The Instigator
BDPershing
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
That1User
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

Resolved: Theism is logical

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 5 votes the winner is...
That1User
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,867 times Debate No: 67447
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

BDPershing

Con

Tournament Challenge,

(Pro) That1User vs. BDPershing (Con)
Resolved: Theism is logical
Round 1. Acceptance only
Round 2. Opening arguments
Round 3. Counter arguments
Round 4. Closing arguments & Conclusions

Debate topic,
Resolved: Theism is logical

Theism: : "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world: -Merriam Webster

logical: : "agreeing with the rules of logic : sensible or reasonable
of or relating to the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning" -Merriam Webster

Note, this debate is about whether the belief of a god or gods is logical, we are not debating whether a god or gods exist. It is also preferable to keep this argument relevant in the Modern Age.

BoP lies with the defender of theism.
That1User

Pro

I accept this challenge. Best of luck to BDPershing. (Note: I appologize if this acceptance was late, I was confused on the date of acceptance. Seeing the "Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran." debate being accepted, I accepted this debate.)
Debate Round No. 1
BDPershing

Con

==Explanation for god, extension theism, being illogical==
Is theism logical?

"Long ago man conceived, at the time, a rational idea. Over time, as knowledge grew, this rational idea developed into an irrational belief, That is theism." -BDPershing

In this time we have vast resources, from science to how we view the workings of the world. We have expanded our knowledge to limits that were never before seen. Theism long ago used to be the only answer to how this reality works, but as time moved on theism has been pushed out of areas it used to control. Knowledge we find now reveal how the world works and how our primitive ancestors viewed the world, and how ancient culture used to explain events, all based on theism. Now today we can confidently say Zeus didn't control the sky, Poseidon is not the cause of earthquakes, and now being "god" is a term used to define modern science in genetics. Mankind has taken great strides in development to a point at which theism is barely holding on to the last questions controlled by theism. For example the Christian god, he"s the "perfect" god correct? Yet there is evil in the world, how can a perfect god intimate with this world not intervene when is "children" are in trouble. Logic would discern that if a god created the universe he would not meddle or even care for a small piece of space dust known as earth. Yet christian theism decrees this "being" holds us in the highest regard, and would do anything for his "children".

==For something to be logical, it must be bound by logic==

What is logic: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something.
Example:
the term "God" is illogical,
God is impossible to prove with reasonable explanation, which is required for it to be logical, for he is omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

Omnipotence paradox:
"If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do."

Therefore if he is bound by logic he is not omnipotence, making him not a god, therefore illogical.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So is god bound by logic? Could you, as a person, bound by logic and time, learn everything in this world, including all secrets kept hidden by the people around you? While god is all knowing and knows everything therefor no logic can be applied to god(s).

Since god knows everything he is not bound by logic which is based on reason he is not bound by logic.

Therefore god, in extension theism, is illogical and not based on logic due to god knowing everything without reason.

Why would the logic of theism be affected by a illogical god? If one believes in the world being flat, when the conclusive evidence shows the earth to be round. Then those who believe in the world being flat are being illogical for the evidence for the earth being round is clearly displayed, though they persevere and still believe that the earth is flat, that is illogical thinking.

==Problem of Evil==

1.God exists.
2.God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3.An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
5.An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7.If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8.Evil exists (logical contradiction).
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

P1. If god exists he would be capable of preventing all evil.

P2. Since he is an omnibenevolent being he would want to prevent all evil.

P3. But evil exists and god exists this would make god illogical, which makes theism illogical.

C. Since god and evil exist together it would make god illogical, which due to the belief in a illogical god would make theism illogical.
(P= Premise)

==History of Theism is illogical==

Majority of text that explaining god or express god"s word are not original, for they are from previous historical texts sometimes thousands of years older. Coming to my next argument, Most theism texts that modern religion is based upon are mostly if not all plagiarized or rewritten from previous illogical texts.
http://religiondispatches.org...
http://goo.gl...

