The Instigator
LittleBallofHATE
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Logic proves the existence of God

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 3 votes the winner is...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,324 times Debate No: 50002
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

LittleBallofHATE

Pro

My goal for this debate is to argue the existence of God by arguing that logic cannot exist without Him. I'm not arguing for the existence of the Christian God, BTW. Just the concept of an all powerful being that created everything. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to prove me wrong. Burden of proof is shared equally. The best argument wins.

Four rounds.

Acceptance.
Opening argument.
Rebuttals.
Closing argument.

Good luck.
Ozzyhead

Con

I accept this debate. I will argue that logic does not prove the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 1
LittleBallofHATE

Pro

Let me begin by defining logic.
Dictionary.com
logic
[loj-ik]
noun
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

This is fine, as far as it goes, but does not tell us what logic is. Thefreedictionary.com provides more information.

log·ic (l!5;j′ĭk)
n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science
a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

[Middle English, from Old French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē (tekhnē), (art) of reasoning, logic, feminine of logikos, of reasoning, from logos, reason; see leg- in Indo-European roots.]

logic (G2;l;4;dA8;=8;k)
n
1. (Logic) the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context. See also formal logic, deduction4, induction4
2. (Logic) any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference. Compare formal system, formal language
3. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study
4. a particular method of argument or reasoning
5. force or effectiveness in argument or dispute
6. reasoned thought or argument, as distinguished from irrationality
7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc
8. (Logic) chop logic to use excessively subtle or involved logic or argument
9. (Computer Science) electronics computing
a. the principles underlying the units in a computer system that perform arithmetical and logical operations. See also logic circuit
b. (as modifier): a logic element.
[C14: from Old French logique from Medieval Latin logica (neuter plural, treated in Medieval Latin as feminine singular), from Greek logikos concerning speech or reasoning]

log•ic (G2;l;4;dA8; =8;k)

n.
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. symbolic logic.
3. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation.
4. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
5. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions.
6. the consistency to be discerned in a work of art, system, etc.
7. any connection between facts that seems reasonable or inevitable.
8.
a. the arrangement of circuitry in a computer.
b. a circuit or circuits designed to perform functions defined in terms of mathematical logic.
[1325–75; Middle English logik < Latin logica, n. use of neuter pl. of Greek logikós of speech or reason. See logos, -ic]
log′ic•less, adj.

logic (l!5;j′ĭk)
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

Wow! Who knew? Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is anything that cannot be described by logic.


Here are some of my observations of logic.
1) Logic is absolute
2) Logic is unchanging.
3) Logic is immaterial
4) Logic is universal

There are also many branches of logic. There is formal logic, modal logic, mathematical logic, meta logic and even fuzzy logic. Each serves a different purpose, since no single branch of logic applies to everything.

Back to my observations.

Logic is absolute. This means that if one applies the laws of logic to an argument, using the same data every time, they will always get the same results. It works, regardless of who uses them. The laws of logic are absolute.

Logic is unchanging. The laws of logic apply, no matter where or when they are used. There are no circumstances in which this is not true.

Logic is immaterial. Logic is not a construct of the physical universe. It is not tied to matter, energy or motion. It exists independently of our physical universe.

Logic is universal. This one should be self explanatory. The same logic we use, on good old planet Earth, will work wherever it's used.

Logic actually has the same attributes as God, as stated in the Bible.

He is all powerful, or absolute. I believe the two are synonymous.
He is unchanging.
He is immaterial.
He is universal.

(1) How do atheists account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not of the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do they account for them?

Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, logical absolutes.

How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion?
In other words, how can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?



(1) http://www.4forums.com...

Thank you for reading. Hopefully, I've given you something to think about. I now turn it over to my opponent.
Ozzyhead

Con

I thank my opponent for the definitions.
The Bible is not any more or less credible than the Qur'an, so (this is not a rebuttal to my opponent's argument, this is something I would have said if I argued first) saying that the bible talks about how God's attributes, appearance, power, existence etc. is not something that can ever be taken in to account when arguing about the existence of God or any god from any holy text for that matter. A holy text has to be proven credible in order to be taken in to account, just like I assume in this debate a source must be proven credible in order to be taken in to account. Let me also say that the vast majority of us are Christians due to Alexander the Great shoving it down everyone's throat. He forced it upon people, and killed them if they did not agree to it, so they taught it to their children as fact, and that traveled down the family trees for ages.
I do not argue in this debate that there is no god. Although I personally believe that there is no god, that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about how logic proves God. I am assuming the God of the bible, but if I am wrong I hope my opponent corrects this. As it stands, I do not find in any way that logic does not prove a god exists (until my opponent tells me for sure this is about the god of the Bible, I am going to remain as neutral as possible regarding religions). I would like to say that, given the several hypothesis of other gods that have been for the most part debunked, the current hypothesis of a god or gods today are highly unlikely. The Greek gods, Egyptian gods and goddesses, Roman Gods and Goddesses were all as believable as any god or goddess we have today. Because so much is unexplained, we say God did it, however, at one point, people believed Zeus was responsible for lightning. The Greeks also believed exactly what today's Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe with their deity: the Greek God Chaos was nothingness in which everything came from. If logic is what proves a god exists, then can't someone just make up a god and say that logic proves that the god they made up is real?
Debate Round No. 2
LittleBallofHATE

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his opening statement.

