Instigator / Pro
0
1622
rating
30
debates
61.67%
won
Topic

Only truth and logic exist

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
~ 779 / 5,000

I want to propose a new idea and way to see reality. Obviously, I am not Albert Einstein, so do not expect it to be perfect, rather it is a cool idea.

My idea is to work from these premises in order to set a strict standard under which both the universe, God, evolution and anything one can imagine, can be explained under the same basic rule.

Premise 1. Anything that can possibly exist can be described by many specific truth statements

Premise 2. Any process possible can be described using one or more logical statements

The rule is simple: In order for anything to exist, one must prove that It can fit these criteria

My theory should also be able to systemize the questions concerning reality and creation, both from an atheistic, polytheistic and theistic perspective

Round 1
Pro

First of all, I want to thank Con for participating

Setting up the premises:

Why truth must exist
  1. If the claim "truth does not exist" is correct, it is a truth that exists
  2. Thus "Truth does not exist" contradicts its own statement
  3. If the statement "I exist" is objectively a truth I could not claim that
Why logic must exist
  1. A logical argument against logic is contradictory
  2. An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
  3. This is a debate, debates must be based on logic

Definitions:
  • Information: reduction of uncertainty regarding reality
  • Truth: Information that corresponds to reality
  • Logic: A function which uses known information to create new information


Premises:
  1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims
  2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements
  3. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic


1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims

This is really a no-brainer. If something cannot be described it cannot exist. By "describe" I do not intend to limit the possibilities, claiming that "only what humans can understand" can exist. I mean that if even God, if he exists, can not describe something using precise truth-statements, they literally cannot exist since they are not true.


2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements

This one is interesting. I first want to explain what that statement means. Logic takes at least two truths/bits/numbers and "creates" a new truth/bit/number. The nature of logic is that it is 100% reliable and predictable. So far, science has proven that anything we thought of as "not logical", are just emerging features of logical systems. Randomness is just a product of complex physical laws that are nearly impossible to predict. Some mathematical functions and irrational numbers are used in order to "calculate" randomness inside our computers. We also know that chemistry is purely logical, there is no randomness or free will involved. Our brains, however, have properties of both randomness and free will, emerging features of a super complex chemical system. True randomness has never been confirmed, neither has true free will as a spirit or supernatural soul. One could believe in illogical decision-making systems like these as part of one's own faith. 

Let me use God as an example, defined by having the ultimate free will.
How does God make decisions, logically, random or using free will? Someone has yet to explain what free will is, if not for emerging features of randomness emerging from logic. God would be the ultimate reality, and must thus be made of ultimate truths. As shown above, only logic can satisfactory explain how truths create other truths.


3. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic


Again, if an all-knowing God could not explain a two-sided triangle using truth and logic, such a concept could not exist. Obviously, there is no evidence that realities outside our own universe would follow the rules of logic we know, but I have yet to hear anyone claim that God or any other ultimate reality do not operate on a logical basis. Even the Bible acknowledges the fact that God is logical in nature. Now many people still believe in such concepts as randomness or free will, but they are emergent features of logical systems, just like the randomness of rolling dice is created by the 100% logical laws of physics. What is strange is that theists and atheists alike believe that either "free will" or "randomness" exists independently of logic, as if logic, free will and randomness were separated. My model would be able to explain any world view, as long as the world view can be explained using truth and logic. Contrary, if a world view cannot be described by my model, it would necessarily be either wrong, misinterpreted or incoherent.


I understand if you are having trouble understanding this. I have spent hours and day thinking about it.



How this theory can explain any world view:




The ultimate reality

Any world view must begin with the ultimate reality. This is because no argument can refute this point: some truths are ultimate. We can know with absolute certainty, that "something exists" is a truth that has been, is and will always be true. Believing otherwise would destroy the foundation of reason since no cause must be present in order for existence itself to start. Any truth that shares these properties: "1. always true 2. Not created by other truths" will be included in the term "Ultimate reality".


