The Instigator
CerebralCortex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Amphibian
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/15/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,863 times Debate No: 6932
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (5)

 

CerebralCortex

Pro

One of the basic laws of logic is that a thing can not be what it is not. Now my question is very simple, although hardly new. Can god create a thing which is both a square and a circle ? As the general belief regarding the concept of the monotheistic god suggests that he is omnipotent the answer must be that he can do so. Therefore a thing can potentially be what it is not. This is a clear logical contradiction. So either god does not exist or logic does not. It is illogical to logically conclude that logic does not exist -- therefore the problem here is with the given god hypothesis. The only way to escape this is by concluding that god is in fact not omnipotent but rather bound, at least, by the laws of logic. Therefore it follows that the rules of logic apply without the need for a god at all. So if rules can apply without the existance of a god then why use god to explain the existence of other rules in the first place ? Maybe they too can exist without a god ?
Amphibian

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his argument.

The idea of a monotheistic god is not illogical, nor is it flawed. What is flawed is my opponents perception of god. As far as my understanding goes god is the shepherd as we are the sheep. He is simply guiding us home and trying to keep us safe. God is only all powerful within certain parameters. An example of God's boundaries is the one between good and evil, god can commit no evil act or he would cease to be god. Any misuse of these powers would result in the same thing. While god is all powerful within certain bounds there is one thing he cannot overcome, that is his own will. Fortunately the will of god is single. It is impossible for god to attempt to make something both a square and a circle because it would contradict his very nature. The idea of god is not illogical, it is misunderstood.
Debate Round No. 1
CerebralCortex

Pro

Thanks for your response.
I don't see how my perception of god is flawed. You have affirmed my perception of god by agreeing with me that god is bound, you said yourself: "God is only all powerful within certain parameters" -- that was my claim as well. So it seems there is no argument on that part at all and no misconceptions at all. You also add that "It is impossible for god to attempt to make something both a square and a circle because it would contradict his very nature" -- this is just playing with words actually, as the fact remains that god's will is bound by something that he can't control -- call it god's nature or the universe's nature or just nature. The conclusion is therefore that the concept of god is superfluous in explaining the existence of logic, as I have claimed.
Secondly, you say "god can commit no evil act or he would cease to be god" therefore the concept of good and evil must be defined outside of god, just like the concept of logic. Any boundary to god's will must be defined outside of him otherwise it would not be a real boundary. By saying that god would cease to be god if he did evil, it must mean that the concept of evil is not defined merely by god's actions or god's will, but rather by some other absolute you call good and evil which god adheres to. Therefore the concept of god is also superfluous in deciding what is good or evil, or more generally in defining what is morality or where did it come from. I want to re-emphasise this -- when you say that if god were to commit an evil act he would cease to be god, you are actually saying that there is something else, other than god's actions, which defined what is good or bad. This is an inescapable conclusion whether you like it or not !
Given what we agree on, the conclusion that follows is that your concept of god is superfluous in deciding or explaining logic and morality since these are both concepts that exist outside of god. Moreover, you should note that you did retreat from the monotheistic concept of god which speaks of an omnipotent, omniscience and omnibenevolent entity. I can't really blame you -- because this is indeed an illogical concept.
Amphibian

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his response.

First of all I would like to point out that the resolution said "The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical," not that the idea of an omnipotent god is illogical. In the belief system that I was raised in, LDS church or Mormons, we believe that god is subject to certain rules. Furthermore I didn't "retreat from the concept of a monotheistic god," I retreated from your concept of a monotheistic god. I see god as a being who exists on a higher plane than any human and who therefore can does do things that we cannot understand. This god is not all powerful, but once again exists with limits. A god utterly without limits is a concept that sounds illogical, even terrifying, fortunately such a being does not exist.

I stand by my earlier statement that for God to make something both a square and a circle would contradict his nature. What I mean by this is that god would never attempt to break a law that required one thing not to be another, and if he did he would cease to be god. Laws of logic and laws like the one I have just described are parallel. God would have to break one of his own laws in order to break a law of logic. God literally cannot be illogical.
Debate Round No. 2
CerebralCortex

Pro

Please note that the common conception of god is that he is omnipotent.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence"
Now there is a reason why theologians make these claims.
The reason is that they wish to claim that NOTHING can exist outside of god.
If something as important as logic or morality exist outside of god which serve as boundaries for him,
as I have claimed and that you have failed to refute,
then god becomes superfluous.
The question that theists always ask atheists is "where do you get your morals from" right ?
In your description of god both you and I get our morals outside of god,
therefore this infamous question becomes as relevant to you as it is to me.

Nonetheless, I shall address your concept of god to prove that it is illogical as well.
You say "god can commit no evil act or he would cease to be god."
You have just proven that there is no god by stating this.
Let us examine this statement. The word "can" refers to one's potential to accomplish something right ?
Therefore you are basically arguing that god has no potential to accomplish evil.
The problem here is that human beings, which are god's creation, can accomplish evil right ?
This proves that god does have the potential to accomplish evil !
By creating beings (in his own image BTW) that can accomplish evil !
So god, it seems, could accomplish evil after all, by using a proxy !

A being that is truly unable of accomplishing evil could not create anything that can accomplish evil,
this is called a Logical closure.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Good luck.
Amphibian

Con

Thank you for your response.

