Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6080
God must exist.
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
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1587
rating
185
debates
55.95%
won
Description
The evidentialist model is used by Christians and Atheists alike to prove their respective beliefs, however - unlike Christians - Atheists are unjustified in their use of it. Both Christians and Atheist presuppose the existence of transcendentals, and I am arguing that belief in a God is necessary for justifying truth claims.
I am not arguing through a correspondence theory, which states that an atheistic worldview is demonstrably false. I am instead arguing through a coherency theory of truth, in that my worldview is more coherent than yours, and that you must believe in a God to justify your use of evidentialism.
As a Christian I expect my opponent to be an atheist. I am not arguing for Christianity, I am only arguing for the belief in a God. I won't accept any argument from deism, for example that my worldview requires a specific type of God which it lacks, etc.
Debate Requirements: A brain, and good manners.
I hope to keep it short and simple.
Round 1
When Christians and Atheists engage in debate, they almost always do so within an evidentialist framework. This means that they rely heavily on empirical data and inductive reasoning to support their claims. For example, a Christian might argue for the truth of Christianity based on the historical reliability of the Bible or the resurrection of Christ. Conversely, an Atheist might argue for evolution as an alternative to the Biblical account of creation, thinking it renders religious belief obsolete. Both arguments, however, presuppose the validity of induction and the laws of logic. What is often neglected in these discussions is a more foundational question: What justifies the very tools we are using to reason with?
When a person uses logic or induction to argue, they are assuming certain transcendental realities. These include the laws of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middle), mathematical truths, moral principles, and even the reliability of sense perception. All of these are taken as given - fixed, universal, and binding upon everyone. But the deeper issue lies at the paradigmatic level: What is the ontological foundation for such realities? Why should we assume, in a godless universe, that such laws exist or that they are binding?
So, my first question to my opponent is this: How do you justify your use of logic in this debate to draw any conclusions at all? Are the laws of logic merely social constructs? Or perhaps they emergent properties of matter?
When you answer that question, you also come into the problem of induction. Science and everyday reasoning both depend heavily on induction: we observe consistent patterns in nature and assume that they will continue in the future. Why should you - as an atheist - assume this? What is your basis for believing that nature will behave tomorrow as it did today, and thus basing your entire worldview on this?
Thus my second question to my opponent is this: In a completely random, purposeless, chaotic, and godless universe, what justification do you have for trusting that the future will resemble the past, and that the laws of nature will remain consistent?
Lastly, the very debate we have presumes that truth exists, that it is objective, and that you and I are capable of recognizing it. We are engaging in this debate because we both believe it is possible to present an argument - which corresponds to reality - which hopefully will change our beliefs for the better.
My final question to my opponent is this: Do you believe, in your worldview, that human thought is reduced to nothing more than biochemical reactions in the brain? If you do, then on what basis can you claim that your conclusions are objectively true - or that mine are objectively false?
Now, I will present my first argument for the existence of God, which is based on the transcendental necessity of the laws of logic:
P1: Fundamental principles of logic, which form our basis of reasoning and rational thought, do exist, are necessary, universal, and immaterial.
P2: These principles cannot be grounded in anything material, or contingent, since that which is material or contingent is not necessary, not universal, and not invariant.
P3: These principles cannot be grounded in our minds alone, because our minds are not necessary, not universal, and not invariant.
P4: The only sufficient ground for these fundamental principles to exist, is if they exist within a mind which is necessary, universal, and immaterial.
P5: God, as traditionally understood in classical theism, is the only being which fits this description.
C1: Therefore, the existence of logical absolutes presupposes the existence of God.
C2: Thus, the very act of reasoning (which uses logic) presupposes God's existence.
Looking forward to your response.
Welcome, users.
We are now present on DART's #6080th debate.
Hosting this discussion, linguslerry assumes the role of Pro while his contender Sir.Lancelot takes him on.
The subject addresses the likelihood and probablity of God's existence. The resolution clarifies that God in this context has a very broad definition, and makes it clear that arguing one or two three religious categories is not the topic of the conversation.
Let's see how these two competitors hash out their first round.
-----
Thank you, Pro.
Since my opponent suggests that an evidentialist framework is an essential requirement for atheist vs theist debates, I now wish to call the shots on clarifying the rules for this framework.
- The BOP is on Pro.
- My position is not that God doesn't exist, or it is more likely that God doesn't exist. My position is that God is not necessary for our universe's existence.
- Since Pro is making the argument that God must exist. Must, as defined by Oxford Languages as something logically very likely, means that Pro needs to show that God's existence is obvious according to the very laws of reason.
I wish to comment here that the first round appears to be wasted, as Pro's burden is very heavy to carry here. Rather than supporting his case of God, his first approach is to make multiple unrelated questions to leave room for doubt about the atheist's own critical & reasoning abilities to deflect the burden that really belongs to Pro. As the calculation or reliability of my own senses, and reasoning ability is irrelevant to whether God should or shouldn't exist.
Now here are the reasons Pro raises for arguing his case of God.:
P1: Fundamental principles of logic, which form our basis of reasoning and rational thought, do exist, are necessary, universal, and immaterial.P2: These principles cannot be grounded in anything material, or contingent, since that which is material or contingent is not necessary, not universal, and not invariant.P3: These principles cannot be grounded in our minds alone, because our minds are not necessary, not universal, and not invariant.P4: The only sufficient ground for these fundamental principles to exist, is if they exist within a mind which is necessary, universal, and immaterial.P5: God, as traditionally understood in classical theism, is the only being which fits this description.C1: Therefore, the existence of logical absolutes presupposes the existence of God.C2: Thus, the very act of reasoning (which uses logic) presupposes God's existence.
These are assumptions.
Valid or not, the association that Pro attempts to make between the fallibility of human intellect and God is not a convincing one.
-----
Pro begins the first round by throwing rhetorical questions, designed to weaken the case of the opposing side, followed by a list of principles that he states dictates the laws of logic. Con counters this by declaring most of these questions off-topic and proceeds to poke holes by pointing out that Pro's case relies more on preconceived beliefs than a set of facts.
Round 2
Thank you for your response.
It has become evident that my opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature and purpose of the argument I presented. My questions were not “unrelated” as my opponent puts it, and this is because they are not dodging the burden of proof but are instead integral to it. I have offered a transcendental argument for God, which differs from an evidentialist approach because it argues from a paradigmatic level. I am arguing from the very preconditions of intelligibility which are the very foundation of any debate, including this one, and I am completely justified in this because of my belief in a God which satisfies these preconditions. I am asking my opponent for his justification, which he has failed to give.
My opponent has also stated that it is my burden to demonstrate that God’s existence is “obvious according to the very laws of reason”. This is precisely what I have done because I am arguing that God’s existence is the necessary precondition for reason itself.
My opponent should go back, answer my questions, and clarify his position.
With regards to the argument I proposed. P1 is not a controversial claim, it’s something that my opponent and I both presuppose when we engage in debate. If logic were not universal or necessary, then my opponent would have no reason to trust his own reasoning or expect me to follow it. Not only this, but denying logic, with logic, is self-defeating. Thus, P1 holds true, and P2 follows from this.
I would like to clarify for my opponent, that labelling my reasoning as “unconvincing” without offering a counter-explanation is not a refutation, but a dismissal. When my opponent responds, I expect that he will show that either my premises are false, my conclusion does not logically flow from them, or that his worldview can provide a better foundation and justification for the existence of logic.
Forfeited
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet