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: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 339 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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.