The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
arbiteroftruth
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

There are no logical arguments for the existence of god.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
arbiteroftruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,405 times Debate No: 22203
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Fool will refute any logical supernatural god argument.
only 1 per debate.
Argue away!


arbiteroftruth

Con

I accept.

I submit that the definition of a "logical argument" is any argument that uses a certain set of starting premises, makes a certain number of inferences that follow the rules of logic, and reaches the desired conclusion without creating any implied contradiction caused by the starting premises.

Given those criteria for what constitutes a "logical argument", the task of creating a logical argument for the existence of God is quite trivial.

Premise 1: Zebras exist.

Premise 2: If Zebras exist, then God exists.

Conclusion: God exists.

The argument above makes two starting premises, makes one inference based on the established rules of logic, and concludes that God exists, without introducing even the remotest possibility of deriving contradiction from the premises. Because you have not included the requirement that the argument I craft must have true premises, but merely be logical in its construction, I have completed the task in a fundamentally irrefutable manner.

Furthermore, I am compelled to ask you how you define the term "supernatural". Given certain definitions, the term "supernatural" may inherently preclude the existence of any supernatural thing, which would render your entire proposition tautological and thus an invalid candidate for debate.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

You’ve been Fooled!

Hook:

‘I submit that the definition of a "logical argument" is any argument that uses a certain set of starting premises, makes a certain number of inferences that follow the rules of logic, and reaches the desired conclusion without creating any implied contradiction caused by the starting premises.’ The Con.

Line:

I think you are way out of you league, on this one, for language is a set of organized physical symbols which we use to describe a reality. For example the proposition, zebras exist follows because it does refer to a reality because there does exist zebra’s. So it’s a part of language because it actually describes a reality, therefore it is a symbol.

If someone is using a proposition to refer to a false reality aka when people lie, the proposition is false. Because there is no such thing which it symbolizes. A physical symbol which doesn’t symbolize anything is not a part of language, let alone to have any meaning. This renders the second proposition of P2 that God exist, as meaningless. So it must be rejected. Aka Semantic Fallacy Straight from the hill!

The big stinker!

The second logical problem is that a conditional is only valid if there is a shared relation of interaction between the reality of x and the reality of y, so that x is a sufficient condition of y and that why is a necessary condition. Physical symbols that don’t symbolize anything cannot be part of a sufficient of necessary condition of any logical condition. But even if they did, there is no connection between the meaning of Zebra’s and an inconclusive proposition that God.

Example of a false conditional:

For example: if it’s raining today then are 11 monkeys in Africa. Let its raining=R and 11 monkey in Africa=M

So we have R->M but this is nonsense conditional, because there is no relation of interaction that they share to be a sufficient or necessary relation.

An example of a valid conditional:

Is if I close my eyes I won’t see my monitor. Let’s close my eyes=C and see my monitor=M

So we have C->~M

That is there is a direct connection of interaction between closing my eyes an my vision of my monitor.

Thus it’s a valid condition and also a valid set of 2 propositions

However; Con Premise 2: If Zebras exist, then God exists. Have no justified interaction which they could interact. Therefore premise is logically false, therefore failing to meet criteria of logic. False conditional fallacy

And as it is stipulated in round one that there could be only one argument for God, opponent loses this debated.

This You’ve been Fooled argument has been brought to Straight you by the hill!

‘Is the Universe Eternal the Fool says yes, but the Moose say no way!!

Fool Vs Moose You be the judge!!!

http://www.debate.org...

Well the best part of this Debate is that we get to expose the true colours of some of DDO’s dishonest members.

Trying to cheat through semantic is not cool VOTE FOOL!! ;)

arbiteroftruth

Con

Due to the lack of any objection from my opponent, my proposed definition of a "logical argument" is regarded as agreed upon.

Logic is a system for analyzing the relationships between propositions. I.e., logic determined that a given conclusion is true if the premises are true. Logic does not take interest in whether the original premises are true or false, except in the special cases of tautologies and self-contradictions, or if the premises are being used merely as shorthand for conclusions to prior arguments based on more fundamental premises. My premises were neither tautological nor self-contradictory, and Pro defined no rules of the debate that would require my premises to be regarded as shorthand for prior arguments supporting them. My premises are therefore valid purely on the basis that they are premises. Given this, my argument is a simple if->then inference and thus valid, i.e., in accordance with the rules of logic. Thus Pro's proposition is proven false by counterexample.

