CreateDebate


Debate Info

138
130
He cray cray He is very logical
Debate Score:268
Arguments:180
Total Votes:289
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 He cray cray (93)
 
 He is very logical (86)

Debate Creator

lolzors93(3225) pic



Richard Dawkins logic

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. Therefore, God does not exist.

**This is not logic. This is making a fool of oneself in a published book.**

He cray cray

Side Score: 138
VS.

He is very logical

Side Score: 130
4 points

Making an inference from desirability to existence has to be the most stupid kind of argument you can make.

Side: He cray cray
3 points

Bahahahahahahahahahaha... I laughed at this argument for a while..... An atheistic attempt at destroying the Ontological Argument just reverts into God being able to do the logically impossible, which means the conclusion is the opposite of what Dawkins supposes, which is that God does exist. But if God cannot do the logically impossible, then this logic is messed up entirely.

Side: He cray cray
AveSatanas(4415) Disputed
2 points

Who cares about logic or "what ifs" in this scenario and argument? Show me evidence. End of argument .

Side: He is very logical
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
2 points

The empirical can only prove the present, not the past nor the future nor the abstract. I can show you historical evidence that Jesus is the Christ

Side: He cray cray
3 points

he exists. he has made us and we are all living because of his he is giving us all the facilities we want

Side: He cray cray
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

you spamming or accidental triple post?

he exists.

Evidence?

Side: He is very logical
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
0 points

The ontological argument proves God. This is why Dawkins tried using it: to try and say that the logical structure was illogical.

Side: He cray cray
2 points

he exists. he has made us and we are all living because of his he is giving us all the facilities we want

Side: He cray cray
2 points

he exists because when we pray to his with our whole heart we get what we want

Side: He cray cray
Nox0(1393) Disputed Banned
1 point

No, you don't, otherwise we wound't need hospitals, we would have no children dying from hunger or wars .

Side: He is very logical
1 point

He claims to be wise but in reality he is a fool.

Side: He cray cray
AveSatanas(4415) Disputed
1 point

Yeah right? i mean im sure youre so much smarter at age 16 with a highschool and bible education than one of the worlds leading biologists. How dare you assert such things.

Side: He is very logical
OddHannah(313) Disputed
4 points

We are you so hostile towards an opinionated post? He can believe what he wants.

Side: He cray cray
Sitara(11088) Disputed
1 point

Freedom of belief and speech. .

Side: He cray cray

This is no more scientific then any religion. I am fine if he or others believe it but do not confuse it with logic.

Side: He cray cray
7 points

To be truly omnipotent he'd have to be every where at every time, the only way to do that would be to be everything. If god is everything, then God is nothing, meaning this is pretty sound. This Richard Dawkins must be a pantheist.

The other religions have it better than Christianity. Their Gods are set with their limitations, and don't take credit for things they have no business being involved in. Making them less questionable.

Side: He is very logical
1 point

Here is how god/universe energy thingy a majigger whatever you want to call it is possible:

God lives in the tenth dimension, so please, watch this little 11 minute video for a great explanation

Gods mind (in a scientific way)
Side: He cray cray
Warjin(1577) Clarified
1 point

Good video but that video is off by one dimension, there are 11 dimensions, over 11 things start to break down and become unstable, so if God does exist God would be vibrating though all 11 dimensions, the 11th dimension is the dimension that holds all other dimensions (hyperspace), or (heaven) for you Christians

Side: He cray cray
1 point

omg double post AGAIN--------------------------------------------------------------

Andy you really need to fix this stupid double post shit :D

Side: He cray cray
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

I disagree, if the God we speak of has no limits then he does not need to be everything to be everywhere.

Side: He cray cray
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

The reason that doesn't make sense is purely logical. If God was a purely logical being (which I guess it's already been decided he's not) he would have to be everywhere somehow to know everything.

Side: He is very logical
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
0 points

Omnipotence has nothing to do with omnipresence. However, Christianity believes that to be true anyways..... so........... yeah......

Side: He cray cray
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
3 points

Let me ask you something Lolzors93. How can one know everything, happening at every time without being everywhere?

If the answer is "they can't" then that validates my statement. If God knows, all, at all times, he must be everywhere. If he is everywhere, then he is described as a pantheist would describe him. And as simple logic dictates, if everyone is anything, then nothing is special about it. For example: If everyone is rich, the term rich can't actually exist, without a separate perspective of poor to compare it to.

Side: He is very logical
4 points

Better then some Christian logic I've seen.

Side: He is very logical
OddHannah(313) Disputed
5 points

Then you havent seen true Christian logic.

Side: He cray cray
3 points

NOBODY HAS!!! Zing!!! !

Side: He cray cray
Kite626(714) Disputed
2 points

Please enlighten me on how any form of religion especially Christianity can be logical.

