The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
HarmonyAlexandria
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

The existence of God is a logical truth.

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,352 times Debate No: 4142
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

God: the supreme deity of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam

logical truth: something that can be proved logically

existence: occurrence

Your move CON.
HarmonyAlexandria

Con

It is neither logical nor true that the deity worshipped by the abrahamic faiths is "God". First, the whole notion of divine creator is unnecessary, religon is a throw back to the time before science and reason, since that time, we have gained a rather good understanding of our universe, and the natural laws that govern it, the "God of the Gaps" and metaphysics have been replaced by knowledge and understanding. Furthermore on the off chance that "higher beings" exist,they would not be like the one(s) described in the error-ridden, self-contradictory holy text of the Abrahamic faiths. "God" is described as prefect, how can "perfect" beings make mistakes, let alone grieve over them. The faithful of the Abrahamic faiths claim that humanity was made in "God's" Image,but upon reading the holy texts, a more logical conclusion would be that man, and it was most certainly men, created a "God" in their image.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, I'll present my case, a variation of St. Anselm's ontological proof.

I'll write it in syllogistic form, so its easy to follow.

1. God is either real, or he is a figment of the imagination of a religious person.
2. God is by definition, unimaginable.
3. He can't simply he a figment of our imagination.
4. God is real.

Also, from St. Anselm (variation, again)
1. God is the greatest conceivable thing.
2. It is greater to be existent than not.
3. God must exist.

Here's another popular one, also variated, it is influenced by St. Thomas of Aquinas and Avicenna.
1. The universe is made up of many beings.
2. Each being must have come from another being.
3. This would continue endlessly, unless there was one being that was the original creator.
4. There must be an original creator.

Finally, this is from me just now, influenced by Descartes, but I'm sure someone has come up with something similar.
1. God is perceived to exist by many in the world.
2. This perception is certainly existent in the minds of those who perceive it.
3. God certainly exists in the minds of many, if only as a false perception.

Quod erat demonstrandum

My opponent's case:
"First, the whole notion of divine creator is unnecessary, religon is a throw back to the time before science and reason, since that time, we have gained a rather good understanding of our universe, and the natural laws that govern it, the "God of the Gaps" and metaphysics have been replaced by knowledge and understanding."
Yes, we have good understanding of our Universe, through empiricism. Empiricism is not logic. You cannot prove anything using empirical evidence. For example, I see paper is white, but I cannot prove that to be true. There is the possibility that I am hallucinating. However, some things, like God, can be proved with logic, and I just did that. Anyways, the rules of logic are natural laws of our Universe, and I used them to prove the existence of God.

"Furthermore on the off chance that "higher beings" exist,they would not be like the one(s) described in the error-ridden, self-contradictory holy text of the Abrahamic faiths. "God" is described as prefect, how can "perfect" beings make mistakes, let alone grieve over them. The faithful of the Abrahamic faiths claim that humanity was made in "God's" Image,but upon reading the holy texts, a more logical conclusion would be that man, and it was most certainly men, created a "God" in their image."
I completely agree that much of the Bible, Quran, Torah, Talmud, and almost all other religious texts are horribly inaccurate. They were written by men, they are bound to have mistakes. Logic however is no more inaccurate than the laws of physics or mathematics. I used logic, and the inaccuracies of holy texts cannot prove me wrong.
HarmonyAlexandria

Con

HarmonyAlexandria forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Extend all my points across. I await my opponent's reply.

100 character long debate posting. There we go.
HarmonyAlexandria

Con

HarmonyAlexandria forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Extend all my points across. I await my opponent's reply.

100 character long debate posting. There we go.
HarmonyAlexandria

Con

HarmonyAlexandria forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow.

Vote PRO
HarmonyAlexandria

Con

HarmonyAlexandria forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
in re beemor
I made my R2 post at 1 in the morning, and I just posted all the arguments I could think of, and I paraphrased them, so whether they a) proved my point b) were valid or c) were written logically, is due to that fact. But, I do agree with your objections to the first and second proofs, I was trying to see what good objections there were to them. The third one doesn't prove the Abrahamic God, sure, but I think it has more worth than you give it credit for, it is more inductive reasoning rather than deductive if I phrase it right. The fourth one was mainly for fun though.
Posted by Lenfent 8 years ago
Lenfent
I'm always frustrated by debates such as this. Con could have easily refuted the classical arguments for the existence of God (I did in in a paper for my philosophy class) but he merely stopped replying. So while I think that Pro's argument is vastly flawed, he is the clear winner of this debate.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
First one:
If God is in fact made-up, then the way people choose to define him does not matter. If I define unicorns as not being able to be imaginary, then they would have to be real by your standards. But that's probably not true.
Also, since when is God, by definition, unimaginable?

Second one:
For the first one, point 1 relies on the conclusion being true. If god doesn't exist, then he isn't the greatest thing evar.

Third one:
Since when can beings only be created by beings? Also, this argument only argues that there is a first cause, not that the first cause is the Abrahamic God, which is what you're trying to prove.

Fourth one:
That only proves that a thought about God exists, not that God exists. To say that imagining something constitutes that thing existing requires a twisting of words such as in this point. You defined God as
"the supreme deity of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam"
not as
"the perception of the supreme deity of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam", ergo by your definition, this does not prove that God exists.

All those logical proofs contain errors in logic, and therefore do not constitute a logical truth.

Either way, CON forfeited, so a vote for PRO it is.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I was about to vote con because pro sang Mary Had a Little Lamb with no emotion whatsoever. That cold-hearted jerk.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
That's pretty flawed, and that only addresses the second Anselm proof. Besides, existing is better than not existing, even if it is not required to exist.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
The most basic argument against Anslem is: The most powerful being that exists, is one that does not require its own existence, therefore god does not exist.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
A thought may exist, a dream may exist etc, those things contained in the thought/dream DO NOT exist by mere virtue of their inclusion.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I don't see how Anselm's proof is that illogical, I mean there is the "island problem" but IMHO it can be easily overcome.

in re Spiral
Dreams are false perceptions, yet they exist, I mean that argument was slightly based on semantics, a last resort if you will. It is certain though that God exists as a perception, the real question is however, does He exist in the physical realm?
Posted by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
"3. God certainly exists in the minds of many, if only as a false perception."

So god exists as a non-existence? Hardly a logical certainty.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Con, St. Anselms proof has been discredited and shown extremely illogical - easy to find the critic - tragic flaw on Pro's side.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ILoveCheese 8 years ago
ILoveCheese
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Brik 8 years ago
Brik
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by joze14rock 8 years ago
joze14rock
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Torm 8 years ago
Torm
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by CaliBeachgirl 8 years ago
CaliBeachgirl
LR4N6FTW4EVAHarmonyAlexandriaTied
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:30