The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Seabiscuit
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

The Ressurection was logically impossible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,337 times Debate No: 17448
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

mongeese

Con

I negate that the Ressurection was logically impossible, but first, some definitions:

The Ressurection - the event in which Jesus of Nazareth was clinically dead, then three days later became alive

Logically impossible - contradicting any law of logic, or any scientific law or fact derived from the laws of logic, although I reserve the right to challenge whether or not a scientific law or fact is truly based in logic

Laws of logic - http://atheism.about.com...

Scientific law - http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent will have the burden of proof, because it would be impossible to prove something to be logically possible, as I would have to explain why the event is compatible with every logical statement. The default is that an event is logically possible unless demonstrated otherwise.

Good luck to whoever takes this debate.
Seabiscuit

Pro

The christian bible assumes God is eternal. Eternity in terms of humanity is for the most part inconceivable because of our own intolerant prerogative in favor of a linear omnipresent forward moving time. But Eternity on the other hand has no prejudices, in that it exist outside of our own single dimension of time. Therefore, if God exist on this metaphysical extrinsic peripheral it would be impossible for him to pinpoint a nebulous location (in space and time) for Jesus to interact with. Therefore, if Jesus never existed in this singular dimension of time, then it would be logically impossible for him to be resurrected.
That is my argument sir.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

My refutation this round will be simple. My opponent brings up numerous claims that are not supported by the laws of logic.

His first easily refuted claim is that "eternity ... exists outside of our own single dimension of time." Eternity is not this, but instead the entirety of the dimension of time.

Secondly, he claims that an eternal entity, such as God, would be unable to "pinpoint a nebulous location for Jesus to interact with." However, there is nothing logical to suggest that an omnipotent, omnipresent being cannot interact with specific points in space and time. Just because God exists for all time, doesn't mean he isn't able to do things at certian points in time.

In conclusion, my opponent's proof is not based at all on the laws of logic, but instead his own speculation, making it irrelevant to this debate.

Good luck in your next round, Seabiscuit.
Seabiscuit

Pro

The idea that God is subjected to our own linear time graph is what I'm saying is far to anthropomorphic for omnipresence. What you don't seem to understand is that the prejudiced sensation of time doesn't just exist as we subjectively ground it. In order for there to be any entirety of time at all it would require you to look upon the world objectively from some outer dimension. E.g. The entirety of 2 dimensional space can only be conceptualised from 3 dimensions. Furthermore eternity is defined as outside of time itself. an entirety (as you put it) of infinite is impossible.
Secondly is my opponents argument on an external structure somehow pinpointing within the finite regions of an enervated system can be logically dismissed. In our 3 dimensional world we often slapstickly articulate the 2nd dimension or 1st with a crude drawing on a piece of paper. The square usually represents the 2nd and a point represents the first. However these shapes which we use to illustrate spatial dimensions are themselves still in three dimensions. The point used to illustrate the first still has a length and with as well as volume no matter how small we try to make it. The same goes for the square even though it can become a nebulously small volume it is still none the less there. Therefore it would be possible for us to attempt to someway interact or illustrate a lower dimension in our own 3 dimensional world. The laws of spatial dimensions could then be logically applied to time dimensions seeing as how physics makes no distinction between the two.

Also something else I would like to address is the whimsical use of the word irrelevant. Stop using that word, when the context is clearly within the boundaries of causality.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

Again, my opponent has more speculation than fact, as demonstrated by the fact that many of his statements that he automatically assumes to be true have no proper basis in logic.

"In order for there to be any entirety of time at all it would require you to look upon the world objectively from some outer dimension. E.g. The entirety of 2 dimensional space can only be conceptualised from 3 dimensions."
This is unproven, and probably false because I can conceptualize the entirety of a three-deminsional space while in three dimensions.

"Furthermore eternity is defined as outside of time itself. an entirety (as you put it) of infinite is impossible."
eternity - eternal existence
http://dictionary.reference.com...
eternal - lasting forever
http://dictionary.reference.com...
My opponent's definition doesn't match, and is also unsourced. Even if he could source his definition, he would have to logically prove that God is eternal in his sense rather than any other sense.