Visualisation - understanding the fabric, not of the universe but really

I want to explain how free will, randomness and computation are equally logical in nature.
a. The laws of physics are mathematical, in other words, logical
b. Computers, randomness and our free will all work because of the laws of physics
c. Conclusion: different structures of truth (like atoms) create systems with different properties
-
The easiest way to visualise how computation, free will and randomness emerge is to use the analogy of a computer. A computer is 100% mathematical, it cannot by definition go beyond the limits of its structure. When we think about reality in terms of truth and logic, the computer analogy makes perfect sense. Why? First of all, it cannot change itself, just like the ultimate reality cannot change itself. Second of all, this makes it fairly easy to understand how it is both one and many concepts. A computer is one object, but you can divide it into RAM and CPU, and those can be divided even further. This explains why the ultimate reality can be understood as a whole (like a God for instance) but also deconstructed into small truths like "something exists". With the same computer, you can calculate random numbers, simulate the laws of physics or even simulate free will. Thus both an atheistic and theistic world view can be explained using the same model. 
-
If you cannot prove that free will or randomness are illogical in nature, it does not matter whether our universe was created by free will, computation or randomness, we will reach the same conclusion about logic. All of them are different structures of logical statements, even free will.
-
The question would no longer be "what is truth actually", but rather "what structure does the ultimate truth have?" making reasonable discussion easier.


Dependant realities

Some truths, like the fact that I exist, are based on other truths, namely the existence of our universe. Our universe exists because of the ultimate reality. For example, our universe exists because "something exists" is true. Dependant realities have their own truths and logical structures. The truth "humans exist" exists in our reality only, not in the ultimate reality. 


Note:
I am intentionally making the mistake of ignoring The Primacy of Existence. According to that model, existence is more fundamental than our ability to describe or understand it. The reason my model proposes the idea of truth and logic being more fundamental than the things they describe is simple: it allows us to debate any claim about reality, be it the ultimate, ours, metaphysics, the multiverse and so on, under the same model. Under no other model can we use knowledge about our world to discuss other realities. It also helps us to dismiss illogical ideas even when it comes to religion. Even as a Christian one must have good nerves to believe that free will is a magical concept after reading this, but unlike other theories this model does not by default exclude ideas like God, morality, the multiverse, as long as they can be explained logically.




Final words:
I have a rational faith that only logic and truth exist, based on arguments presented in this opening statement.
I do not claim that my model represents actual truth, rather it helps us to understand reality from a new perspective.

I guess to try to get an easy win for his first debate.
You might win, but it might not be too easy

I have claimed that only truth and logic exist
Your turn
show me that untrue illogical concepts also exist
Con
Pro opens up with seemingly good ideas on the surface on how the vast majority of things in the universe are either logical or true. However, there are many ideas that are near impossible to express with only logic or true ideals.

1. What is "color" -- and other human produced concepts?

There are many specific combinations of light which we arbitrary label specific names. For example, why is Red Red? Why is Green Green? Why can't it be the other way around? Us humans ambiguously chose a random sound that seemed to fit, but there seems to be no logic or truth to an objective definition of a color, especially to someone who is blind. I ask pro to answer this question.

2. What is "Good music" -- and other subjective concepts?

Pro claims that everything, even ideals which may be held on a subjective scale, somehow still have a truth or a logic. So let me ask you, what is "truly good music"? Can it be determined logically? What about a truly good moral? Can he find an objective logical basis for this? Because every single moral system ever proposed has a logical flaw -- whether it be utilitarian's treating people as means to an end, Kant denying lying in all situations possible, and virtue ethics being too ambiguous to define.  In fact, I ask my opponent to answer the Truth for these controversial problems:
- If everything is either true or logical, how do you explain Comedy (the idea of something funny, unexpected, and likely false + illogical)?
- Is it moral to have a 3rd trimester abortion? Why or why not?
- Should the US tighten its gun control policy? Why or why not?
- should we have the death penalty in the US? Why or why not?
- Is it better to have Australia dedicated to protect the environment, or for Japan to dedicate to economic development? Why or why not?
- Answering only "yes" or "no", will you answer this question truthfully, and non-sarcastically, and with "no"? Explain your answer.
- Are debates now pointless, because there is always a truth or logic to the issue at hand as you claim?

