1500

rating

4

debates

37.5%

won

Topic

#5778
# god isnt real

Status

Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00

DD

:

00

HH

:

00

MM

:

00

SS

Parameters

- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open

1271

rating

353

debates

39.8%

won

Description

Prove gods existence

Round 1

hi B.K., let's be real, you don't mean what you're about to say by some miracle that you are a god-believing person I would like to lay down some ground rules for this debate. Rule 1: you may not use. the bible as evidence or to justify something. Rule 2: do not use an analogy and have an exception to your own analogy.That's it. I hope you debate with an open mind.

*I would like you to start the arguuement*Okay, so.

First there was nothing, no existence and no logic.

Because there was no logic, there were no limitations to what can come into existence.

Thus, primordial Gods came into existence out of nothing.

Later, they created logic, which serves as a limit to what can come into existence, which is why things now must satisfy logical laws in order to exist.

We can easily prove this story by proving that logic didnt always exist, and the rest follows naturally.

Round 2

You probably took that from somewhere on the internet.

One, you speak as if you were there to watch this happen

Two, all of what you're saying stems from the fact if 1 of what you are saying is false, so is everything else

First there was nothing, no existence and no logic.

This is a theory not confirmed in any way.

Thus, primordial Gods came into existence out of nothing.

The chance that primordial gods arrive not only before we do, but they start everything.

Later, they created logic, which serves as a limit to what can come into existence, which is why things now must satisfy logical laws to exist.

Again, were you there?

We can easily prove this story by proving that logic didnt always exist, and the rest follows naturally.

One, we can't prove that logic always existed or not

Two, what do you mean the rest follows naturally

you speak as if you were there to watch this happen

I was there. The Gods showed me.

This is a theory not confirmed in any way

It was confirmed by my own eyes. So it was confirmed by observation and witnesses.

Again, were you there?

Yes, I was there.

we can't prove that logic always existed

Thats great, given that my claim was how it didnt always exist.

It is easily proven given the fact that logic depends on premises, and each premise depends on another premise, thus logic as a whole if it always existed can only be infinite regress, circular premises or unquestionable premises. None of these are actually possible or even logical, thus logic had to be created by something different and more powerful than logic.

Round 3

What you're saying is wrong, but I want to focus on this.

It is easily proven given the fact that logic depends on premises, and each premise depends on another premise, thus logic as a whole if it always existed can only be infinite regress, circular premises or unquestionable premises. None of these are actually possible or even logical, thus logic had to be created by something different and more powerful than logic.

One, not all logic depends on the premise and the ones that do rely on logic that doesn't need a premise to be considered logical. An example that is easy to prove is 1+1=2.which, in turn, makes 1+1+1=3 or 1+2=3 and so on

One, not all logic depends on the premise

Maybe you can show us example of the one which doesnt?

and the ones that do rely on logic that doesn't need a premise to be considered logical.

Example?

An example that is easy to prove is 1+1=2.which, in turn, makes 1+1+1=3 or 1+2=3 and so on

Okay, go ahead and prove that "1+1=2" without using any premises.

I will wait.

Round 4

Why do you say the first two statements if you knew there would be an example at the end?

Explanation that 1+1= 2

first, one of our ways to define a singular entity like one apple, one car, and one spoon. 2 is our way of saying there is one more entity in the scenario now there are two cars

, no longer singular but multiple but only by 1.

the + siqn is adding them twogether 1 apple + another apple = 2 apples

(my explanation isn't perfect, but you learned this in the first grade, so yea0

Explanation that 1+1= 2first, one of our ways to define a singular entity like one apple, one car, and one spoon.

If a definition of singular entity is 1(one), what is the definition of 1(one)?

And likewise, if definition of 1(one) is singular entity, what is the definition of singular entity?

Its too bad that you have fallen into a trap of circular definitions.

People usually try to "prove" something by defining two words same and then claim that they are same.

However, two problems:

1. Words are necessary to define a word, so all definitions logically must be circular as there are no infinite number of words in dictionary.

Since each time you use one word to define another, that one word must be defined by a third word, third word must be defined by fourth, fourth by fifth... and so on until you get circular definitions. This is why definitions in dictionary are either circular or defined by using words not defined in that dictionary.

Thus, when you attempt to define two things in same way to prove that they are same, not only is that circular reasoning or depending on law of identity to be true, but words in the definitions which you are using cannot in any way be defined without also using circular definitions which fail to demonstrate that the thing mentioned in definitions even exist. To make it simple, if you define apple as apple, there is no way to even know what apple is or to prove its existence. Since all definitions in the dictionary can only be circular or defined using undefined words, there is nothing in definition which can explain what something is or prove its existence.

So even if you could prove that your definition is true and not just assumption, which you cant, you still wouldnt actually prove anything since words used in definitions are either circular or undefined, neither is proof.

2. Second problem is a bit bigger issue. You want to define two things in exactly same way to prove that they are same. However, this is not just circular reasoning, but you also have to prove that same things are same. There is no way for you to prove this, because even when using circular logic, it is impossible to prove that A = A. There is simply no way for you to prove this premise which your entire case depends on.

2 is our way of saying there is one more entity in the scenario now there are two cars

Now you must prove that one more entity means two. If you define two as one more entity, then that is circular reasoning, but also you must prove that two = two or that 2 = one more entity. Repeating that "two" means "one more entity" to prove that "two" means "one more entity" is circular reasoning, but you also cannot prove that "two" means "one more entity".

If you went with conditional "If A, then A", that also needs to be proved.

Basically, if you say: ""two" means "one more entity" because "two" means "one more entity"", you would still have to prove that claim. No matter what circle you create with this, the only way for you to prove it is to create another circle which you must also prove, and so on to infinity.

Simply definiting "2" as "1+1" means that your actual claim of "1+1=2" is actually "2=2".

Thus, you must prove that "2=2".

, no longer singular but multiple but only by 1.

Can you prove that "multiple but only by 1" means two?

the + siqn is adding them twogether 1 apple + another apple = 2 apples

Can you prove that adding one apple and one apple equals 2 apples?

If you define 2 apples as "adding one apple and one apple", then can you prove that 2 apples are 2 apples?

How can you prove that two apples equals two apples?

I know this is complicated and everything, but who knows, maybe people learn something.

Round 5

Not published yet

Not published yet

Its just contingency argument (cosmological argument) being applied to logic itself.

As for logic not always existing, or time before logic, it is taken from argument-question of who created laws of universe, but just changed to who created laws of logic.

I'm intrigued by what you've said in this debate, especially with your argument in the Fourth Round. It's really interesting to me. Do you have a recommendation on where to learn more about the concepts you're talking about? Sorry if I sound sarcastic because of the general attitude of this website, but I am genuinely curious

Prove to me that God isnt real!