The Instigator
Z4RQUON
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kawurairee
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

RESOLUTION: "Atheists do not have a basis for their logic and reasoning"

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 51570
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Z4RQUON

Con

I will be arguing AGAINST the notion that one can not account for their use of logic and their claims of knowledge without appealing to a god of some kind. If you subscribe to presuppositional apologetics, please accept my challenge.

{ ARGUMENT } The basis for logic is the assumption that reality itself has inherent properties. In the same sense that the laws of physics are not prescriptions but DESCRIPTIONS of how our universe functions, the Laws of Logic -- The Law of Non-Contradiction, The Law of Identity and The Law of Excluded Middle -- do not prescribe but DESCRIBE the inherent properties of reality.

"IF YOU AREN'T ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THEN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I am essentially arguing that the laws of logic provide the lower threshold, the bare-minimum requirements for "reality". (You can not use them to determine ALL of what is real but when something violates these laws you can know that it is NOT real)
Since knowledge is often defined as "justified, true belief", and justified means "based upon sensory input", and true means "comports with reality". Knowledge is really defined as "Logically reached conclusions based upon empirically verified premises". Since one's senses are inherently fallible, the "justified" part always carries with it an inherent level of uncertainty. Therefore, one necessary trademark of knowledge is uncertainty. Absolute certainty PRECLUDES knowledge.

All one needs to be justified in their use of logic and reason is access to reality.

COULD GOD CREATE A SQUARE CIRCLE?
---------------------------------------------------------
It is typically stated by presuppositionalists that in order to have a basis for our reasoning, we need an ultimate authority: a god to give us our sound footing. However, upon closer inspection, this so-called ultimate authority is revealed to be not-so-ultimate. When asked the question, "Could God create a square circle (or some other such violation of the laws of logic)?", the theist is forced to choose between:

YES: Admitting that their God does not provide a sound footing and joining the atheist in what they have already claimed to be absurdity, or

NO: Admitting that -- given our definition of knowledge -- their God is indistinguishable from a God who does not exist AND that they believe in a god who makes the same assumption regarding the fundamental nature of reality that atheists do. It is so important to them that they continue to disagree with atheists that they have resorted to believing a God who is an atheist in order to continue doing so.

QED.
Kawurairee

Pro

This is what both Con and I believe in: Atheists have a basis for their beliefs.

This is what only Con believes: Atheists have a basis for their logic and reasoning.

The concept that there is something can be 'objectively true' is assumed, by atheists, to be axiomatic. This assumption has has no basis at all. Even if truth itself is axiomatic, logic and reasoning presume that words, constructed by fallible animals, specifically humans, can determine truth from lie (when both the concept of truth and of a lie were invented by humans too).

When atheists use arguments like 'could god create a square circle?' what they forget is that these shapes, and the visualisation of them are all based on the logic and reasoning that a god may have created. Thus, god can create a square circle if he/she/it rewrote the code of logic and physical laws of our universe whilst keeping the terms 'square' and 'circle' in tact that alternate reality.

When they ask for physical proof of god, they are assuming that the five senses and anything we presume to be the limitation of physical proof at present are the only kinds. Whilst it is true that we have neither sight, sound, smell, taste nor touch of a god, there can still be a god, or multiple gods. It is absolutely possible and we must not use our limitations of comprehending the physical world to assume that no such entity exists. We must also remember that it is this gods, or these gods, that invented the laws and concept of physics and a physical plane of existence to begin with. Thus, they/he/she/it transcend(s) it.

I await my opponent's response.

Relevant source
Proof that truth is axiomatic - http://plato.stanford.edu...

Relevant Definitions to the Resolution
Basis - justification for or reasoning behind something.
Atheist - a person who disbelieves the existence of God or gods
Logic - reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity
Reasoning - the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

Relevant Definitions to this Round's Pro-side Debate
Axiomatic - self-evident or unquestionable.
Objective Truth - a conclusion reached by one or more human being(s) that is considered to not be dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.
Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement
Physical - relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind.
(lowercase) 'god' - A limitless entity, responsible for the the origin of physical reality.
Fallible - capable of making mistakes or being wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Z4RQUON

Con

//"The concept that there is something can be 'objectively true' is assumed, by atheists, to be axiomatic. This assumption has has no basis at all."//

Incorrect. The fact that objective truth exists is based upon the assumption that reality has inherent properties , an assumption made by atheist and theist alike.

//"Even if truth itself is axiomatic, logic and reasoning presume that words, constructed by fallible animals, specifically humans, can determine truth from lie."//

If truth ("that which reflects reality") is axiomatic ("self evidently true") then I don't understand your objection here. Words are symbols which indicate particular concepts, sometimes these concepts are tied down to orientations of matter found in reality.

