Greetings. I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for allowing me to take part in this debate, I was quite excited when I saw Guitarkirby's profile, we have almost identical birthdays. I think we'd make good opponents.
Now, the topic of this debate is whether or not the Judeo-Christian God exists. In these types of debates, there are always several expectations. I want to talk briefly about what I will and will not be doing in this debate.
I will not be providing evidence to try and prove God's existence. Yes, you have read that correctly, I am not going to give evidence of God's existence. Why? The answer is quite simple. The Judeo-Christian God already said that everyone here engaged in this debate has enough evidence.
Romans chapter 1 verses 18-25 make God's existence not something that needs to be proved from the use of evidential arguments, but rather so certain and so clear, and so innate within us all, that mankind is under His wrath for denying what they already know. This is the Sensus Divinatus. The Judeo-Christian doctrine that God's existence is a certainty, revealed to man so clearly that we all know His existence. So how will we get anywhere in this debate?
Well let me explain what I am going to be doing, I am going to be arguing that God exists from the impossibility of the contrary, that is, if He didn't exist, you couldn't argue at all. Now I stated that there are several expectations in this debate. Many of them are held by my opponent.
1. My opponent expects me to be logical in this debate. My opponent, by starting this debate, has presupposed logical absolutes and laws of logic that operate as constants. My opponent does not expect logic to suddenly change round to round, my opponent expects me to logical in all my rounds. And to do so by abiding by strict laws of logic.
2. My opponent has presupposed ethical and moral absolutes. By starting this debate, my opponent does not expect me to win this debate by trying to get this website to crash. My opponent expects me to be polite and non abusive in my responses. My opponent does not expect me to lie in this debate, in fact, this debate presupposes we have a commitment to the truth, and that I should treat my opponent with dignity and respect.
3. My opponent has presupposed truth is knowable, and can be discerned by human senses. When reading my responses, my opponent is not, at any time, going to say "I wonder if my eyes are accurately telling me the truth about what I am seeing, I wonder if these words are what my opponent really said?" My opponent has expected his/her eyes as actually giving him/her the truth. That is, my opponent has presupposed the reliability and truthfulness of human senses.
It is my argument, that if the Judeo-Christian God did not exist, my opponent would have absolutely no basis for the unchanging immaterial laws of logic which to abide by. Why? Because these laws are grounded in the existence of my Unchanging Immaterial God, they reflect His mind and nobody else's independent of Him.
It is my argument my opponent has no right to expect to be treated fairly and not lied to in this debate without my God, my God alone determines what is moral and just, and we have human dignity not because we are bags of matter, but because we are His images, and representatives on earth. Lying in this debate is not wrong because my opponent and I agreed so, lying is wrong because God has said "Thou shalt not lie" and my God is Truth Himself, and we as His image bearers must act in accordance with that.
It is my argument that because my Truthful and Benevolent God created our senses to work properly, the world around us is not deceiving us, and we can know for certain what we perceive. My opponent does not start with this axiom, therefore I will ask, what justification does my opponent bring for trusting their senses? Does my opponent have any justification for knowing what he knows as a certainty?
So, I am not going to talk about the complexity of the eye, or how the universe began to exist. All of those are great evidences. My God does not need His creature to try and prove Him to anyone. My God is so sovereign that His existence is unescapable. That is, by starting this debate, my opponent already presupposed things that would not exist without God, and therefore by debating God my opponent has presupposed universal logical absolutes, universal moral absolutes, and that his senses and reasoning are actually describing the truth, without God, I wait to see where my opponent grounds these universal certainties, by debating God, my opponent has shown his need for God.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-05 22:59:56| Speak Round
A thanks to my opponent for agreeing to take part in this debate, and to the judges.
It seems that Pro has decided to take a presuppositionalist stance on this matter, for which I'm sorely disappointed. I could argue from many standpoints if we were actually going to have a debate, but since my opponent has decided to take this route, I'm forced to simply respond to my opponent's presuppositional claims.
