CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.
Are there any logical arguments for a God?
Can you give a logically consistent argument for the existence and influence of a god? An argument free of logical fallacies. You should define what you term "God", then illustrate it's existence and or influence.
God exists as a term. Once that statement is accepted as true, a logical progression can occur that discourages the rampant illogical use of that term.
It's an opening for a logical discussion about the term. Starting with where I assume we can agree. A logical argument must be built on shared assumptions. So if you would like to stop using the term in an illogical manner I can help you with that.
its useless hot air is what it is. it is not a logical argument for any god, of any kind. the naked claims positing the 'existence' of supernatural gods are obviously what drives my question. i doubt your'e unclear on that since this is the only kind of god whose existence is widely and constantly contested. but I left it up to respondents to define the gods for which they posit logical arguments. either way it's for naught. theists know that. that's why they have avoided the question.
If i wanted to make this about points there would be none for posts lacking logical arguments. I want to discourage the posting of useless banter but that seems to define the bulk of the arguments from the 'yes' side.
the aforementioned goes without saying. i think we're done here.
Seriously! You are as guilty of blowing useless hot air as anyone so far on this thread. I see "it" as me challenging you to take part in a logical discussion, and you blowing hot air to avoid having to do so. How much more easy of a first principle do you need? All I asked is for the admission that god is a term. It's simple, we use that as a first principle and and we move to: Do we have consensus on what that term means?
the naked claims positing the 'existence' of supernatural gods are obviously what drives my question.
What seems obvious to me is that the desire to belittle people who explain their understanding of reality differently than you is what drives your question.
i doubt your'e unclear on that since this is the only kind of god whose existence is widely and constantly contested.
The god of your generalizations? lol
but I left it up to respondents to define the gods for which they posit logical arguments.
But when I barely begin to logically define god in a way you can't logically refute, YOU avoid the challenge out of hand and refuse to admit even the most obviously true statement about god (who would disagree?)which is that "god is a term". that you were pretending to be curious is obvious too now.
If i wanted to make this about points there would be none for posts lacking logical arguments.
You aren't setting any shining examples of the application of logic here either.
I want to discourage the posting of useless banter but that seems to define the bulk of the arguments from the 'yes' side.
I could call your contributions useless too! where would that get us?
the aforementioned goes without saying.
Hey look the champion of logic says it goes without saying!
i think we're done here.
If so it will be clear that you were the one who avoided the challenge :)
'You should define what you term "God", then illustrate it's existence and or influence?'
well do you? before there were any replies to this debate, i made this clear.
like i said, it's useless hot air. someone really enjoys the sound of his own keystrokes..
hopefully after all this back and forth , you finally see your initial comment was moot. you havent challenged me to do anything, because i am not trying to prove there is a god. i have no belief in gods. once again, thank you for this pointless exchange.
Here, I'll try a different angle....Try not to be such an ass. I, (just like I hope you are doing)am just looking for someone to challenge how I think.
I base my logic of how I think about god on it's use as a term. We have the option to interpret the word god in a very childish (I would say illogical)way, and refuse to let the way we interpret the word change based on new information. Whether or not one thinks of themselves as atheist, I believe there is theism's intellectual equivalent in any stubborn refusal to reevaluate a forgone conclusion.
God is a metaphor for a being or group of beings that are most trusted.
Teleological argument, cosmological argument, anthropic argument, intelligent design hypothesis, argument from degree. Those are all of the now debunked arguments I can think of for the existence of God.
The ONLY one I can think of that still holds some ground in debate today, is the ontological argument, and even that is dependent on a priori reasoning, so there lacks empirical grounds.
I'm still waiting for someone to come on and claim that the Bible is a logical argument for the existence of God. Religion: sponsored by circular logic.
From what I've seen, many theists today don't even bother to come up with new, logical arguments for God anyway. They just seem to moan about how the atheists are evilly persecuting them, and constantly try to refute new, innovative ideas with 2000 year old, ridiculous doctrine
The problem with the ontological argument is that while it does make an a priori assumption, that is still not a good justification for why the argument is invalid.
Religion as a whole is illogical, and therefore there's no logical start to it as well. Meaning there's no logical argument for a God. Only "faith", which is also illogical.
The assertion that the Bible is unreliable because it is disputed so harshly an easily is irrational based on the assumption that some people do not believe in it. The fact of the matter is this, rather I say I am a bible toting Christian or a hard core Atheist will obstruct a person's view of what I may say. With that in mind I will continue anyways with what I would like to say.
You say that faith is highly illogical, however, just saying this simple sentence about faith being illogical is counterproductive within itself. Is it logical to think that what you are saying about faith is true? Do you not have to have faith that what you are saying is based within a foundation of truth. In essence it is illogical to say that faith in and of itself is therefore illogical. Also, what is the basis for logic? Is it based on a common sense of some sort, an absolute truth or upon something else?
So what do you propose, that we accept all evidence as equally unreliable, and we shouldn't have any form of faith, or knowledge?
You haven't told us why the Bible should be accepted as evidence then. You also are using the ad hominem argument in your original sentence, hardly the precipice of proof.
And third, logic is what cannot be disputed with rational argument, proven past a level of reasonable doubt. There is a process for it, but as I'm still learning about philosophy, I think you'd learn better researching it yourself.
Also, faith in itself is not irrational, but irrational faith is irrational. If you can prove something 99% true, but not 100%, it is faith to believe it is true, but acting on it would not be irrational. But, if there is no rational argument for God, yet people still have faith, and devote tens of millions of hours to him, that is irrational.
religious faith is belief without objective evidence or logical justification, and often held despite evidence to the contrary. often it is belief held for the sake of diminishing personal insecurity.
a proposition is held as logical if it's reasoning is in accordance with the principles of logic. superstition is not logical and religious faith is indistinguishable from superstition, which is defined as:
a.
irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
b.
any blindly accepted belief or notion.
c.
a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, or a false conception of causation.
Faith is inherently illogical. But this debate is not about faith, it's about 'logical arguments for a God'
judging from the number of logical rebuttals i have to say that theists agree. or at least they certainly appear to be silenced. only one theist has even attempted a logical argument, and he obviously has no grasp of logic whatsoever. oh well.
Of course not. Everything that is considered "miraculous" is really just an event in which there is a slight chance an occurance will be the result. Science can answer everything... it's just whether or not our methods of finding out something are advanced enough.
I'm not hear to say that no one can find a logical argument for god, and if they do I'd love to hear it, but the entire religious concept is illogical at its very core, and there is no religion, that I know of that has solved that flawed core concepts yet.
Every religion has its key points that can always be found to be logically flawed if inspected.
Hence why I am an atheist, not because my father is, because he isn't an advocate for atheism, not because anyone in my outter family is, because they aren't, but because I studied religion, and atheism. I don't mean to be offensive, but I cannot for the life of me logically believe in something with 0 logical proof.
Oh, and just to say this now, if your going to argue "How do you know there is no god! Or prove there isn't a god!" I would like to compare this to the court system, YOU carry the burden of proof; not I! If I claim there's a flying spaghetti monster, it is my job to prove it before i expect you to believe it. I don't expect you to force me out of my beliefs that aren't based in anything in the first place.