3. What is the solution to the halting problem?

Pro would say that there is always logic and truthfulness even to a problem that has no solution. So I ask him, what is the solution to the halting problem?

For those that do not know, the halting problem in computer science means a program can always detect if some program will end or run forever. But theoretically, a program B can be made to run forever if I say it will end, and end if I say it will run forever. So the halt detection program cannot decipher the logic nor the truth of whether Program B will run forever or it will end. I ask Pro to answer the truth and/or logic for the halting problem.

4. aiwoeh ,a posuie. pallso oiikw , slodiuigi . Po, iukal iuwohetjknk 888939 9o #$ $  @$^))@O . }{AWE{R, #$ ^03495039499 sadfgg?

Pro seems to believe that even quantum mechanics' unpredictable nature and randomness in the universe has logic and explanation. I ask him to decipher the "truth" and "logic" hidden within the nonsensical question I randomly typed for my 4th question. I also ask him to explain how Quantum physics has light seemingly change based on person's mere observational pattern. If you cannot predict a particle's movement while knowing its placement [uncertainty principle], or vice versa, I struggle to see how there can be the simultaneous truth of knowing its movement speed and its location. 

5. Science keeps changing.

The idea of science is that repeated experiments and ideas may result in different conclusions. Despite seeking the best model of the universe, even our recognized "truth" is still immensely challenged. I ask pro to explain this. With our limited knowledge, we may never be able to affirm the actual truth -- if it even exists.
Round 2
Pro

First of all, you never attacked any of my statements and claims, so I consider them accepted and the debate already won, if you do not respond next time
You failed to even mention any of my actual statements. You only asked me to further explain my theory, as if you accepted it.

Debunking strange questions:

- If everything is either true or logical, how do you explain Comedy (the idea of something funny, unexpected, and likely false + illogical)?
- Is it moral to have a 3rd trimester abortion? Why or why not?
- Should the US tighten its gun control policy? Why or why not?
- should we have the death penalty in the US? Why or why not?
- Is it better to have Australia dedicated to protect the environment, or for Japan to dedicate to economic development? Why or why not?
- Answering only "yes" or "no", will you answer this question truthfully, and non-sarcastically, and with "no"? Explain your answer.
- Are debates now pointless, because there is always a truth or logic to the issue at hand as you claim?
My theory only deals with how reality IS, not how it should be.

The last point was interesting

- Are debates now pointless, because there is always a truth or logic to the issue at hand as you claim?
Debates are not pointless, exactly because there is always a truth or logic to the issue at hand. We strive to find the truth because we believe it exists.
Now all of your questions about morality and human nature, I admit there is no logical answer because we are talking about free will, but ultimately
free will is just an emergence of the brain, governed by the laws of physics which are you guessed it, logical in nature.


Pro opens up with seemingly good ideas on the surface on how the vast majority of things in the universe are either logical or true. 
That was not my proposition. I claimed that ALL things, not only in our universe but in any possible reality, needs to fit these criteria:
1. Can be described using one or more precise statements
2. Has a logical cause, or is a part of the ultimate reality 
Can you show me any thoroughly and finished scientific theory that depends on any degree of non-logic or non-truth

However, there are many ideas that are near impossible to express with only logic or true ideals.
You seem to misunderstand my point. I am not pressing the idea that there is a definitive answer to every question. I am saying that anything that can possibly exist has a logical, cause. I never talk about ideas, I talk about reality. The fact that humans cannot understand or express how the nature of God works, does not make his existence logically impossible. I totally agree with your statement, but "express", in this case, seems out of place. I never used that word, because nothing can be expressed using logic or truth. The word refers to the human language. The problem here is that words are based on our subjective perception of reality. Contrary to mathematics, language cannot be deduced to pure logical statements, as the description of what a word symbolises exists independently within each person.

there seems to be no logic or truth to an objective definition of a color
EXACTLY - colour is a word, words are not defined logically but by using other words. What is purely logical and true is the fact that light is hitting your eyes, that there is an exact position of every atom in your brain and that our universe, even though science might be wrong, still exist objectively, logically and truthfully. I do not agree with your position that anything humans are debating has no real definition or logical cause. Take an atom, for example, its existence is true while its causes are purely logical - the laws of physics. Are you claiming that there is no objective answer regarding the nature of an atom, just because no human will ever get hold of such a perfect truth?


