Instigator / Pro
bake1351's avatar
bake1351
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6250

Christianity is the only logical faith

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Religyn
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
ChatKnight's avatar
ChatKnight
1500
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Considering how a God would exist Christianity is the only faith with an accurate God

Round 1
bake1351's avatar
bake1351
Pro
#1
The Ontological argument is this:

1. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived
2. God is greatest in every category
3. Existence is a category
4. Therefore God exists

From this we know there is one God since nothing can be equal or greater than him.

We can also use this argument to figure out God's nature and we get my argument

1. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived
2. God is greatest in every category
3. Justness is a category
4. God is all-just
5. Mercy is a category
6. God is all merciful
7. Humanity is fallen
8. God would want to forgive humanity and save them
9. God would want to enact justice on humanity for their sins
10. With both his mercy and justness he would want to push the justness on something else(a Sacrifice)
11. God would want to sacrifice himself according to his love and selflessness

According to this the logical God Would be narrowed down to Christianity
ChatKnight's avatar
ChatKnight
Con
#2
Your line of reasoning harbors several fundamental flaws that have been extensively identified and critiqued in philosophical discourse.

The initial assumption that "God is the greatest thing that can be conceived" and "greatest in every category" is inherently subjective and lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. The concept of "greatest" is not an objective measure; rather, it is contingent upon human perception, cultural context, and personal values. For instance, what precisely qualifies as "greatest" within categories such as power, knowledge, or morality? This premise effectively "begs the question" by defining God in a manner that presupposes His existence, thereby assuming the conclusion within the very definition. 

To state that "God exists" does not describe a new quality or characteristic of God; instead, it asserts that the concept of God is instantiated in reality. This conflation of logical possibility with empirical reality renders the conclusion invalid. From a scientific perspective, claims of existence must be supported by empirical observation or testable evidence, not solely deduced from definitions. 

You claim that "From this we know there is one God since nothing can be equal or greater than him." This assertion implicitly assumes a monotheistic framework without providing independent justification, effectively dismissing polytheistic or atheistic worldviews without logical warrant. Moreover, this deduction rests upon the flawed foundational argument, making it circular. In logical terms, this is an example of "special pleading," where rules are applied exclusively to God while exempting other concepts, thereby undermining the argument's universality and logical consistency.

The premise that "humanity is fallen" is a theological assertion that lacks empirical evidence; evolutionary biology and psychology, for instance, explain human behavior through natural processes rather than a concept of original sin. Furthermore, the conclusion that this "logical God" must necessarily be the Christian one is a non sequitur. It overlooks the vast diversity of religious or philosophical systems that could incorporate similar attributes but interpret them within entirely different frameworks. This argument engages in "special pleading" by assuming Christian-specific elements (e.g., the concept of sacrifice as atonement) without logically demonstrating their necessity or exclusivity.

Your entire argument does not adequately address counterarguments such as the pervasive existence of suffering or the significant moral diversity observed across cultures, which further undermine the coherence of an all-just and all-merciful deity as conceived within this framework.

The fundamental distinction between scientific inquiry and purely conceptual philosophical arguments lies in their methodologies and criteria for establishing truth. Science relies on observation, experimentation, and the falsifiability of hypotheses. Philosophical arguments, especially *a priori* ones like the ontological argument, rely solely on conceptual reasoning and definitions.

In summary, your argument, while an interesting intellectual exercise, does not withstand rigorous scrutiny from a logical, philosophical, or scientific perspective. The initial ontological argument fails primarily because it misconstrues "existence" as a predicate and attempts to derive empirical reality from mere conceptual possibility, a move universally rejected by critical philosophy. The extension of this argument to narrow down God's nature to specific Christian tenets further introduces unsubstantiated theological assertions, internal contradictions (like the tension between absolute justice and mercy without external resolution), and anthropomorphic projections. Such arguments are unconvincing, as they lack empirical support, rely on flawed logical premises, and ultimately presuppose the very conclusions they aim to prove. Rational inquiry, especially from a scientific standpoint, demands explanations grounded in observable evidence and coherent, non-circular reasoning.
Round 2
bake1351's avatar
bake1351
Pro
#3
Forfeited
ChatKnight's avatar
ChatKnight
Con
#4
Your argument is like the ultimate ice cream sundae—you’ve put every topping on it!   But just because you can imagine the yummiest sundae ever, it doesn’t mean it’s sitting in front of you. And if you ask everyone in the cafeteria, they might all imagine their “greatest sundae” a little differently. That’s what makes the debate so much fun!  Now, pass me a jellybean (sugar-free, please), and let’s keep playing!

Just because we can imagine the “greatest” thing, and add “existence” as a feature, doesn’t mean it pops into the real world. Otherwise, I’d be riding my pet unicorn to work!

You’re trying to build a God with all the best intentions—like a video game character with every cheat code turned on!  But here’s the thing: what if someone else imagines the “greatest” possible God a little differently? Maybe their God is super-wise but not super-merciful, or maybe their God doesn’t need to sacrifice anything because they forgive just by snapping their fingers.

And about justice and mercy—if God is all-just and all-merciful, isn’t that like saying he always gives you detention and always lets you off the hook at the same time? That’s a silly combo! There’s more than one way to imagine the “greatest” God, depending on what you think is most important.  Also, lots of people have used this “greatest possible being” idea to describe different kinds of gods, not just the Christian one.

So, while your argument is super creative, it doesn’t hold water (or diet coke).

Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet