The Instigator
crackrocks
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

The existence of God has a more logical infrastructure then the basis for unicorns

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 8/6/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,430 times Debate No: 17800
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (69)
Votes (7)

 

crackrocks

Pro

First acceptance
Debate Round No. 1
crackrocks

Pro

On an unrelated note, the idea that somehow rationalism is grounded in an almost mathematical consistency is itself circular. The fact that so many people are atheist simply because of the lack of proof for God should render the logical alternative with the same handicap.

But on unicorns.
The notion that a unicorn has the same amount of empirical proof as any other intangible sentient agency is wrong in it's own right simply because the consensus of unicorn believers isn't that they are intangible. Rather they exist noumenally on some candy mountain somewhere being gay. The proliferation of the religious institution is grounded fundamentally in a number of different disciplines.

First, the ancient Aquinas notion that Newtonian physics (maybe not chronologically) proves that for motion in the universe to exist at all there must be a creator itself not created to make the first series of motions. If you reject that a creator moved the objects in the universe directly and that maybe a big bang is an adequate enough theory to move objects irrespective of God. Then multi-universality becomes the creator of atom which created the universe. There are two problems with this. First Your not answering the question just creating a pseudo-satisfying subset, which yields a similar but different question, what created the multiverse? Second The multiverse is completely theoretical in the same way God is metaphysical, and you have no weighing mechanism on which you can yield an "objective" answer.
Unicorns in no way address any of these logical antagonisms.

Secondly, The fact that people die, (of course not just people but animals plants etc.) yields a number of interesting hypothesis on whether or not death is transcendental or simply an end to series of biological interactions. But Labeling something simply as an arbitrary phenomenon, or as a series of chemical, or quantum mechanical events is to completely miss the point. When asked what's the meaning of life. In your atheistic world, there is none. People are born they live and the die, giving birth to an offspring with the same inevitable outcome. However meaning doesn't exist in the world, e.g. a tree doesn't have "meaning" irrespective of its observer. Rather it is our humanism which assigns symbols and cultural or historical significance to otherwise futile collections of particles. And with this attached meaning (which is impossible to remove from our observations; see Derrida or Levinas) we witness the birth of a new number of implications, all of which have some idiosyncratic significance. And imply that without our humanism your collection of particles wouldn't exist in the first place, as would the notion that God put them there, and that the two feuding notions are logically grounded in the same Genesis.
izbo10

Con

So I would have thanked my opponent for a well thought out debate, but his argument is really pathetic to say the least. First let me link to logic definition so all the voters who don't know what it means can see it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

His argument that the use of logic is circular is attacking a properly basic belief. The reason we have to accept logic is that in order to say logic doesn't work you have to use logic. Like my opponent tried to do.

Now on to his second point, he blatantly asserts what unicorn believers think does not back it up. But alas in doing so he created a straw man argument for unicorn believers. A Straw man is a logical fallacy, and a logical fallacy is by definition not logical. So he failed to show why god is more logical and the proof of that is that he used a logical fallacy as his overall argument here.

Problem with the second argument is who created the creator, if god was suppose to move he needed something to create it, or is he special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy, so hence not logical again. He is also doing an argument from igorance or god of the gaps argument. The fact that we don't know how the first motion started does not imply god. It says we don't know and he asserts god. I could say pinky the invisible pink unicorn made it and god can't account for it too. That would mean unicorns are even with god in logical infrastructure.

Now to the last point, again god of the gaps argument from ignorance. When we don';t know something the correct answer is we don't know. I could assert pinky the invisible pink unicorn created a place where people go when they die as well as religion can. This does not make it logical.

Links to the fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
crackrocks

Pro

I'd first like to start out by congratulating my opponent on that sick burn he dealt me at the top of his argument. Good one.

He first asserts that you can only disprove logic, logically, and therefore it is impossible. This is by far the most circular argument I've ever heard in my entire life. But that's not even the reason I'm going to claim that it's wrong. Luckily I'm creative enough to think of my own arguments instead mechanically applying fallacies to everything. The reason this notion should be rejected is that I don't need to logically disprove logic but rather ask a series of questions that render the logical agent with the burden to prove its concreteness. For example, Why should I be logical? What proves rationality to be truly rational? Who decides what's true and untrue? None of which have anything to with a logical stream of cognition.

He tries to call straw man, however he didn't show how I misrepresented a unicorn, just that I did. It's not as if the common consensus for unicorns, is that it represents a God, and for him to claim that it does would be straw man itself.

On motion
To say that we don't know what happened would be ridiculous. I don't assert God because I feel like it, rather I logically deduce that something transcendent started the causal chain that led to motion. This is so far the only explanation. He then tries to say that a unicorn could have created the universe but obviously he is trying to apply the omnipotence of god to a unicorn which would then make the unicorn godlike. This concession isn't a rebuttal of the argument but rather a re-assignment of the physical label of God. God could take the shape of a unicorn or something gay like that but of corse he would still be God.
We can't make assumptions about the world in which God lives. To say that you know for a fact that the same laws of physics apply in every state would be a blatant lie.

On God of gaps, "It is theologically more satisfactory to look for evidence of God's actions within natural processes rather than apart from them, in much the same way that the meaning of a book transcends, but is not independent of, the paper and ink of which it is comprised." John Habgood But of course God of gaps isn't a fallacy. Like my opponent would like to claim it is, rather it's an argument on the same footing as any other that atheist have created to attempt to undermine the phenomenology of the unexplained world, and it's a refusal to believe that God in any way had anything to do with anything. It's like if someone dropped there keys in a dark alley way at night, but only looked for it in under the street lights, because they refuse acknowledge the truth.

Read Goethe's Faust
izbo10

Con

"first asserts that you can only disprove logic, logically, and therefore it is impossible. This is by far the most circular argument I've ever heard in my entire life. But that's not even the reason I'm going to claim that it's wrong. Luckily I'm creative enough to think of my own arguments instead mechanically applying fallacies to everything. The reason this notion should be rejected is that I don't need to logically disprove logic but rather ask a series of questions that render the logical agent with the burden to prove its concreteness. For example, Why should I be logical? What proves rationality to be truly rational? Who decides what's true and untrue? None of which have anything to with a logical stream of cognition."

Seriously this is where my opponent starts attacking logic? Really is he dense or something, this debate is about whether god is more logical then unicorns, so the debate is about logic being a way to demonstrate god over unicorns and he attacks logic. Just wow. He also doesn't seem to have the remotest idea that something is not logical if it is fallacious, so it is utterly embarrassing that he would complain about me pointing out the logical fallacies when the argument is about whether a god is more logical then a unicorn.

He tries to call straw man, however he didn't show how I misrepresented a unicorn, just that I did. It's not as if the common consensus for unicorns, is that it represents a God, and for him to claim that it does would be straw man itself.

A unicorn that made the universe would not be a god, it would be a unicorn, it could be from another universe or what not.

On motion
To say that we don't know what happened would be ridiculous. I don't assert God because I feel like it, rather I logically deduce that something transcendent started the causal chain that led to motion. This is so far the only explanation. He then tries to say that a unicorn could have created the universe but obviously he is trying to apply the omnipotence of god to a unicorn which would then make the unicorn godlike. This concession isn't a rebuttal of the argument but rather a re-assignment of the physical label of God. God could take the shape of a unicorn or something gay like that but of corse he would still be God.
We can't make assumptions about the world in which God lives. To say that you know for a fact that the same laws of physics apply in every state would be a blatant lie.

Lol a transcendent being is the only explanation is a laughable at best statement. It could be multiverses, it could be a repeating universe, it could be a unicorn from another universe. Seriously, he has just asserted a transcendent being and named it god. There is no reason to take the god assumption anymore then the unicorn from another universe assumption. Though the multiverse and repeating universe hypothesis, are better explanations then both, why because they don't require anything other then we know what can exist. They just require a universe something we know can exist. So by Occam's razor they are better explanations. Another explanation which may be the best is that the universe is a brute fact. He is clearly just asserting that god is the only explanation.