what is "truly good music"? Can it be determined logically?
Yes. 
Music: sounds made intentionally to create a reaction in the receiver
Good: something that fulfils its intention

Thus good music is sounds that truly succeed in creating a reaction in the receiver. In other words, you need to test music in order to prove that it is truly good. I do not understand what is the problem here, you can make a logical proof like this:

1. Good music "feels good"
2. .... makes Jason feel good
3. ..... is good music

The reason arguments happen all the time is not that no objective reality exists, but that different humans have different knowledge, definitions and logical abilities.
Again my claim was not that subjective questions have objective answers, but that anything that can possibly exist can be described using logic. In this case, the logic that describes the music would be A. Thermodynamics, B. Biology, C. Psychology (more complex biology). Of these three only psychology could be described as illogical, but that would be a false assertion. 

"Rolling a dice is random, not logical". This is a correct statement, but one forgets to tell that the randomness is just a product of the laws of physics. Again imagine you are God, the result would not seem random to you, you could literally calculate the result before it even touched the ground.









I need to make myself clear on this point:
God does or does not objectively exist, it does not matter whether humans can understand the nature of God. This is an interesting example because of the fact that God, by definition, cannot be observed in our universe. Thus the possibility that our words can perfectly describe him is basically zero. Does that mean that if God exists his existence would be subjective or illogical? No of course not, his existence, or the existence of any other reality, is totally independent of our ideas or words. 

But you make a strawman by saying that I reject the subjective nature of truth. Did you not read my definition of truth: "information that perfectly corresponds to reality". By this definition only a few truths found by humans have been proven beyond doubt, one of them is "something exists". When I talk about truth in this context, I mean the information that fits reality, not the information humans trust to be true.

I do not however claim that truth as in "we can be certain" does not exist. I believe that science has proven beyond doubt that atoms exist, and I believe consciousness is a fact. However, there is a limit to our knowledge and understanding. Imagine if you were God and wanted to put a perfect understanding of my brain, into my brain. That is impossible and would be like trying to compress the internet into your own computer. Perfect understanding of atoms could never be stored inside one atom. Humans have a way of overcoming such obstacles as limits to our memory and reasoning abilities. Nobody could explain how our body works using quantum mechanics, but we use models. Humans use different models to study reality with different degrees of zoom. Models are constantly swapped out as better ones are invented. Models make complex systems simple enough that we can understand them, but the cost is that they no longer portray a perfect depiction. Thus our understanding of truth will never be as specific and absolute as the "perfect" truth.








Pro would say that there is always logic and truthfulness even to a problem that has no solution
My answer: I never claimed that there are logic and truthfulness to any problem, let alone ones without a solution at all. The halting problem just proves that such a machine cannot exist. You seem to think that I am of the opinion that paradoxes are logical, that is simply not the case. Paradoxes never happen outside of human minds and badly programmed computers. I claim that any problem which CAN be solved has one or more logical solutions.

I have a question for you: Can you think of any problem with no logical solution but instead an illogical solution?




With our limited knowledge, we may never be able to affirm the actual truth -- if it even exists.
I agree with the first part. But you really cannot claim that it is possible that no actual truth exists. "Something exists" is absolutely true.
Also, if you believe that, why are you debating?



Further proving my point over yours

Logic: a way in which cause A leads to effect B

My reasoning is that
1. If the ultimate truth is not logical, we could understand it
2. Humans want to understand the ultimate truth
3. We should believe as a basic premise that truth is logical

Say that truth is not logical, as you claim. If so, there is absolutely no reason to consider truth important or meaningful. If logic is not the basic rule reality abide by, then truth does not matter. A logical event happens as a result of a logical cause. An illogical event would happen regardless of any logical cause, rendering all knowledge about reality useless when it comes to predicting such an event. 

You apparently struggle to understand my belief that everything has a logical cause.
I struggle to see how you can believe in an illogical cause, illogical literally means "without a cause". Maybe you claim that events happen without any cause at all?