//"When atheists use arguments like 'could god create a square circle?' what they forget is that these shapes, and the visualisation of them are all based on the logic and reasoning that a god may have created."//

It is irrelevent whether or not the fundamental nature of reality (as described by the laws of logic) was authored by a god. An ultimate authority, by definition, does not appeal to anything else. If even the god who you believe created the universe would have to appeal to the laws of logic in order to create something real, then the laws of logic are the ultimate authority, not the creator, and somebody who does not believe in that creator would still have that ultimate authority available to them.

//"Thus, god can create a square circle if he/she/it rewrote the code of logic and physical laws of our universe whilst keeping the terms 'square' and 'circle' in tact that alternate reality."//

The fact that, in order to get around the laws of logic, you believe your god would have to either: A) unravel the fabric of reality; or B) retreat to an alternate reality, proves the sub-point I made above -- that you actually agree with my characterization of THIS reality.
Kawurairee

Pro

"The fact that objective truth exists is based upon the assumption that reality has inherent properties , an assumption made by atheist and theist alike."

If Theists and atheists both are making an incorrect and useless assumption then both render futile. You must prove that reality has inherent properties beyond the subjective interpretation of it. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, neither do two fallacies make a truth.

"If truth ("that which reflects reality") is axiomatic ("self evidently true") then I don't understand your objection here. Words are symbols which indicate particular concepts, sometimes these concepts are tied down to orientations of matter found in reality."

The system of language is most likely imperfect and flawed due to the fact that it was constructed by fallible creatures. thus, using it to understand and reason about a perfect entity, such as god, is not realising the limitations which language places upon us.

"It is irrelevant whether or not the fundamental nature of reality (as described by the laws of logic) was authored by a god. An ultimate authority, by definition, does not appeal to anything else. If even the god who you believe created the universe would have to appeal to the laws of logic in order to create something real, then the laws of logic are the ultimate authority, not the creator, and somebody who does not believe in that creator would still have that ultimate authority available to them."

That is assuming that there is not a place for something to exist that surpasses reality altogether. An abyss where no logic applies, no 'laws' apply and simply raw power is emitted form nothingness by a manner that defies to laws of physics within the constraints of this perceived reality. This is the abyss in which God resides. This is the abyss that reason cannot disprove. This is the abyss that explains what created the matter and energy required for the big bang that no atheist will ever be able to explain the true origin of other than 'it always existed', which is exactly what they attack theists for saying about god. At least Theists admit that the god is not in this reality and thus the logic and laws of this reality do not apply to he/she/it whereas atheists are saying that in a reality where things get created and destroyed, matter and energy are eternal, just like god. If anything, the atheist's logic is the more fallacious one.

"The fact that, in order to get around the laws of logic, you believe your god would have to either: A) unravel the fabric of reality; or B) retreat to an alternate reality, proves the sub-point I made above -- that you actually agree with my characterization of THIS reality."

No, it does not. This is a complete lie. The god is not retreating to an alternate reality, God is in an abyss that is neither real nor unreal. There is no evidence to prove that to be 'real' is digital in an 'on/off' manner. God is real but not physically real. There is, in other words, a degree of realness that an entity can have but in this reality there is only 'real' or 'nonexistent' as a setting. That does not mean that unicorns and ghosts are not real in a nature that this reality cannot comprehend. in fact, there are probably tooth fairies and pixies blessing and cursing this debate as we speak, rigging it for one side to win. I just hope the pixies aren't cursing me, I hear that they are very mean.

In conclusion, there is no basis for the logic and reasoning that atheists use.
Debate Round No. 2
Z4RQUON

Con

Almost nothing in your response was on topic and certainly nothing which directly rebuts any of the points I made. Just because you format your answer in such a way does not mean what you wrote ACTUALLY rebuts what I wrote.

And, again, even if your god were real and DID author the laws of logic... that does not mean he would be exempt from them: That would be equivalent to a politician claiming immunity from a law because they just so happened to be the one who wrote it. It is irrelevant. If you're going to say that god is in an abyss where no logic applies.... by definition, he is in a place that is not real, just like Superman or Bilbo Baggins. Again, logic is the baseline requirements for "reality".

Your god does not transcend logic, he FAILS to be logical.

//"no, it does not. This is a complete lie. The god is not retreating to an alternate reality, God is in an abyss that is neither real nor unreal. "//

Definitely sounds like abandoning reality in order to escape my argument, to me!
Kawurairee

Pro

Kawurairee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Z4RQUON

Con

My argument stands.
Kawurairee

Pro

Kawurairee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Z4RQUON

Con

Z4RQUON forfeited this round.
Kawurairee

Pro

Kawurairee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Z4RQUON 3 years ago
Z4RQUON
Not in person.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Have you actually met someone that agrees with the resolution?
Posted by Z4RQUON 3 years ago
Z4RQUON
I'd like to hold off for somebody who actually believes this crap...
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
This sounds like an interesting debate. I'm on your side, but I don't think I agree with all of your reasons, so I might be willing to play devil's advocate. You'd have to reduce the number or rounds to 3, though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.