If these texts came from an earlier source, for example Greek gods, it would make the argument illogical for the Greek gods have already been dismissed.

It is estimated to have been 3600+ gods of the world, what would make a creator god as rational as the last 3599 all have been dismissed as illogical by religion before.

So lets assume God created it all, why is there no evidence for his existence since man first wrote the bible. If he/she truly cared/involved, one would expect him to come down whisper in someones ear give him the updated version of the bible using modern language so no one will go killing in his name due to a misinterpretation of the old texts. Though man has proven by himself that god, and by extension theism, is illogical because the prophets that have claimed to hear god are dismissed by most if not all established religions because it is illogical that god would have given this prophet a message, even though they are the ones who do his work. This dismissal of prophets by religion proves religion does not, itself, believe god gives messages, therefor all holy texts are now in question, making modern theism religions illogical.

what evidence, provided by modern time period, logically shows god(s) could existed, for there is no evidence based on reason that shows such a being could have existed. All it was, was the attempt by man to make since of the world with the god of the gaps, a being who fills the void of what we don't not yet know.

==Conclusion==

For theism to be logical, God(s) should be logical, gods are not logical making theism illogical. A god who can create a task he can't complete, he contradicts the Concept of God therefore making him not a god. Concept of God being would be able to find and prevent evil. But evil exists, therefore god is illogical, in extension theism is illogical due to being based on a illogical god. The history of the idea of god can be seen as illogical, and to this day arguments from the past, the the command of god by prophet, if presented today would be dismissed and considered not true, breaking the logic that the establishments hold so dear for they follow the word of god. God was simply a tool used by early man to make since of the world, and as time went on science gave answers to what we once held as god's doing.

Concept of god:
"The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence."
That1User

Pro

Resolved: Theism is logical.

Theism: : "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world: -Merriam Webster

logical: : "agreeing with the rules of logic : sensible or reasonable
of or relating to the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning" -Merriam Webster

(For the sake of the debate, the definition of God is a deity that created the universe.)
Case for Theism being logical:
Exhibit A: Logical Theists.
There are many Theists in the maths and sciences, fields that are known for being logical. Among these mathematicians and scientists are, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kelper, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Louis Pasteur.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
There are also other well known theists in politics and other logical fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

If logical people believe in something, then it follows that the belief is logical.
Logical people believe in God's existence
The belief in God's existence is Theism
Therefore Theism is logical.

Exhibit B: Arguments for the existance of God
Argument 1: The Kalam Theological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [1]

Thus, it can be concluded that since the universe has a cause that is outside of space and time.
This cause (that is outside of space and time) can be described as God, (defined as a creator deity.)
Thus, it is logical to believe that God caused the universe to exist.
If it is logical to believe that God caused the universe to exist, then it is logical to believe that God exists.
The belief in God is theism.
Therefore theism is logical.

Argument 2: The Ontological Argument
"It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists." [2]
(Therefore it can be concluded that Theism is logical)

Argument 3: The Teleological Argument
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." "St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: Article 3, Question 2)

"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." -Isaac Newton

The watch could not have come about by accident (unlike a rock or stone)
The existence of the watch is proof of a watchmaker
The universe is intricate in its design (e.g. molecular structure of ice, the position of the Earth from the Sun"etc.)
The universe could not come about by accident
The universe itself is proof of an intelligent designer - William Payle's Teological argument. [3]

Essentially, the Teological argument states that the universe is so complex that it is neccessary for it to have an intellegent designer, which God (the creator deity).
The teological argument is a logical argument for the existance of God.
If there is a logical argument for the existance of God, then the belief existance of God is logical
Theism is the belief that God is exists.
Therefore Theism is logical.