Also, the parts of my theory that could actually be challenged, you never touched:

  • That logic can describe God
  • That a supernatural soul can not exist
  • The idea of ultimate vs dependant reality
  • The computer analogy
  • That randomness does not exist
  • Free will as an emergent feature of a logical system

Your turn Con

Con
I wasn't sure if the first round was up for rebuttals so I only made my constructive. I'll get back to your case after defending mine.

1. What is "red"?

Pro made no sufficient answer besides the light hitting the people's eyes, and offers no changed or redeemed position for blind people. I await how he can affirm the logic and truth when we can only know what we observe, and hence, the blind man cannot know for certain what "red" is.

2. What is "good music"?

Pro goes in a circular and says what fulfills good is good. He says that result of intentions is what matters, therefore appealing to utilitarianism. This means that no matter how bad your intentions was, as long as you made them feel good, that the action was good. Extending this forward, utilitarianism argues that the greater the pleasure the better the action. The best action is what fulfills the maximal pleasure. Utilitarianism however, justifies slavery and slaughtering of the minority, so long as the majority gain is better. I ask, is this the truth? Why would we allow for any suffering at all? And wouldn't it be more likely that, killing is inherently wrong due to fulfilling bad, regardless of the overall consequence of good and bad?

Pro makes no remarks about moral decisions despite them clearly existing. He thinks the future does not exist, and so we should not plan ahead for it, debating about whether we should implement a policy or not. But he also makes no remarks about the present. Let me then, rephrase the questions in present tense:

- If everything is either true or logical, how do you explain Comedy that current exist(the idea of something funny, unexpected, and likely false + illogical)?
- Is it moral to for the women to currently having a 3rd trimester abortion? Why or why not?
- Should the US keep its loose gun control policy? Why or why not?
- should we have the death penalty in the US, which already exists? Why or why not?
- Is it better to have Australia dedicated to protect the environment, or for Japan to dedicate to economic development? Both are already dedicating to its policy. Pro says there is a true better decision here, but makes no remark. Why or why not?
- Answering only "yes" or "no", are you answering this question truthfully, and non-sarcastically, and with "no"? Explain your answer.

Pro's Case:

Premises:
  1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims
Pro claims that "If something cannot be described it cannot exist". Yet there are countless things that cannot be described, only experienced or inferred. For example, man's liberty and hope exists, but is extremely difficult to describe. It goes beyond mere restriction of movement -- a man can be in a wheelchair, but feel free. It goes beyond mere speech -- a man can be mute, yet feel very free. The more ambiguous and vague a concept is, the more impossible it is to describe. Indeed, how do you convey the amount of suffering that one goes through if they are skinned layer by layer, pouring salt every time on the wound? The best I can do is to compare it to hell, with incredible pain and shouting, but even this description is difficult to truly let the person know of the truth. The only way to know for certain is to actually experience it. 

  1. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements
Pro claims that every process in nature must have a logical conclusion, however, many debates or ideals are extremely difficult to come to a conclusion using only logos. For example, take a look at the abortion debate. Even though there is scientific evidence that the fetus may or may not be a conscious human beings, many women nevertheless abort their babies. Pro might say, look at their "logic", they have the choice to their own bodies and should be able to make this decision. However, anti-abortionists would counter that the logic is quite flawed as the women made the decision to have sex so risked their own body and the chance of having the baby. Pro thinks there is a truthful moral decision that is logical. I ask him what is the correct decision -- the logical statements of what to do when one wants to conduct an abortion, even if the baby is a human and it may be murder. Similarly, I ask him to create logical statements for the process of solving our gun control, our death penalty, so on and so forth, because he claims there are logical statements that can explain this process without any problem. If he can do this, he has miraculously produced the perfect policy, which is impossible, because these debates are long unresolved and we still do not know 100% what the correct solution is.

  1. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic
Debunked by problems within the previous claims.


Round 3
Pro
Once again, Con has failed to comprehend the basic thing that is what this debate is about, logic.