Having said that, I'm at a loss as to what I should rebutt. Con seems to be confused about what this debate is about. It's not about religion. It's about whether or not the laws of logic can exist in a purely materialistic universe. His opening argument did not mention anything about how logic can exist without an intelligent creator. Hopefully, he will address this in his rebuttals. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Ozzyhead

Con

I must have mixed up the way I have read it. I am still reading it that way, but since you have noted a mistake in my thinking, I will go with what I have from here. Can logic exist in a purely materialistic universe? Well, to answer that question is impossible. This is not a one side versus another. That question is impossible to answer. Can logic live without God? Using the bible as a source to describe God is not applicable. You can not simply go in to someone's autobiography and say whatever they say is true. This being the reason a college professor does not usually allow someone to use autobiographies in a research paper. And if God is real, and the bible is his word, then it is nothing more than a autobiography, or a flawed research paper. It is flawed because there is no other source.
God has to be proven before we can go any step further in any claim you make. You can not say 'God is responsible for such and such and here is the proof' without proving that God is here in the first place. You simply can not do that. I can not go in to a supposedly haunted house, and say a ghost touched me without having solid evidence that ghosts exist. But lets pretend I never said that, and lets just go with what we have. Can logic exist without God? Well, you defined logic, and then you defined what god is. However, you have not proven God is real. Logic is not something that is tangible, and it is not something that is to be proven. I can address you to the Torah and they will say similar things about their dogma, as well as the Hindus dogma, as well as the dogmas of the ancient Greeks. They were all real, and the cause of everything. No, this is not a religious debate, however, before you jump in to an argument claiming something is responsible for something else, you must prove both things are of existence, and since God has not appeared in any scientific research essay that has been peer reviewed, then any logical thinking person must conclude that God has not been proven. Note: personal encounters prove nothing. People generally have personal encounters with things that are supposedly super natural, however, these encounters have been debunked, and have been proven to be caused by the subject's current setting. Again, not what this debate is about, but this debate is a step further than it should be. A God has to be proven. Also, it has to be proven that God has all those attributes that logic does. According to the bible, God does not have those attributes. We can all note that God has a change in heart in the new testament, seeing how he no longer requires a blood sacrifice, and if logic is unchanging, then God does not fit that description. You ought to not bring science in to this debate, as well. Science disproves many of the claims of the bible, and if you are going to use science as an argument, then you must disqualify the bible as a source because one contradicts the other on several notes. No, not all notes, but if two pieces of material have many contradictions to the other, then one must disqualify the other.
Debate Round No. 3
LittleBallofHATE

Pro

Once again, my opponent has neglected to stick to the topic. Instead of arguing logic, he suggests that logic doesn't even exist. I have shown that logic DOES exist. It's absolute. It's unchanging. It's immaterial. It is not dependent on matter, energy or motion. It has an existence separate from our physical universe. My opponent also brought religion into the debate again. This isn't about religion. It's about the properties of the laws of logic, and how a materialistic universe cannot account for them. Since it can't, I say that's a pretty strong argument for a Creator.
Ozzyhead

Con

My argument is that logic does not prove the existence of God. The only way I got off topic is that I was talking about any god, and not the God of Christianity. I talked about how logic does not prove the existence of God. I did not have the burden of proof. My opponent had the full burden of proof, which was not met. He said logic proves God, and I said how logic does not prove God, and I at least attempted to show that there was no connection between the two. Logic is not made by someone, and one person's logic does not fit someone else's logic. Is logic subjective? Well for some, that answer has not been found. If God is not a subjective being, then God can not fit the description of logic. If I failed to prove my opponent wrong, it is because my opponent was not very clear. My opponent used the definition of logic and described god in the same way. If logic is given to us by God, then who gives us God? The arguments and the debate has many holes in it. My opponent tried to define God, with logic, but where did such a definition come from? How can you define something that has not been proven? Logic does not prove the existence of god. In no way did my opponent show how God is behind how logic works. If the LOGIC behind proving God exists is that someone had to create the rules of logic, then something must have created God, and we have a never ending cycle of who created who. I am sorry, but I thought I understood the question as well as the opening argument, but if what I have said doesn't support my claims, then this was very confusing topic.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 2 years ago
LittleBallofHATE
Just for the record, I don't expect to win this debate. I will give it my best shot. I suffer from Multiple Sclerosis. If you have it, or know someone who has it, you know how devastating it can be to ones ability to concentrate, and other affects it can have on ones cognitive abilities. Basically, I'm exercising my brain, by doing this. I hope my opponent can give me some...heh heh, 'logical' arguments. I want you to give me a good workout.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
As am I. I hope that my opponent defines Logic.
Posted by nuggi 2 years ago
nuggi
looking forward to pro's argument
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
LittleBallofHATEOzzyheadTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by jwcmcorbin 2 years ago
jwcmcorbin
LittleBallofHATEOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I focused on looking at this debate as "Is the idea of an intelligent being logical?" The confutation in the debate led to my own in-availability to really judge this subject. This is a topic long debated all the time. I fail to come to a choice overall because neither side gave me real ground to focus on.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
LittleBallofHATEOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con began off-topic so condust to Pro, and Pro failed to meet burden of proof so argument to Con.