Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
5
debates
30.0%
won
Topic
#5060

God

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1320
rating
264
debates
40.91%
won
Description

Since God can not be directly defined by human vocabulary or human knowledge in one definition due to God not being limited to human vocabulary and human knowledge, What is a very close definition of God that also encompasses every other definition given to God ( meaning creating a connection with every other definitions of God)? And is God real or not real or both or not both(the "not both" option can also encompass anything unrelated to "real" and "not real" and "both")?

Round 1
Con
#1
I am new to this platform so I would like you to go first and indulge me with your observation on this case.
Pro
#2
God is a good explanation for the existence of everything, no?
Round 2
Con
#3
"God is a good explanation for the existence of everything, no?" 

if you were to conclude that "a good explanation" means a sufficed or an approved amount of explanation for the existence of everything I'd reply with "No.", but if you were to conclude that "God is an explanation for the existence of everything" then I'd answer with "yes". So in conclusion to your statement, the answer is "No."

If I was to be in a restaurant and then asked the waiter who made this food, would an explanation of "God" be good enough to answer my question? (because this "if statement" reveals how limited your definition or statement is).

Pro
#4
God was the first mover and first cause.

What can be the first cause other than God, the supernatural being?
Round 3
Con
#5
"God was the first mover and first cause.
What can be the first cause other than God, the supernatural being?"

Perhaps you could say or write that God was the first mover and first cause, but defining god as the supernatural being is what I take criticism of.. I'd rather define God in my belief as an entity beyond existence.. Since God is the creator of existence (if we can both agree on this) one can not say that God exists, but rather to consider it beyond any of those reasonings.


Pro
#6
God is needed for logic to exist.

Logic couldnt have created itself. Someone had to create it.
Round 4
Con
#7
"God is needed for logic to exist.
Logic couldnt have created itself. Someone had to create it."

1. To point out this statement "God is needed for logic to exist"

I disagree that God is needed for logic to exist, God can be a need for logic to exist.. but for logic in combination of many needs for logic to exist.. we primarily have "strict principles of validity" and "Reasoning", we have more than one need for logic to exist.. and "strict principles of validity" and "Reasoning" plays the most role especially when it comes to any reasoning conducted.. which also could signify concluded reasonings for an easier simplification.
Based on the Oxford languages definition of "Logic": 
"reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."
 we can see more than one need in this definition.. you can also consider them "factors" for simplification, the necessary factors here that play together is:
1. Reasoning 
2. Strict principles of validity 
point 1 and point 2 are interconnected due to the definition of "Logic", you may say that the "interconnection" between point 1 and point 2 is "Logic". Henceforth linguistically and grammatically speaking according to current definitions, you do not necessarily require "God" for Logic to exist, which in conclusion means that You do not need "God" to have "Logic", all you need is simply the necessary factors here that play together which is reasoning and Strict principles of validity.. 

Note that
, there is an association between "Logic" and "God", but you should not confuse this association with the construct of how you use these two terms "Logic" and "God" and for this necessary case, "God is needed for logic to exist" is not true and this whole explanation is directly against that case you've made.. which is "God is needed for logic to exist". 


2. To also point out this other statement of yours: "Someone
had to create it":

Based on the Oxford languages definition of "Someone":
"an unknown or unspecified person; some person."
The term "Someone" refers to a person here regardless of being unknown or unspecified, But to establish a connection between "God" and "Someone"  then There are of course different theological views on God being a person, Christians may believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, meaning in human form.. and Muslims may believe that God is not a person.. and following other different views of God.. Henceforth I conclude that there is of course a connection between "God" and "someone" and a connection between "God" and "person"..  But listing these connection is unnecessary since it is already written within this current point "2. To also point out this other statement of yours: "Someone had to create it:" . 


Conclusion of all pointed out statements: 
God is not needed for logic to exist, but rather a need for logic to exist.





Pro
#8
God is needed for justice to exist.

Without God, both good and bad people die.

Some good people suffer a lot and die. That is not justice.
Round 5
Con
#9
"God is needed for justice to exist.
Without God, both good and bad people die.
Some good people suffer a lot and die. That is not justice"

  1. "God is needed for justice to exist"God is not needed for justice to exist, but a need for justice to exist since it not the only need, mainly it is to establish peace, so you could say that order is the most needed factor for justice to exist, and for peace to exist you need justice in terms of laws. So I disagree on that point.
  2. "Without God, both good and bad people die", I disagree because God can not be the only thing or entity to prevent people whether if they are good or bad to die, since there are other possible things that attempt at preventing that from occurring, such as the law, because if we are to consider justice then the law is relevant when it comes to justice and related, especially the deaths of people regardless of being good or bad still relates to justice and the law.
  3. "That is not justice" the deaths of people indeed is not justice, but is relevant to justice and is related to justice. So I agree on that matter.

In conclusion,  all points are connected, but the third point is the only point that makes logical sense and is logically correct.




Pro
#10
I guess this is bye.