Argument 4: Argument from morality.
"Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit.
The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.
There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world." [4]
(Thus) There are objective moral facts.
God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
Therefore, (probably) God exists. [5]

The morality argument is a logical argument for the existance of God.
If there is logical argument for the existance of God, then the belief existance of God is logical
Theism is the belief that God is exists.
Therefore Theism is logical.

Conclusion:
These arguments are logical arguments for the existance of God.
If there are many logical arguments for the existance of God, then the belief that God is logical.
If there are many logical people who believe in the existance of God, then the belief that God exists is logical.
Theism is the belief that God is exists.
Therefore Theism is logical.

Sources:
[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[3] http://www.scandalon.co.uk...
[4] http://www.shenvi.org...
[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...

(Note: Rebuttals next round)
Debate Round No. 2
BDPershing

Con

BDPershing forfeited this round.
That1User

Pro

Extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
BDPershing

Con

I'm going to take it that we will continue first rebuttals this round, though I still apologize for time simply never wavers in this reality.
==First Rebuttal==
"Logical Theists."

Yes we have famous people too:
http://brainz.org...

I see no proof in logic at all in this, people will believe what they believe, Newton, for example, was heavy in alchemy which was not a real science. All are prone to logical errors, only way to avoid this is just simple peer review, but some don't want such review. How could people fall into these errors? Well they could want it be true and and try to form evidence to show it to be true, or the could want it to be true and not attempt to proof its true and deny or ignore anything stating its not true. Though I commend your effort in an argumentum ad populum, but stating "because these guys believed it, it must be true" does not, by any means, make it logical.

Argumentum ad populum
http://goo.gl...

"Argument 1: The Kalam Theological Argument"

So this begs the question,
Where did the universe come from?
Yet why did it have to come from anything?
But everything should come from something.
Then where did the universe come from?
Universe was made by god(s).
But then where did god come from?
because god is eternal and doesnt come from anything.
Then perhaps everything doesn't need to come from something, therefore perhaps the universe doesn't need something to exist.

If your going to make an argument of the existence of the universe shows god is logical therefore theism is logical, at least provide an argument that isn't so illogical contradictory. If your going to say everything needs cause, but again state god doesn't need cause, you have completely flawed your previous statement. For if it needs cause and god is without cause, god is then illogical.

"Argument 2: The Ontological Argument"

Imagination/Imaginary is like this,
Imagine a pepperoni pizza and once you have the image in your mind, I now ask you to imagine that pizza as an existing pepperoni pizza, nothing would change. One cant just imagine a pizza and make it poof into reality, but if one bounds the limitations of reality to the imaginary space, you could develop the steps to make that pizza, which in reality could be followed to make said pizza. For imagination is the source of possibilities, not a source of logic. We can determine possibilities to be capable of being produced in reality by rational explanation by logically observing and science. The possibility of the earth being round, it became rational when one observes the horizon, the moon, and was confirmed by the circular navigation of earth and reconfirmed by going into space.

Imagination does not need to be logical for it is possibility, but possibility does not need to be logical reason why you could imagine a pink unicorn building the universe, but rationality does not comply for there is no evidence through logical observation and science to support it.

But god doesn't have steps which are based in reality and he can only be expressed in imaginary space making him a possibility but not something that can happen in reality bound by logic and science, therefor, again, making him illogical.

"Argument 3: The Teleological Argument"

Trying to compare the universe to a manmade object is a false analogy, the vast system we know as the universe operates on a completely different scale than something mankind can make, and if a designer is needed to make complex object, then what could be more complex than making said designer? Not to mention the hostility that the universe expresses to life outside the earth making the "watch" as you put it without any fine tuning to life alone. Also due to its vastness one could say life may also exist out in the deep reaches on this universe, saying were the only ones is kind of arrogant and selfish. Also if a multiverse exists then this concept falls on its face, for again shows the lack of fine tuning in the universe.
http://goo.gl...

