The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Existence of God

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 104981
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Hello. This is my first debate on this website; thanks to all who participate (opponent, voters, commenters). I will be arguing for the existence of God.
My beginning arguments:
I. laws of logic:
I ask my opponent, where did the laws of logic come from (e.g. the law of non-contradiction)? In a materialistic/naturalistic worldview, they cannot exist; for the laws of logic are immaterial and universal and, therefore, not compatible with a worldview that only believes that material/physical nature exists (i.e. denying the existence of the immaterial). In the Christian worldview, the laws of logic stem off from the Sovereign; he is the logical Creator, and the universe reflects this, as it was made in a logical, orderly way. The universe must obey these laws. Sure, contradictions are not possible because they are illogical - but we must dig deeper; *why* are they illogical? How did these laws come about by materialistic, naturalistic, non-intelligent processes?


Are you serious? Sorry. I cannot debate you with only 1,000 characters. Had I known there were only 1,000 characters I would not have accepted. Sorry. You are going to have a very difficult time finding anyone that will even dream about wanting to debate you with such few characters. There's no possible way that a good debate can take place with such few characters. No offence.
Debate Round No. 1


Understood. I shall make the next one longer. Feel free to address the laws of logic, though, if you like.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NonCredenti 2 years ago
Your picture of the materialist worldview is inaccurate. A materialist does not "only believe that material/physical nature exists." Rather, a materialist says that "at bottom" everything can be explained in material terms. Think about it this way: numbers are not physical things. Do you really think materialists believe numbers do not exist? The same question would apply for concepts like "justice" and "love." If you allow that a materialist can agree that these concepts exist, then you should have no problem understanding that materialists agree that logical principles exist. The important distinction is that a materialist sees no need to invoke "spiritual" or "supernatural" explanations; it is not the position that only physical things exist.
Posted by GhostOfSpock 2 years ago
This would be almost too easy. Not a single main religion actually supports logic. Not one. They're not oozing with boolean or subjective math. Quite contrary. In fact, the bible/torrah/quran mentions time and time again that believers must first abandon logic and reason in order for them to become true believers (it's a basic precept of all Abrahamic religions). Anyway, good luck with that 1,000 character-thing.
Posted by Magnatrix 2 years ago
I wish I could accept this but I shall not as I lack the intellectual ability to do so.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.