Logic means: The idea that every effect B has a cause A

Explosions do not happen without a bomb, this alone proves my point.
ALL OF YOUR EXAMPLES use humans to prove that illogical processes exist. Do you claim that humans suddenly and without reason change their mind about any topic? Do you think any action is done without intent, reason OR impulse? The way I see it, you seem to think that only things completely explained by science are logical. That is incorrect, anything with a cause is logical.

This debate is not about politics, morality, concepts or social problem. Do you really believe I claimed that every question has a definitive answer within the reach of human reasoning? NO!

I have been wrongly accused:

Pro goes in a circular and says what fulfills good is good - appealing to utilitarianism
This means that no matter how bad your intentions was, as long as you made them feel good, that the action was good.
He thinks the future does not exist, and so we should not plan ahead for it
Pro might say, look at their "logic", they have the choice to their own bodies and should be able to make this decision
Pro thinks there is a truthful moral decision that is logical'
This is outrageous, I never claimed any of that. I am a Christian, but you take my basic perception of reality as logical and tries to blame all of this mess of nonsensical and incoherent statements on me. You never quoted me or even made logical conclusions based on my claims. Do I need to restate my argument:
1. If a thing exists, it has substance and properties
2. Substance and properties can be described using truth-claims
3. If a thing exists, it can be described by truth-claims

Let me describe a car:
"A car has four wheels"
"A car is made of atoms"
"A car is bigger than a human"
"A car is able to transport humans"
etc
Clearly anything that exists can be described. But not all things can be described by humans.

Let me remind you of your question: 
What is "good music"?
I used one definition in order to answer the question. The answer is logical but still dependent on which definition you use. But you apparently think that I by explaining basic logic to you, claim that slavery and 

Pro claims that every process in nature must have a logical conclusion
They actually do, if you do not believe in pseudoscience. Every time we throw a ball, it falls towards the ground, accurately predicted by logical physical laws. Even rolling dice are controlled by those same laws of physics, so throwing dice is just as "illogical" as kicking a football. The randomness does not come from God using illogical randomness to decide the outcome before he moves the dice to that number. The randomness is purely logical, it only seems illogical because the dice are very sensitive to how we throw them. The same is true about humans, purely scientifically we are driven by the laws of physics, and there is no illogical process there. Again, the free will only seem illogical because our understanding of the brain is not, and probably never will be, complete. If one were to believe that processes in nature were not logical, one could just throw science out of the window.


Pro made no sufficient answer besides the light hitting the people's eyes, and offers no changed or redeemed position for blind people.
Exactly. Every person experiences the same light waves differently. "Color" is just a word we use to have a common understanding, and without an experience on which to put the label, the word "colour" will have no meaning. The blind man will never know what colour is, just like he won't know how beautiful his children are. That does not mean that the light we call colour does not objectively and logically exist.
I think this video can help you understand the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGYmiQkah4o




Again, why are you coming with so many TRUTH claims? Your argument goes in circles, saying that since no common understanding of truth exists, truth does not exist. That is basically what you are claiming:

Pro claims that every process in nature must have a logical conclusion, however, many debates or ideals are extremely difficult to come to a conclusion using only logos
First of all, why are you comparing truth as in "actual scientifical existence" to truth as in "the answer to a question". They are simply not the same. A perfectly scientific theory of everything might describe the process of morality in our brain, how it interacts with other people and how societies change based on it. But that would not be the same as actually debating ethics. Ethics, politics and religion, they are by definition beyond the authority of science.

The fact that humans have a hard time finding the truth, and will never fully understand the truth, does not mean it simply is nonexistent. We humans should pursue the truth because it exists. Difficult does not mean impossible, and even if it is impossible for humans, why would not God, or the alternatives, know the truth. All of your questions have the same flaw: they ask me to make a conclusion on a topic that has no perfect conclusion. Imagine if God answered your questions about morality and politics, do you think they would remove every problem? No of course not, the problems are complicated because any action, conclusion or response will bring about new problems as well as solving the new ones.