"Argument 4: Argument from morality."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
"" Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930

Theism: : "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world: -Merriam Webster

Though I do not agree with this definition for it contradicts itself, transcends and immanent a literal polar opposites, and since you're going the morality route, we must expand are defined theism, for it does not state god created morality, only the source of the creation for the human race.
So which theism do you refer to?

Without theism we have no morality,
The argument that theism brings morality, that it make sure we don't kill each other, no theism, no morality. I fear this is complete unlogical, for if, hypothetically, a god asks you to sacrifice your child to prove your loyalty, you and other people would morally choose to not obey, but if morality is given by god or gods, by what moral standard are you abiding by if you refuse to this decree by god who defines morality?

If morality comes from God, children not raised by their parents or raised with no structure, would develop into a person who is morally righteous, this is not the case.

It was morality standard for you to,
Incestuous relationships
Slavery
Pederasty in Ancient Greece
Human sacrifice in Aztec civilization
Chinese foot binding
Burning of Hindu widows on deceased husband's pyre in India (Sati)
Child sacrifice or Infanticide
Gendericide (Or, a preference for one gender to the other, as seen in some Asian societies)
Pedophilia
Polygamy
Prostitution
Sexism
Racism
Stoning

So if you're applying god gives us this notion of morality (Innate Morality), before the bible (Authority Morality), when we come into this reality, then please share this evidence of people before the bible having are modern moral standards. Show me how morality was simply always there and never changing, which is what you're applying, for I have found no such evidence that morality is constant.
There is no evidence for were simply not allowed to test children in a environment to find out, set standards that don't change and see how the character of the child develops. No one wants to because its considered immoral, and the answer maybe scary. People wish to believe we hold this innate morality, but the mind at such an early age does not have a clue, it is simply experiencing the world as it is with mixed feelings, when a child is introduced into society they are then exposed to a formal conduct developed over thousands of years of human experience. I personally would like to see this experiment done just to get to the bottom of it, but does that make me immoral? I would be as moral as a being who would condemn a person to eternal suffering for not obeying his/her command.

Morality was simply developed over time and changes as society builds from its primitive beginnings. Not something a divine being gave mankind or it wouldn't simply change constantly for it would stay constant, what was once moral would stay moral not become immoral, which is exactly what happens in this reality. (secular objective morality, Evolving Morality)
http://goo.gl...

Conclusion: Theism is illogical for god is illogical, though there has been some logical theists this does not mean their beliefs were logical, for everyone is capable of illogical thought, but were not settling for illogical conclusions were seeking the logical explanation or we would still believe the sun being a god and not a ball of gas.

BoP still falls on my opponent.
That1User

Pro

This round will be dedicated to counter-rebuttals.

=First Counter-Rebuttal=
"Logical Theists"
In order to rebut my logical theists statement, my opponent essentially stated that just because famous logical people were theists, that does not make theism logical. Thus, my argument used the fallicious reasoning, argumentum ad populum. While my argument is an argumentum ad populum, it is a non-fallicious example of ad populum.

"B. If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., Is is a legitimate appeal and no fallacy to argue that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, and therefore a high fat diet is unhealthy." -(http://philosophy.lander.edu...)

I was stating that these logical people were an elite group of people who had authority of what they were discussing, since they are logical people. Because they are an logical , and they are theists, it can be concluded that theism is logical. (Thus my argumentum ad populum is valid.)

"Argument 1: The Kalam Theological Argument"
In order to rebut the Kalam Theological Argument, my opponent stated:
So this begs the question,
Where did the universe come from?
Yet why did it have to come from anything?
But everything should come from something.
Then where did the universe come from?
Universe was made by god(s).
But then where did god come from?
because god is eternal and doesnt come from anything.
Then perhaps everything doesn't need to come from something, therefore perhaps the universe doesn't need something to exist.

The most widely accepted scientific theory for the orgin of the universe is the Big Bang Theory [1] [2] Under the Big Bang Theory, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago from one single point in space and has been expanding ever since. This event raises the question, how did the universe come to be?

