debates would be impossible. If you are not familiar with these Laws of Logic here are some, you may want to focus on the law of Non-Contradiction which is the best known (How does your "Worldview" account for these?):

Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.
wjmelements

Con

I negate, that "Logic Proves the God of the Bible".

Other laws of logic that follow from those aforementioned:
4. Modus Ponens http://changingminds.org...
5. Modus Tullens http://changingminds.org...
6. Tautological Dichotemy (A or ~A)

Another one used here is:
7. Law of Parsimony (Occam's Razor) http://www.2think.org...

Definitions:
Christian God: Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, Omniscient http://www.experiencefestival.com...
Omnipotence- Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

My opponent has burden of proof. I will present my case after he presents his, but before then, here is a pre-emptive argument:

1. Paradox of the Stone
God either can or can not create a stone he cannot lift. (Tautological Dichotemy)
If God can create such a stone, then he cannot lift it and is not omnipotent. (Definition of omnipotent)
If God can not create such a stone, then he is not omnipotent. (Definition of omnipotent)
Therefore, God can not be omnipotent.
If God exists, then he is omnipotent. (Defiinition of God)
Therefore, God can not exist. (Modus Tullens)

I will now wait for my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 1
JesusIsTruth

Pro

Recognizing that both debater hold presuppositions, one must realize that "proof" can be interpreted in different ways depending on the presupposition of the person who is interpreting. Therefore, I use Transcendental Proof to support my argument. I am suggesting that we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God it is impossible to prove anything. Laws of Logic cannot be accounted for outside of the existence of God (The God of the Bible). It is clear that my opponent accepts the Laws of Logic, yet without God these Laws cannot be accounted for. Again I suggest that this is so by the impossibility of the contrary. He/she can give no logical argument that is internally coherent for the existence of these laws.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my other self for his rebuttal.

==Refutations==
My other self contests that the laws of logic require the existence of God.
This statement contradicts itself. My other self has conceded my Paradox of the Stone argument, so logic and God cannot co-exist. My other self's unwarranted statement, "without God these Laws [of logic] cannot be accounted for" is self-contradictory.
Either the laws of logic exist, or God exists. Therefore, the existence of God cannot validate the existence of the laws of logic. My other self's case is nonsensical.
I am not required to prove the laws of logic. My other self has burden of proof. Further, the resolution assumes their existence, and without logic, no argument can be made. So, if God cannot exist with logic, as my other self has conceded, logic cannot prove the God of the Bible.

==The CON Case: Solipsism==
I, as an individual, can only confirm that my mind exists and that it perceives something. What my mind is perceiving is called "the universe". There is no way to affirm the validity of my perception without circular reasoning, for any conclusion about the validity of the existence of the universe must originate from my perceptions of the universe. I'd have to assume that the universe exists to prove that it exists. Therefore, the existence of the universe can not be proven.
There exist plenty of cases in which my mind can confirm the non-validity of my perceptions. Perceptions confirmed to be invalid are called "dreams".
There is no way to affirm the existence of the universe. I can manufacture no evidence. The universe is not required to exist. The law of parsimony then declares that the universe, a non-zero entity, probably does not exist.
My dreams are simulated in my consciousness. The consciousness is the part of my mind referred to as "I". If the univserse does not exist, then it is a dream. As a dream, it must be, at the very least, simulated. Simulation follows the law of parsimony, as it does not assume the existence of any non-zero entity, while still explaining phenomenon.
I can not manipulate the actions of the universe, so they are simulated outside of my consciousness. Assuming no other non-zero entities, the simulation of the universe occurs within my mind, but outside of my consciousness.
Simulated consciousnesses are colloquially referred to as "you"; however, a more proper terming for these consciousnesses would be "my other selves", because they are simulated within my own mind.
The conclusion is that all that exists is my own mind that simulates the universe. Within that mind is my consciousness.

==Conclusion==
This explanation of the universe assumes far less than my other self, as it only assumes the existence of my mind. My other self's case assumes a self-contradictory statement that the laws of logic cannot exist without God. This statement is further unwarranted and invalid within the context of this debate, for my other self must prove the God of the Bible with logic.
Debate Round No. 2
JesusIsTruth

Pro

JesusIsTruth forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited a round. Extend my arguments through this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JesusIsTruth

Pro

JesusIsTruth forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent's profile is no longer active. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
JesusIsTruth

Pro

JesusIsTruth forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

Well, my opponent's case was based in a contradictory statement. My case was unrefuted. The paradox of the stone further disproved the resolution.

Thank you, and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
God doth smote merrily around Christmas.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
My opponent's account is no longer active.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Feverish: First off of course anybody should. Second, that is your framework, logic may actually support the other way around. And third, i'm just saying i would have a hard time arguing against my faith that's why i was asking.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Isn't this the same as the "The laws of logic are self-evident" debate http://www.debate.org...... but with a religious twist."

More it's the TAG argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Laws of Logic cannot be accounted for outside of the existence of God (The God of the Bible)"

Haha...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
It's entirely different. I don't have burden of proof and my opponent's statements are self-contradictory.

And yes, I am a Christian. Devil's Advocacy FTW.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Isn't this the same as the "The laws of logic are self-evident" debate http://www.debate.org... but with a religious twist.

@alex: Why? Shouldn't a Christian be willing to defend logic?
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
wjm aren't you a Christian?
Posted by Freedomaniac 7 years ago
Freedomaniac
The laws of reality exist because they must exist. If I say "paradoxes don't work", I must be right because you would actually have to apply the statement in any attempt to dismiss it. They don't have to be created. Furthermore, if reason did not cause your God, your God is unreasonable.
Posted by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
Why oh why is the stone paradox still used?!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
JesusIsTruthwjmelementsTied
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