My opponent's second paragraph is ultimately about how humans are incapable of producing things in fewer than three dimensions. This may be physically true, but we are capable of working with fewer dimensions in computation and mathematics, and can program objects with fewer dimensions. Additionally, it is foolish to assume that a human limitation would apply to God, and to assume that a few human limitations constitute a set of "laws of spatial dimensions" that could apply to anyone besides humans, or that because physics cannot distinguish between spatial and temporal dimensions (which is another unsourced claim not grounded in logic), no scientific law many distinguish between the two, is completely and totally unscientific and illogical.

My opponent finally requests that I not use the word "irrelevant," but by the outline of the debate, my opponent must disprove the Ressureciton using the laws of logic, so anything that does not use the laws of logic is de facto irrelevant.

In conclusion, my opponent still hasn't fixed the problems that I identified in the last round. He has one more round to make a logical, not theoretical, argument, as the Contender cannot create new arguments in the last round. Good luck with your final chance, Seabiscuit.
Seabiscuit

Pro

I am on my last leg here. My opponent is clearly so much better than I am seeing as how he's been able to contravene every aspect of my argument.
I offer no more explanation
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Con

Well, my opponent has seemingly conceded, and all of his arguments remain refuted.

Thank you, Seabiscuit, for this debate, and the readers for reading this. Vote Con!
Seabiscuit

Pro

You should still vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by modivarch 5 years ago
modivarch
Oops, sorry - make that one person who doesn't and 2 who are undecided.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Wow, my spelling was fail.
Posted by modivarch 5 years ago
modivarch
"Logic and religion are two entirely different things."

Taking that comment literally I wholly agree. However, what I think you are saying is that religion is illogical. Care to debate that?
Posted by modivarch 5 years ago
modivarch
I'm curious - was this debate just to find out how man people are so biased against the possibility of a resurrection they are willing to deny a simple fact of logic? So far there are two I guess.
Posted by Switzerland 5 years ago
Switzerland
Logic and religion are two entirely different things.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I don't understand PRO's case.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
width*
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
How do you possibly get that he is against the Resurrection when he is arguing that it is not logically impossible. Mongeese is defending the logical nature of the Resurrection.

In addition, Republicans love freedom... they want the government to stay out of their business as much as possible (by definition), which is very compatible with libritarianism.
Posted by sehyunsohn 5 years ago
sehyunsohn
I find that you're contradicting yourself in every sense; case and point, I've noticed that you are libertarian but you affiliate yourself with the republican party, which you really should be ashamed of. You state that you are a christian but you seem to be against the notion of ressurection which is the central tenet of christianity, and even more dasterdly, you claim to be American but you support a foreign flag. What is all about then? Is it possible to have a logical debate with someone wh is not only contradictory in philosophy but also in identity. Please take a position that is backed by a similar philosophy as opposed to having go against yourself in opposition. The impression I'm getting is that you are the quintencence of Doctor Jeckyl and Mr.Hype. Have a good day to both of you.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
I cannot accept it now. I'm VERY busy at the moment. I will PM you once I'm ready.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
mongeeseSeabiscuitTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: resurrection is clearly at its basis logically valid, if not sound.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
mongeeseSeabiscuitTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Of course it is illogical! sadly, con wins by ff
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
mongeeseSeabiscuitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Granted, Pro made several fallacious arguments that Con easily refuted....such as the fact that an eternal being, both omnipresent and omnipotent, can pinpoint specific locations in time, and that Pro's argument for the narrow capacity of humans to conceptualize dimensions is irrelevant (the Resurrection was of Jesus, who was allegedly God the Son incarnate). Con also provided sources, while Pro neither cited his definitions or assertions.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
mongeeseSeabiscuitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO gave up. CON misspelled resurrection. CON used sources; even though they were only definitions, PRO used none.
Vote Placed by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
mongeeseSeabiscuitTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Of course believing in the Resurrection is "illogical." Faith-based things generally are. Con loses spelling because he can't SPELL the word Resurrection. He wins the argument only because he's arguing something obvious. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it was logically impossible. So was every other miracle. If they were logical, they wouldn't be miracles.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
mongeeseSeabiscuitTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO basically forfeited. I also give a conduct point to CON since PRO states "You should still vote Pro" even though CON conceded.