There are two likely hypothesis: The universe created the universe, or something outside the universe created the universe.

The question is: Is it more logically plausible that the universe created the universe,
or something outside the universe created the universe?

I conclude that it is more likely the universe, a physical entinity, was created by "God", a non physical entinity, rather than the universe creating itself. Since the belief that a god, or a non physical entinity, created the universe is a logical explanation for the orgin of the universe, and the belief in god(s) is theism, then it can be concluded that theism is logical.

"Argument 2: The Ontological Argument"
In order to rebut the Ontological Argument, my opponent stated:
"For imagination is the source of possibilities, not a source of logic. We can determine possibilities to be capable of being produced in reality by rational explanation by logically observing and science. The possibility of the earth being round, it became rational when one observes the horizon, the moon, and was confirmed by the circular navigation of earth and reconfirmed by going into space.

Imagination does not need to be logical for it is possibility, but possibility does not need to be logical reason why you could imagine a pink unicorn building the universe, but rationality does not comply for there is no evidence through logical observation and science to support it.

But god doesn't have steps which are based in reality and he can only be expressed in imaginary space making him a possibility but not something that can happen in reality bound by logic and science, therefor, again, making him illogical."

Counter Rebuttal:
1) I imagine God
2) If I imagine God, God is possible
3) God is rational if God is a plausible explanation for the orgin of the universe.
4) God is a plausible explanation for the orgin of the universe. (Explained in Argument 1: Kalam Theoligcal Argument)
5) Thus God is rational.
6) The belief in God is theism.
7) Thus theism is logical.

There is also a philsophy of solipism, which states that nothing can be certain except for one's own mind, under solipism, it can be concluded that one's own mind is God.
1) (Assuming solipism is true) Nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind.
2) Since nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind, my own mind is the supreme being.
3) God is defined as the supreme being.
4)Therefore my mind is God.

Or

1) (Assuming solipism is true) Nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind.
2) Since nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind, everything probably exists in my own mind
3) God is defined as the creator deity.
4)My mind has created everything
5)Therefore my mind is God.

"Argument 3: The Teleological Argument
In order to rebut the Teoleogical Argument, my opponent states:

"Trying to compare the universe to a manmade object is a false analogy, the vast system we know as the universe operates on a completely different scale than something mankind can make, and if a designer is needed to make complex object, then what could be more complex than making said designer? Not to mention the hostility that the universe expresses to life outside the earth making the "watch" as you put it without any fine tuning to life alone. Also due to its vastness one could say life may also exist out in the deep reaches on this universe, saying were the only ones is kind of arrogant and selfish. Also if a multiverse exists then this concept falls on its face, for again shows the lack of fine tuning in the universe."

Counter rebuttal:
The analogy is not a false analogy, a human and a watch are both complex, but they are simple compared to God and the universe. A complex design requires a complex designer, and this belief is reasonable because it is unlikely that the universe created itself. The probablity of a life permitting universe is also very slim, so it could logically be concluded that a creator fined tuned the universe to permit life. While this does not prove the existance of God, it makes the belief in God reasonable, and since the belief in God is theism, it makes theism logical.

"Argument 4: Argument from morality."
"Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit.
The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.
There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world." [4]
(Thus) There are objective moral facts.
God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
Therefore, (probably) God exists. [5]

The morality argument is a logical argument for the existance of God.
If there is logical argument for the existance of God, then the belief existance of God is logical
Theism is the belief that God is exists.
Therefore Theism is logical.

Sources:
[1]http://science.nasa.gov...
[2]http://www.britannica.com...
[3]http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[4] http://www.shenvi.org......
[5] [5] http://plato.stanford.edu......

(My opponent gives rebuttals of immoral actions by using examples of the Abrahamic God, which is not the only God, and thus does not rebut the objective morality argument.)