Furthermore, even if the validity of my argument did depend on the truth of the premises, Pro's objections to P2 are invalid.

First, Pro claims than any symbols representing a non-existent thing have no meaning and therefore are not part of any language. He then claims that this renders P2 meaningless. The only conceivable way in which that would follow from his premise is if he is also operating under the premise that God does not exist, as this is the only way in which P2 would include symbols describing any non-existent thing. But this means that Pro is critiquing an argument for God's existence by employing the premise that God does not exist! This is circular reasoning and therefore invalid.

Furthermore, even if one overlooks the fallacy of circular reasoning, Pro's claim about meaningless symbols undermines his original proposition. Pro's proposition is that "there are no logical arguments for the existence of god". Pro has put forward the premise that symbols representing a non-existent thing are meaningless: "A physical symbol which doesn't symbolize anything is not a part of language, let alone to have any meaning". Pro, through his objection to my P2, demonstrates that he additionally accepts the premises that 1) the inclusion of a meaningless symbol in a proposition renders the proposition meaningless, 2) a meaningless proposition must be rejected, and 3) God does not exist. Based on these premises offered by Pro, the proposition must be rejected as false. The proposition makes use of the term "God"; Pro operates under the premise that God does not exist; this renders "God" a meaningless term, which in turn renders Pro's proposition meaningless, therefore Pro's proposition must be rejected as false if Pro accepts all of his own premises.

Pro's second objection to my P2 is the perceived lack of any justified causal relation between the two propositions of the conditional statement. However, this either ignores the role of the Zebra as a specific example fulfilling the cosmological argument for God's existence (which depends purely on the existence of any given thing within the universe), or presupposes the invalidity of the cosmological argument. Pro himself has created a restriction disallowing the debate of the validity of additional arguments for the existence of God, therefore Pro cannot make any effort to disprove the cosmological argument as a valid causal link between the existence of Zebras and the existence of God, and must therefore entertain the possibility that such a causal link exists. Because he is thus forced to entertain such a possibility, it is impossible to definitely disprove such a possibility, and thus he is unable to prove the invalidity of my argument, which is what Pro defined as his goal in the debate.

To summarize: My argument's validity does not depend on the truth of its premises, but even if it did, the facts remain that Pro's first objection to my argument not only commits the fallacy of circular reasoning, but also undermines his own original proposition, and Pro's second objection to my argument overlooks a possible explanation that the rules of the debate prevent him from making any effort to invalidate. All three aspects of Pro's objections are thus invalid and my argument stands.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
arbiteroftruth

Con

Since my opponent has not responded, I am uncertain of what to add in this round. The only relevant thing that comes to mind, that I haven't already addressed, is the tangential issue of whether it is appropriate to take a semantic approach to this debate. In that regard, I point out that my opponent has instigated two other debates on the subject of arguments for the existence of God, both titled "The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god."

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Given this, Pro is clearly aware of an appropriate way to phrase the subject of debate if the point is to discuss whether an argument for God is true/sound, and this debate is titled in contrast to those, phrased in a way that specifically shifts the focus to whether the argument is 'logical' rather than whether it is actually true. Therefore, the semantic distinction is entirely appropriate to this particular debate.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
arbiteroftruth

Con

In final summary, I have demonstrated the relevance of the semantic distinction, I have shown my opponent's objections to my argument to be irrelevant(because for my argument to be valid does not depend on the truth of its premises), invalid, and in one case, harmful to my opponent's own original proposition. In addition, my opponent has forfeited the entire latter half of the debate. I believe the outcome here is clear.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Check mate!
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Why is it so easy??
Posted by Thaddeus 4 years ago
Thaddeus
So easy to win with this resolution
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Semaaaaaantics :D
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
The_Fool_on_the_hillarbiteroftruthTied
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: Given that the fool forfeited two rounds, arguments and conduct go to Arbiter