1. You consider it immoral for incest to take place; yet you also state we are born from adam and eve, making us all incest humans. So according to religious logic we're all immorally doing the act of incest.

2. The only evidence of the scripture being correct is the scripture itself; according to this logic i could state my ideals on my belief system on a napkin and say within the napkin it's true. From christian logic it must be true? it says so.

So please just give one christian "idealistic," notion.

(These are not my beliefs, just using christian logic.)

Side: He is very logical
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

This argument structure comes from a Christian philosopher and modal logician, Alvin Plantinga. Dawkins took it in response to the Ontological Argument to try and disprove God.

Side: He cray cray
Nox0(1393) Disputed Banned
1 point

Tere is no need of disproving something that has not been proven in fist place.

Side: He is very logical

Damn right. Dawkin's logic makes way more sense than that nonsense Christianity

Side: He is very logical

I am not a christian, but I find Richard Dawkins extremely ridiculous and illogical. I don't like him at all, and I find it offensive when christians throw his ''theory'' in my face when discussing religion. He doesn't represent my views on evolution or anything at all basically, and I don't like to be put in the same boat as him.

Side: He is very logical
3 points

This is making a fool of oneself in a published book

you mean like every apologist ever? I dont know where you got this nor do i really fully understand it because its confusing but i can conclude that this is only one of literally hundreds of arguments against gods existence. so this one isnt very good. So what? It isnt the strongest one ive ever seen.

Side: He is very logical
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

If you don't understand this argument, then I can't explain to you why the other arguments against Gods existence are illogical because you won't understand them either

Side: He cray cray
AveSatanas(4415) Disputed
1 point

1) Evidence is needed to prove the existence of God.

2) There is no evidence for God

3) God probably isnt real/ theres no reason to believe he is.

Ta-da.

Side: He is very logical
3 points

Quite logical, it makes sense if a divine creator was in existence he would lack the achievement of non existence, if he was to be in existence what success has been evident? A race of humans in which kill one another leave homeless people on the streets while others prosper? i think not.

Side: He is very logical
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Your post is a red herring.

Side: He cray cray
Kite626(714) Disputed
2 points

How exactly is this statement in any way misleading? Please rationally explain why it's misleading.

Side: He is very logical
3 points

This is not logic. This is making a fool of oneself in a published book.

Explain why this isnt logical otherwise I don`t believe your assessment. Also, if this came from a book there is probably a whole chapter of missing information and you are presenting it to make us inclined to think its foolish.

Side: He is very logical
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
0 points

He is going from that which is logically impossible to that which does not exist. The reasoning process is itself not logical. He is saying that God can do the logically impossible, which is not the classic sense of maximal greatness. That means also that his final premise is not carried through; he does not carry through the logic, which is the capability to do the logically impossible. He presents a logical impossibility from God and then supposes that He does not exist, which would mean that A=~A, which means that his conclusion is not correct. However, if the classical sense of maximal greatness is true, then the entire argument is illogical.

Side: He cray cray
link6065(741) Disputed
2 points

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

This is a general statement and is one that is most certainly true.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

The merit of an achievement is the product of it`s natural quality and the ability of its creator? I suppose that makes sense.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

That seems fair, I mean if a kid paints the Mona Lisa with his toe's he's probably going to outshine an art student who is using his bare hands.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

So the worst handicap for a godly creator would be non-existence. Seems about right. Can't get worse then that.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing.

Therefore if we think that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can think a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing?

Going back to my toe to hand analogy. This seems logically correct. That non-existent being creating the universe would certainly be better then any existent being.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God

which did not exist.

True, because he's not saying god has no power just that god doesn't exist. This isn't to hard to wrap your head around if you really try. It totally discredits the bible which shows God existing and interacting with humans and is merely arriving at the conclusion that a non-existent God is greater then a god that exists. Which would make a lot of sense.

7. Therefore, God does not exist.

As it should be to be consistent and logical with everything that has happened in the last 2000 years. God hasn't made an appearance in 2000 years in any historical book or even in credible human view. Especially my own. Logically it makes sense that there is no God.

Side: He is very logical
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

I think you are confused a little. There had to be something that created the universe, right? You assume this creator is God, Dawkins assumes this creator is natural forces. If the creator is an all powerful God, than creating the universe is not a big deal. Just a snap of the fingers and boom universe created. The hardest way to make a universe would be the creator being natural forces. Natural forces don't have any supernatural power, so the creation of the universe would be much more of an accomplishment.

I believe the jump in logic is from step 5.

Side: He is very logical
1 point

He might be logical but he is extremely bitchy! And very pushy as well.

Side: He is very logical
1 point

It is very interesting, not saying i believe it but it's a good take. The greatest accomplishment; creations by the nonexistence.

Side: He is very logical
1 point

It would be helpful for you to point out the logical fallacy. I don't see one, but I understand I may have a bias that is having me overlook it.

Side: He is very logical