Pro makes no remarks about moral decisions despite them clearly existing.
First of all, morality does not clearly exist. Humans clearly exist and morality is a description, but more accurately an evaluation of humans. That is why morality has no real answer since humans never agree on anything. Obviously, if God created morality then morality would exist as an objective standard with which he could judge everyone fairly and equally. Moral debates are intense not because no real truth exists about humans, but because humans have different world views. You claim that these debates are impossible since no clear cut true answer exists. Your main argument against my thesis was that some things just cannot be described or explained, like morality.

For example, take a look at the abortion debate. Even though there is scientific evidence that the fetus may or may not be a conscious human beings, many women nevertheless abort their babies. Pro might say, look at their "logic", they have the choice to their own bodies and should be able to make this decision. However, anti-abortionists would counter that the logic is quite flawed as the women made the decision to have sex so risked their own body and the chance of having the baby.
Thank you for proving my point - they can be described. But described does not mean being agreed upon.


Again your questions are inappropriate
- If everything is either true or logical, how do you explain Comedy that current exist(the idea of something funny, unexpected, and likely false + illogical)?
- Is it moral to for the women to currently having a 3rd trimester abortion? Why or why not?
- Should the US keep its loose gun control policy? Why or why not?
- should we have the death penalty in the US, which already exists? Why or why not?
- Is it better to have Australia dedicated to protect the environment, or for Japan to dedicate to economic development? Both are already dedicating to its policy. Pro says there is a true better decision here, but makes no remark. Why or why not?
- Answering only "yes" or "no", are you answering this question truthfully, and non-sarcastically, and with "no"? Explain your answer.
My answer: I do not know, why would I, I am not an expert on these things. Just because I do not know how reality works it does not mean that it does not work at all.

But If you gave God a list of priorities and expectations, he surely could make a policy or morality that was optimally attuned to achieve those specific goals. Again, humans do not disagree when logic fails, but when they have different perspectives, values and belief.

Summarizing my argument:
I exist, therefore the claim "I exist" is objectively true. 
Any actual existence can be described by truth, either through words, math, science or philosophy.
No illogical relationship can exist by definition. Thus if anything is caused, it is logical.
Humans do not possess perfect knowledge, thus no conclusion we make is not perfect, this explains how perfect truth theoretically exist but also why it's unachievable.

Final conclusion:
Since real truth exists, we humans have a real reason to pursue truth through logic. But not everything we can explain, even with logic.


Final words:
I find it strange how this basic idea could be hard to understand. I wanted my theory actually challenged by questioning some of the conclusions or claims I made. But instead, you acted like my claims were true by asking me about the effects such a view would have instead of challenging it. In the end, nothing you said had any weight whatsoever. If actual arguments are presented in the final round I will regard is at unfair debating techniques.

I ask everyone to vote for me not because you agree but because none of my arguments could be taken down or challenged

Thank you, Con for participating. Your questions were too complex, forgive me for not being God and able to answer you  X-D

Have a TRULY nice day everyone.

Con
Pro complains at the very end that my arguments are impact based rather than logical based. But reality is based upon impacts the vast majority of the time. We must consider what if only logic and only truth can exist. Pro admits that throughout morality, society and politics, science alone cannot derive some kind of answer. He proposes that God out there may reserve the truth, but does not tell us why God's answer is what is correct. His basis for his arguments also does not necessitate that a God must exist. Based on his concession that all moral systems have flaws and that there is no clear answer between many controversial debate topics, despite the policies existing, I have won this debate. Because even if two different sides seem to have weight to them, if there is only one logic and one truth to each existing process in the world, then only one side can truly have the airtight logic, and the objective morality would have to be fulfilled.

I find it dirty that Pro offers the new argument of God providing this objective morality, yet not allowing new arguments from the con side. For even a surface level of evaluation, the famous objection puts a lot of logical imbalance against God: "is it good because God said so (making it near impossible to differentiate between an omnipotent evil entity vs good entity), or is God innately good (from an arbitrary source of good)?" In addition, Pro claims that logic can define God, yet only offers a simple example of free will contradiction, rather than a more difficult topic like God's existence. He outright conceded that God must be under logical constraints and therefore possibly not all supreme being -- following such, not all powerful, nor necessarily all benevolent, or all knowing.