The Instigator
Ryi-guy
Pro (for)
The Contender
Overhead
Con (against)

God vs no god, do both beliefs fall back on circular logic?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ryi-guy has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 354 times Debate No: 112392
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Ryi-guy

Pro

So the claim I will use to begin a more proper debate is:

Claim: Both the belief in a non-personal god and the beleif of no god existing both fall back on circular logic.

non-personal god circular logic = (I.E how the universe is created--> god created --> justified because something had to create the universee)

Atheist circular logic = (I.E how the universe is created --> unknown scientific structure whether mathematical or not...just not a god --> justified because something not god had to create the universee)

Again the determining factor of whether I believe in no god or a non-personal god is resolving this circular logic claim. if it's true than I am pretty much stuck. Right now I am pro abou the claim that I believe both believes unavoidable runs into the circular logic problem.
Overhead

Con

I accept and to be on the safe side will assume R1 is for acceptance only.

Good luck to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
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
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
I have never seen evidence for a supernatural being of any kind, let alone an invisible one.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
God is a dream and nothing but a dream. Take away the dream and you got nothing = atheism. Only from that starting point you can look for any truth.
Posted by Ryi-guy 3 years ago
Ryi-guy
Well I think I'm stuck on this problem because there are not many problems that utterly stump me like this problem and also I think in general people's understanding of the universe changes how we think about the reality we are in and how we feel about the nature of the universe. I always prefer to think and have my feelings based in a accurate description of the universe and events around me no matter the immediate emotional effect on me.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
A reasonable assumption that I adopt for purely pragmatic reasons does not a circular argument make. One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life.
Posted by Ryi-guy 3 years ago
Ryi-guy
sorry about grammar and spelling errors. I'm posting this right before class because currently I am pretty much always busy.
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.