Instigator / Pro
14
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2191

It's illogical for a non-theist to judge an ALMIGHTY God's works/deeds

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
9
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

It is illogical because logically, Any person that judges or determines anything must do so from a criteria. That criteria must be proven. . . . . . . . Justified. . . . . . . . . Beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . . Sufficient and correct. The standard upon that which is used to decide things with, Conclude, Measure and declare things with must be definitive in reason.

Moreover being that this criteria is quite truthfully and logically insubstantial, It could never be up to par to make the topic statement false.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Mall is winning against RM? No offense to either of the two but this is indeed a rare sighting.

The resolution is never clearly presented but seems to argues that atheists can't rationally critique God's work because atheists don't believe the work is God's to begin with.

"logically, Any person that judges or determines anything must do so from a criteria. That criteria must be proven. . . . . . . . Justified. . . . . . . . . Beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . . Sufficient and correct. The standard upon that which is used to decide things with, Conclude, Measure and declare things with must be definitive in reason. Moreover being that this criteria is quite truthfully and logically insubstantial, It could never be up to par to make the topic statement false."

PRO has not bothered to define any of these terms.

Almost all of CON's argument addresses the illogic of theists which is entirely non-sequitur- the subject of the debate is "non-theists" The brief argument CON offers regarding atheists agrees with PRO

"To the atheist, God is neither real nor so supreme in status and complexity that the atheist things it can't be regarded as something that the atheist has the right to judge."

"atheists don't see God as beyond logic whatsoever. They logically conclude God isn't real....such that they can't question or use critical thinking to explore the ideas of what God/s is/are and how she/it/they work."

There's a lot of verbiage, but when we strip CON's argument to the relevant subject, CON seems to accept PRO argument as correct. CON absurdly concludes:

"God is logically judged by the non-Theist as God doesn't surpass judgement in the eyes of a truly rational being."

If one is evaluating God's worth, one is presuming God's existence or else acknowledging the unreasonable premise of the judgement. CON self-refutes.

PRO seems unaware of CON's concurrence and mostly sticks to arguing CON's non-sequiturs. CON harms his case substantially with statements like

"It's not about God being real. "
"So does this mean that a person is able to have a higher standard to judge the works of the being that established ALL standards?"

PRO demonstrates a profound lack of understanding for his subject

"when atheists realize an ALMIGHTY being has an ALMIGHTY knowledge and standard for everything, what possible standard could they use to measure up?'
No atheist could make such a realization as an atheist.

PRO wisely asks CON to state a premise and offers some proof. Neither side has established any groundwork but the first to point that fact out takes the high ground. CON's lazy reply wrongly suggests that judging GOD's existence is the same as judging GOD's works and deed and so even athiests are judging God.

By R3, PRO has taken the CON position against his own thesis:

"Now being that we have a general truth regarding the law of causality, nature, physics, etc, it would not be logical and consistent to apply those laws to where they don't or didn't exist "
"The premise of a real ALMIGHTY God that established everything including standards and judgment, going by that logic, we're just going by it, how am I, a non- Almighty being able to supercede in the knowledge of judging things with a "less than" knowledge?"

CON concisely agrees with PRO's thesis.

"The god is not almighty and real to the non-theist"

PRO agrees with CON at full volume:

"I UNDERSTAND THAT A NON-THEIST BELIEVES WHAT THEY DO SO ALL THIS WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE " They would have to say , "ok for the sake of discussion, if this God is real for me to judge it substantially, I'm more mightier than it as I can supercede its knowledge in the judgment of things." That wouldn't logically follow up but at least they're rolling with the assumption.

PRO and CON agree that it wouldn't be logical for the non-theists to critique God's work without assuming arguendo.

PRO's summary applies to both sides equally:

"You're really having a tough time, I mean super rough time in separating when a topic is about God being real versus for the sake of God being real, this would be or wouldn't be the case."

PRO agrees some more in R5

"On top of that, non-theists do not think God is almighty to the degree that it's beyond judgement, most don't even think God is real since a huge portion of 'non-theists' are atheistic as opposed to deistic variants. God is a fictional character that they judge in the context of the story told. Furthermore there's no point to judge anything you believe is not there . So what else can be done but to suppose something is there?"

PRO's final remarks is a masterpiece of nonsense talk and failure to attach subjects to predicates.

PRO and CON talk a lot about logic but the building block of any well-reasoned argument is a complete sentence with a subject and predicate. This VOTER's assessment is that both debaters argued with such imprecion that neither side realized they were in general agreement on the topic. Arguments to PRO since both sides agreed with PRO's statement.

Conduct to PRO for CON's forfeit.

-->
@Mall

I suggest you that you create something different every time. You have 3 debates titled the same thing.