The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

logic determines right and wrong thus morality

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 401 times Debate No: 74694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




the right way, is the moral way, is the logical way

it is wrong for you to close your eyes now and keep them closed in order to read on till this last word



I accept.

Contention 1: Logic=/=Morality

We know that for a fact that the above equation is correct. How so you may ask? Say I place my hand on a hot stove. It is hot, and thus my hand will burn. That is logical, but is it morality? Let's define it.

Morality- beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior (

Now Logical.

Logical- agreeing with the rules of logic : sensible or reasonable (

We know that it is logical that if you place your hand on a hot stove it will burn, but that does not mean that something is right or wrong. That is a fact not a sense of morality. What is morality grounded to? I'll get into that in a later conetntion.

Contention 2: Morals are directly corrilated with God.

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]

We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Here it is obvious that morals are related to God, but logic is not as though God may determine the rules of the unvierse and the laws of nature it does not corrilate into Logic=Morality. Belief in God may not always be logical for this I point to the works of Friedrich Nietzsche who showed us that "God is dead. And we have killed him." [6] This is to show that Humanity has killed God through the complication of God and the rites and rituals. He believed that God is to be celebrated out of the mystery of faith. So we can see that through the works of Nietzsche that logic has killed God and thus morality. So we can see that it is thus impossible for morality to equal logic or vise versa.

4. ( Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157)
5. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonz"lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
6. (
Debate Round No. 1


yes i agre logic dosnt equal morality. morality is subjective


logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic)




it is wrong to place my hand on the stove if my goal is being healthy, or if my goal is feeling good.

god is illogical, there is no logic in fantasy

is it moral to feed your kid battery acid if you want it to be healthy? let me think for you.. no ..becasue its not healthy for the kid.. and thus its wrong, its immoral, illogical, unresonable


I would like to point out a flaw in your argument from last round.


If that is true we can apply your belief "Morality=Logical" and thus in that stimulated equation we can see that "Morality=Logical" is your belief and thus=wrong and False from your own equation. So we can thus see that by your own logic you're incorrect and thus cannot be correct by your own standards.

Another flaw in your own reasoning is this equation.

logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic)

Let's see. If I exierence God, or religion or the Supernatural that we can see is the cause and effects of the paranormal relm we can see that it would have to be reasonable. Thus creates a memory which is correct based on the knowledge equation. Thus if we have memories of God or religion we can see that it's truth and logical and thus disproving your own theories.

So the correct set of equations are really.

Humanity+Logic=Complication and death of God and morality.
Debate Round No. 2


i have no beliefs, belief is theism

i know my experience of now

to me a star is a light in the night sky and nothing beyond that, and the earth i know beneath me has no necessary shape


i agree that, i can remember what i imagine, just like i can remember what on the tv, but with cameras shooting for me, watching tv is the death of death

god is imaginary, if you believe i am wearing a hat right now i am your god and then hat you imagine is your god

if any truth existed about god, god would necessarily be true. religion is belief, belief is the opposite of knowledge, and know is the opposite of belief and knowledge. belief=Future=false. knowledge=past=truth, know=true=now

life is, not was or will be

lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one

morality dosnt equal logic.. i agree, morality is reason and intent, reason is logic and experience of it

logic is the measurement of resonable, i determine what is resonable based on logic, but logic is still resonable, and resonable is moral, is good, is logical, is right


Contention 1: The Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William CriagThe Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.

So to conclude here, we can see that vi spex is not a maximally great being due to his debate record and it's obvious that there are other debaters on the site greater than him so he cannot be a maximally great being and thus cannot be God. Thus disproving a large bulk of his Round 3 arguments.

My opponent says that he has no beliefs, but if that is true then that very statement is contradictory as he believes that he has no beliefs and is hence illogical. For him this sense of illogic is his sense of morality so we can see that my opponent has argued for the opposing side stating that illogic=Morality. He himself states that Morality doesn't equal logic and it's that concession there that there is no other option but for you to vote Con in this debate.

1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
Debate Round No. 3


i agree with those numbers thingies


god exist, lies exist

so to show that possibility is irrelveant i can simple state that its possible god is just an imaginary idea. therfore any further assertion is irrelvant, and if not i might as well write a comic book and belive in it

reality is not something that can happen, reading these words on the screen is happening

reality is logic, morality is reason, reason is false and truth, logic is true. 1+1=2=logic, 1+1=3=reason


If we apply the Infinite Monkey theorem we can see that no matter what there is a chance that ANYTHING can happen and thus we need to keep these possibilities in mind. ( It's for this reason that shows that even though shark attack odds and lightening striking odds are really low, but yet they still happen. We thus cannot ignore that.

You can show it, but the fact is that you haven't shown that he is imaginary and I have posted proof and thus we just have to go with my evidence until you disprove me.

Once again your logic is flawed. You imagined this equation as all things are imagined and by your own standards this theory is false. Plus if your last equation is correct then reason would have to be 1+1=Infinitity. In order for it to be both false or true, but even then it's contradictory and cannot have an applicable answer and at that your logic is once again flawed and incorrect.
Debate Round No. 4


possibilities only exist in the mind, not real

god is imaginary.. lol, you remember god? ..

imagination is not a thing

there is no your and my logic


There you go again contradicting yourself. You state that imagination is not a thing, but yet state that God is imaginary. Also you say possibillities exist only in the mind, but that is simply imagination.

With my opponent making multiple concessions I can see no other way, but for you to vote Con.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by McHitler 1 year ago
Con is right for the wrong reasons.....but....damn. I don't want to stick with pro. I can't decide which is worse.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jack.Jameswood1 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used consistent spelling and grammar, making it easier to read. Con provided arguments that undermined Pro's case, so con gets those points too. Con used sources that were relevant, so gets those points.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession made by Pro in R2 "yes i agre logic dosnt equal morality. morality is subjective"