1. Yes, I do in fact want to abide by rules of logic. This is because using logic and reason has a track record for me personally of leading me to that which conforms with reality, ergo what is "true." However, logical absolutes are very much in question. While logic is very useful, the way in which we apply it and use it does and has changed over time, and likely will in the future.
2. What makes you think I've presupposed ethical or moral absolutes? I said no such thing. Kindly don't tell me what I believe before I've stated it. I am of the opinion that morality isn't absolute or even objective. While I would very much appreciate it if you were polite and respectful, I certainly don't demand or expect it, particularly when you've opened your argument by trying to define what I believe.
3. When you say that I've presupposed that truth is knowable, you're moving into dangerous territory. You've defined neither truth nor knowledge. I would define truth as that which best conforms with reality, and truth is that which we can understand to a certain degree of uncertainty. Since you're taking the presuppostional route, my guess would be that you're defining truth as a justified true belief, and that knowledge is what we can know with no uncertainty whatsoever. I dismiss the first definition as being circular if you are using it, since you have to have a way to justify a belief, which makes calling it "true" repetitive and manipulative. The second is a major issue, because we can't be absolutely certain of anything except things that are definitionally true (a square is always a shape with four sides of equal length and four right angles, regardless of what you call it). However, these things are always abstracts (there are no true squares that occur naturally, eg they are man-made).
Additionally, I find it quite ironic you mentioned my eyesight. I have very poor vision, and can't drive without glasses. So I don't trust my natural vision, as it has proved to be untrustworthy.
The idea of absolute truth, or something that we can know to absolute, 100% certainty, is not warranted in almost any situation. Our minds can be tricked with both illusion and with chemicals, so we have to take everything with a certain level of uncertainty. Now, I don't approach life questioning everything - I'm not a solopsist - but this is due to pragmatism more than philosophical ideas of truth and knowledge. To answer your question, I trust my senses because if I didn't, I would have no way to interact with the reality I am able to perceive, whether that reality is "true" or otherwise. Furthermore, I don't have a justification for what I know as a certainty because I know almost nothing for a certainty.
To add to all this ridiculous, word-salad nonsense, my opponent has decided that I already believe God exists because I believe in logical and moral absolutes. However, my opponent didn't even bother to actually ask if I do believe in these things, and as I've pointed out, I do not. Further, my opponent has tried to shrug off their Burden of Proof by presupposing God's existence rather than showing up to debate it, which is disingenuous at best, and has even stated that they aren't going to try and provide evidence of God's existence, reason enough for the judges to vote Con. Finally, my opponent has also assumed that the only God that it's okay to presume is the Judeo-Christian one, but this argument could work for literally any deity.
I hope that my opponent comes to the next round ready to take part in a debate, rather than trying to presume and define God into existence.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-06 02:53:57| Speak Round
Thank you for your response. Now that you have confirmed what exactly you believe concerning logic, truth, and morality, I would like to analyze several things you have said. We need to remember that the presuppositional methodology is about worldviews. Which worldview is consistent and comports with human experience. The Judeo Christian worldview, I seek to prove, is consistent and correct in light of it's opposite, atheism.
"However, logical absolutes are very much in question. While logic is very useful, the way in which we apply it and use it does and has changed over time, and likely will in the future."
It is this epistemology which not only destroys the foundations for this debate, but all future debates. I am certain that my opponent is not willing to accept the ramifications of what he is stating. If the way we use logic "will likely change in the future" then perhaps the way I use logic did change, since this post is in the future from my opponent's post. Since that is the case, I would like to know if my opponent believes circular logic to be fallacious at all times? Is circular logic acceptable in the future? Since logic's use and applicatio may have changed, my new argument for God is:
God exists because He exists.