So in conclusion my opponent had the burden of proof, he failed to show any logical reason god is more reasonable. I can say just as easily that the universe must have been created by a unicorn from another universe. It is no more or less rational. He definitely has not begun to prove his assertion that a transcendent being was the best cause to the universe it was a blatant assertion.
Debate Round No. 3
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Izbo10, I don't know why you insist on continuing this conversation....
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Funny thing is you REALLY, think you can define something more likely. Lets give an example. You come home, your door is open. You didn't leave it open. I propose that it was a jimaremag. What is a jimararemag, well it is defined as a supernatural being that acts like a troll and opens your door. Does the fact that I have defined the being as something that opens your door, make it likely to be it, or do you see the nonsense in that logic yet?
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
@Danielle The purpose of the arguments that you cite is to demonstrate that with these unexplained phenomenon, the argument for God would be much more logically appropriate then the thesis for a unicorn which never asserts itself as something which would address these logical antagonisms.
I obviously wouldn't want anyone to revise their vote after reading this but I do think you should address your own arrogant hubris.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
crackrocks, you started to send me something in your friend request but it got cut off. Here's what I got:

"The purpose of the arguments that you cite is to demonstrate that with these unexplained phenomenon, the argument for God would be much more logically appropriate then the thesis for a unicorn which never asserts itself as something which would addre..."

The problem is that I can only judge what was presented in the debate. As I said, you never argued in the debate why the arguments for God were more logically appropriate than the ones for unicorns; you just asserted that they were. You provided 2 arguments explaining why believing in God was logical, but did nothing to argue about them in comparison to the arguments for unicorns. If I recall you didn't really talk about unicorns at all. I think you should do this debate over maybe.
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
@Izbo If I was a God wondering why I exist, then sure your Marinimacon would be something to consider
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"A little background for you on the nickname, I originally nicknamed reformedarsenal as retardedarsenal and man-is-good's head is so far up his a$$ I now call him retarded's hemorrhoid."

Gee, your productive name-calling has hit a new high. What's next, Izbo? Mentalmidget101?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Steve, it was a discussion, not a debate, in the comments page. And second, for Izbo10, if my head was "so far up his a$$", then how could I have typed this entire message? Izbo10, why can't you realize that I am not a follower of ReformedArsenal? Are you so insistent on calling me these nicknames in order to procure wrath from the community of DDO?
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
A little background for you on the nickname, I originally nicknamed reformedarsenal as retardedarsenal and man-is-good's head is so far up his a$$ I now call him retarded's hemorrhoid.
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
party's*
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
Gotta say, the debate going on in the comments section between izbo10 and Retard's Hemorrhoids, i mean... man-is-good was much more interesting. lol, I think it this debate was taken more seriously by both party and better grammar/conduct was used i would really have enjoyed it.

HOWEVER, the "Sick burn" comment made my day. I do enjoy when people are less like robots "googling" and copy/pasting and they put themselves into their arguments a bit more.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
crackrocksizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution says "logical infrastructure", and Pro tried to make an argument that logic wasn't needed, which is quite clearly false. Win for izbo. I didnt give Pro the conduct vote, because izbo made me laugh.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
crackrocksizbo10Tied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: A rather badly-done debate. Pro had the sources, but he failed to articulate some argument that did not went unrefuted (albiet, somewhat weakly) by Con. However, Con loses points for his condescending tone in his arguments. Addendum: I will clarify on my voting reason. While both might have been condescending in terms of behavior, Con appeared to be slightly worse. In addition, Pro did not fulfill his Burden of proof as well, and therefore Con wins.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
crackrocksizbo10Tied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters exhibited poor conduct (though Con was a bit worse) and had spelling and grammar problems (though Pro's were a bit worse). Con get the Sources points for obvious reasons. Despite his sources being somewhat irrelevant, he did in fact use them to support his argument whereas Pro didn't use any. Con also gets points for arguments considering Pro had the BOP, but failed to establish the resolution. See the comments section for a more detailed analysis of my RFD for the Arguments.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
crackrocksizbo10Tied
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: It's not easy for an atheist to try and argue a theistic position. Izbo's standard responses were enough to clinch it in this case.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
crackrocksizbo10Tied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources for pro starting with Aquinas and moving onto Derrida (would have loved to have seen a debate on that one), Levinas, Goethe. Pro's arguments were kinda weak though given his source material. Con didn't provide sources but did argue against some of Pro's and attacked points well.
Vote Placed by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
crackrocksizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for izbo's condescending attitude. Pro actually argued whereas Con just acted like a jerk
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
crackrocksizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very poor debate, I can't tell if PRO is being serious or is under the influence. Either way he is rambling, disjointed and fails to actually come anywhere near the burden of proof. Both parties showed poor conduct, no one argued very well, but Izbo at least demonstrated some sort of primitive sentience.