Conclusion: Theism is logical for God is logical. A believe I have adequately upheld the BoP that there is rational basis for the belief in God (theism) from the above argument. Thus theism is logical.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
But clear Pro win anyway.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Hold on ... Pro just *dropped* the argument from evil and omnipotence paradox? @User, you should have continued and started rebuttals after Con's FF, because of the structure ...
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
==For something to be logical, it must be bound by logic==
No rebuttal to this statement meaning pro accepts and agrees with everything that follows.
==Problem of Evil==
No rebuttal for this statement meaning pro accepts and agrees with everything that follows.
==History of Theism is illogical==
No rebuttal for this statement meaning pro accepts and agrees with everything that follows.
------------------------
God: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe- Merriam Webster

Theism: : "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world: -Merriam Webster

This proves god is illogical, for one, "god" is illogically all powerful due to Omnipotence paradox, therefor can"t create a universe logically and, in extension, makes theism illogical. For if god is bound by logic he must be able to make something he cannot lift, yet if he does he can"t be all powerful. Problem of Evil just enforces this notion for a perfect being must be omnibenevolent yet due to evil"s existence, god can"t be perfect, in extension, omnibenevolent. I listed history for what we refer to as what god "is" all comes from some type of holy texts.

Round 1. Acceptance only
Round 2. Opening arguments
Round 3. Counter arguments
Round 4. Closing arguments & Conclusions

Round 3 Was forfeited yet pro extended is arguments making round 4 Rebuttals to round 2 arguments, pro instead of following rebuttals went around and attempted a illegitimate counter rebuttal which would have been held in round 4 followed by conclusions if pro did not extend his round 2 arguments, which I even asked him to post his rebuttal in round 3 in comments that he obviously ignored.
Exactly how no one realized this, I have no idea, but I will at least point thi
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
Mehh pro ignored my request to post his rebuttal in round 2 so we could continue semi normally, but underhanded conduct +1 to pro for ignoring and having 4 days (2 days from when my argument was forfeited + 2 days of me waiting for a reply on how to continue 4th rounds, which again were suppose to be first rebuttals), he ignored my entire first argument, which again had 4 days you can even find my rebuttal in comments for him to respond to in 2nd round, to counter my 1 rebuttal and mocking my real life scenario.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Lol, lannan. "THIS IS NOT A VOTE BOMB!"
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
Just a few questions,

Logical Theists
Are you stating logical people are not capable of illogical thought?

Argument 1: The Kalam Theological Argument
Are you again stating god created the universe yet doesn"t need a cause for himself to be created?

"There are two likely hypothesis: The universe created the universe, or something outside the universe created the universe."

Actually they"re more than just two; I prefer "A universe created the universe", which opens into multiverse. Which is possible for we observe singularities in our universe and a singularity made our universe, also we still don"t know what lies beyond the black hole, could it be another universe?

Argument 2: The Ontological Argument
What steps did said god make in order to make the universe? No logical steps no logic.

Argument 3: The Teleological Argument
Who made god then for what is more complex than a designer who created a complex design?