God does not accomplish evil when humans sin. If that is your philosophy then Ted Bundy's parents would probably be rotting in jail right now whether they were innocent or guilty of any crime. Or maybe we could charge Ford with a DUI if someone crashed one of their vehicles while drunk. If we take god's work and twist it then it is we that are guilty not he. In fact that is god's essential purpose, to guide his work. He creates and watches over his creations to make sure that they follow the rules. There are higher powers than god, these powers are not gods in themselves but higher laws of nature that simply are. It is like gravity, we obey it without question because we cannot not obey it.

When you come right down to it, life with or without god is superfluous, the very existence of the universe is. God simply exists with the rest of it. Theologians attempt to justify his existence because they have beliefs to support. Attempting to bundle religion all together and assign it a few concepts is hardly the right way to go about judging religion. My opponent's argument has left no room for the many religions world wide that worship or believe in a monotheistic god. All of these, as I have shown with Mormonism, have different ideas about who or what god is. My opponent has shown only that his idea of a monotheistic god is illogical, not the actual concept subscribed to by actual believers.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mo, Cerebral, et al. You guys should write a paper and have it published in a peer-reviewed math journal. At present every math textbook and every educated mathematician has it completely wrong, according to you guys. You should set them all straight. Good luck.
Posted by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
The Greeks invented logic but were not fooled by it. (and it's the sign of a good mind that remembers it)
Posted by CerebralCortex 8 years ago
CerebralCortex
Guys, allow me to remind us all that there is no 1/Inf because Inf is not a number. 1/0 is undefined its not defined to be 1/0 = Inf, people tend to get confused because lim[x->inf](1/x)=0 but this is mathematical semantics, all it means is that as x approaches inf (thus increases) 1/x approaches zero. Arithmetics with the "number" Inf does not exist and can not exist. Division by zero error !!! if 1/0 was Inf then what is 0/0 ? what is 2/0 ? is it 2*Inf ? This doesn't work. You can ask the following question if you like, what is lim[x->Inf](0/x) and the answer would be of-course 0. That doesn't mean anything about 0/0 which is absolutely undefined in arithmetics.

BTW - my point that started this whole discussion about calculus was with god's lottery game. My point was that since an infinite number of incompatible religions can potentially be invented, and they could all claim that if we don't choose theirs we will be sent to hell by their version of god. In such a game our chances for going to heaven by picking the right religion would be virtually zero, in other words it would be perfectly hopeless. lim[z->Inf](1/z)=0 where z is the number of possible religions and 1/z is the probability of a specific religion to be true (provided the probability function is uniform).
In the real world there is no way of knowing if god wants me to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or maybe something else that was invented in the past, or will be invented in the future. So even if god came down from the sky and said I exist -- now choose the correct religion or I will send you to hell. I still would have no choice but to remain secular.
Posted by mohammeddurkajihad 8 years ago
mohammeddurkajihad
the LIMIT may be zero, but the actual value IS NOT ZERO. I should not have to restate my points. the value CANNOT equal the limit, otherwise, the limit is not what it is declared to be.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The limit 1/x x--> infinity is exactly zero. See http://everything2.com.... It's also in every advanced math textbook ever written. 1/infinity is an appropriate informal expression. 0/0 is undefined, i.e., meaningless.

I think a reasonable interpretation of "a monotheistic god" is "a god as conceived by monotheists." This would parallel "Christian belief" being the beliefs of Christians, not necessarily the beliefs of Christ.
Posted by mohammeddurkajihad 8 years ago
mohammeddurkajihad
Wow... I just realized how off-topic you both were... a monotheist believes in one god. he is monotheistic. A monotheistic god would have to believe in another, superior god. therefore, both sides' arguments were off topic.
Posted by mohammeddurkajihad 8 years ago
mohammeddurkajihad
whether or not I am pointlessly perpetuating this argument, if 1/infinity were precisely 0 then 1/0 would be infinity, since we use multiplication to define division, so 0/0 could only be 1, no matter what it is mutliplied by, so (0x)/0 could only be 1. x in the previous expression could be anything, so 1/infinity cannot be 0.
Posted by CerebralCortex 8 years ago
CerebralCortex
1. Roy, there is no 1/Inf there is only lim[z->inf](1/z)=0, this is basic calculas.
2. My point was that there is a problem with the concept of "god" because saying he is omnipotent is illogical and saying he is not makes certain things exist without the need for him. Hence god becomes superfluous in some aspects. True theologians would never agree to this. P.S there is no omnipotent within certian boundries because that would contradict the definition. Perhaps I should have choosen a better title and explained this idea better.
3. Con's arguements about evil proved his concept of god illogical afterall
Posted by Amphibian 8 years ago
Amphibian
I do not think that god would have to be all powerful to be relevant.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro erred in not proposing an "omnipotent god." The resolution would still fail because omnipotence only refers to omnipotence in nature, not the ability to perform a logical contradiction.

BTW, mo-, 1 divided by infinity is precisely, exactly, zero. If it were not, infinity would have to be finite.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by apologia101 6 years ago
apologia101
CerebralCortexAmphibianTied
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: The worst person to defend God is the LDS person. Con fails at the beginning to show that God as one is logical.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
CerebralCortexAmphibianTied
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 
Vote Placed by pickle338 8 years ago
pickle338
CerebralCortexAmphibianTied
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 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
CerebralCortexAmphibianTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
CerebralCortexAmphibianTied
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