Argument 4: Argument from morality
If we have a child raised with no structure, no rules, will he/she be moral? Will he/she not steal, kill, lie, etc...
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
Oh wait nevermind, few, I got it in! What a relief.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
NOOOoooo... Welp this what I guess for submitting to the last seconds.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
I'll go into more detail why 3rd round got forfeited,
During the day was going over my rebuttal, I held my posting as late as possible to give the max amount of time for review. About 40 mins before dead line I was asked to head to the store which is roughly 5 mins away for a few items, not thinking about any delays that could happened, I left roughly 35 mins before dead line believing I should be back roughly 15 mins before deadline allowing me to take one more look over argument and then post. After arrival at store I encountered the non thought of delay, a lady was talking to the store clerk, arguing about prices causing the clerk to have to go check the prices and even making the store clerk grab a cheaper product of the same kind, this ordeal took around 22 mins annoyingly, way longer than this trip in total should have taken, after roughly 4 mins to ring up and the 5 mins drive back, I rushed over to finally submit the argument that was under review with a dreadful message that simply stated I could not submit for the dead line has past. that is when I submitted my first comment of "f*ck my life".
Time does not waver it seems, and can be cruel it wishes to be.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
So want me to just post my counter now? Using 4th round for arguments only. Or should we do closing arguments?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
BDPershingThat1UserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Co FF'd a round. Spelling and Grammar: Doesn't matter. Sources: Pro had a lot. Pro used around 3 each round, making up for only a few arguments. Arguments: I feel Con had too much BOP to take on. Why? Because Con didn't need to find one instance where Theism was illogical, like Lannan said. If there are 5 logical deductions, and one illogical deduction, Pro would win. And con had a massive BOP because Theism is so vast and large... He can prove one theist view to be illogical, but fail to prove they are all illogical. And to make matters worse, without being able to show one can reasonably disprove God, con couldn't show that it was illogical to believe in God. In fact, Con would have had to disprove the logical stance that the complexity and impossibilities of life is too impossible without a creator. He simply was not able to do this.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
BDPershingThat1UserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited a round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. I'd highly recommend that Con pay close attention to the time limits while debating. On debates where conduct counts, it is extremely detrimental to miss or forfeit a round. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling throughout. Although Con had some minor issues with capitalization, it wasn't enough to tip the scale in favor of Pro as it was still very clear contextually. Arguments - Pro. Pro needed to show that theism is logical, and did so with a syllogism that Con failed to overcome. Due to Pro using valid premises and reaching a sound conclusion, Pro wins arguments. Sources - I found Pro's sources to have a greater amount of academic integrity. This can be seen with his numerous .org/.edu's whereas Con relied heavily on Wikipedia or Google searches. For this, Pro wins sources.
Vote Placed by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
BDPershingThat1UserTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The word "logical" means that, if pro can create a valid deductive argument whose conclusion is that God exists, then pro wins. Pro did this. His arguments were valid, and con's objections to them were refuted by pro in the final round. Con's original arguments, while still standing at the beginning of the debate, do not show that theism is illogical. The omnipotence paradox bases its argument on the premise that there is a such thing as an object that an omnipotent God cannot lift. However, this itself doesn't make sense. The problem of evil only applies to omnibenevolent Gods, not to theism in general. The history argument does not allow for a polytheistic argument, and it leaves open the possibility that only one of those Gods is deductively valid, and that God being the creator of the universe. Overall, pro wins because con's arguments were invalid and pro proved his arguments negated the resolution. Conduct to pro for con's forfeit. S&G and sources tied because they were equal.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
BDPershingThat1UserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: THIS IS NOT A VOTE BOMB! Conduct to Pro due to the forfeiture. Sources to Pro as he has 2 more sources than Con does. Pro also gains S&G due to Con's lack of capitalization and he has comitted several grammatical errors across the board in this debate. With the use of the phrase "is logical" all Con would have to due is successfully prove in one instance that theism is illogical, (prehaps the religion of scienctology?) however, Pro refutes all of Con's arguments and thus upholding the resolution giving the win to Pro. If either user has a problem with this vote please feel free to PM me with any problems.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
BDPershingThat1UserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited a round. S&G. Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar, and the errors did not hinder the clarity of the arguments. Arguments - Pro. Con was wrong in saying that the BoP was Pro's, as the resolution "Theism is logical" does not equate the resolution "Theism is true/correct". In this case, since the resolution contained the word "logical", all pro would need to do is provide a syllogism with no errors (or at least, no errors that Con succeeds in refuting), which Pro did. Since this causes the BoP to be shared, but more of it on Con, and that only Pro fulfills his burden, Pro wins arguments. Sources: Pro. Both rely on Wikipedia/Google (partially) for their sources, but Con just does so too much. All in all, this is a clear win for Pro.