See logic is a constant (will not change and does not change) and my opponent's worldview must be able to account for this fact. If this fact is not accepted, only absurdity follows. Does my opponent accept my new argument? If no then why? You do not believe in logical absolutes, so again, what makes you believe the laws of logic will apply anywhere and at any time? If they do not apply at all times, then why should they apply now? God exists because He exists, when you state this argument is fallacious, and you will, you are using logical standards by which to judge me. If those standards and methods change, then why is my argument fallacious?
"What makes you think I've presupposed ethical or moral absolutes? I said no such thing. Kindly don't tell me what I believe before I've stated it. I am of the opinion that morality isn't absolute or even objective. While I would very much appreciate it if you were polite and respectful, I certainly don't demand or expect it, particularly when you've opened your argument by trying to define what I believe.
Since you stated morality is not absolute or objective, I must ask you, would me torturing babies for pleasure be absolutely and objectively wrong? That is a yes or no question by the way.
"When you say that I've presupposed that truth is knowable, you're moving into dangerous territory. You've defined neither truth nor knowledge."
My apologies, you are correct. For clarity, we will go with a correspondence theory of truth. Truth is that which is real. Knowledge is justified true belief yes.
"so we have to take everything with a certain level of uncertainty"
Mr. Guitarkirby, is everything you wrote in your response to me subject to this? You stated that I was telling you what you believed, that I wrote word salad, that I am not actually debating, that morality is subjective, that logic can change, so on and so forth. Since you said you have to take everything with a certain level of uncertainty, are you certain we are having this debate? Are you certain that what you are seeing, hearing, feeling, and reasoning is not an entirely made up dream world?
And this is the problem. To not be certain is to not know. If I stated that I know you are debating me, but I am not certain, that is not something I know. The only possible solution is to have certainty from God, because God is all knowing and can reveal things to us that we can be certain of.
"Additionally, I find it quite ironic you mentioned my eyesight. I have very poor vision, and can't drive without glasses. So I don't trust my natural vision, as it has proved to be untrustworthy."
I wasn't so much arguing if you believe that the actual eye is functioning correctly, but rather if what the eye is telling you about the world is actually real. Since you have stated you must take everything with a certain level of uncertainty, I would be justified in saying that you don't?
Mr. Guitarkirby, is it objectively morally wrong to be disingenuous?
Not really, Zeus for example wouldn't work, he is not unchanging and is often seen as being made of matter, that couldn't justify the unchanging immaterial laws of logic. Allah of the Quran for example is called "The best of deceivers" and therefore cannot account for certainty because he might be deceiving his creation. The Hindu gods are almost all made of some sort of matter and that leads back to the problem of logical absolutes. Looking at the Roman or Greek gods, they often engaged in morally questionable acts like incest, so one could fix morality to them, but it would not be a very good looking morality. The only solution is to have an immaterial, unchanging, morally benevolent and truthful God.
So just to recap:
You have stated that you do not believe in logical or moral absolutes, and that you take everything with a degree of uncertainty. This is problematic:
1. If there are no logical absolutes, who's to say fallacious arguments are fallacious? Again, I argue God exists because He exists.
2. If there are no moral objective truths or absolutes, I certainly would like to know if it would be objectively wrong to shoot my debate opponent? Would it be absolutely wrong to kill my opponent for simply disagreeing with my conclusions?
3. If everything has to be approached with a certain level of uncertainty, are all the claims you made in your post subject to this?
My argument is that without God, there would be no certainty, no objective morality, no unchanging logic, and no universal absolutes. There are these things however. God therefore intelligibility.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-06 09:34:38| Speak Round
Okay, lots to cover here.
I disagree with the idea that presuppositional methodology is about worldviews, but only insofar as to make the point that all debate is about worldviews. When we have these discussions and arguments, we are comparing and contrasting views of the world. I don't know how that differs from any other debate format or method.
Certainly, I believe circular logic to be fallacious and that fallacies in general can be pointed out as examples of poor reasoning. However, as I stated before, logic is a human construct and an abstract. If my opponent, the judges, and myself are in agreement on the rules of logic used for this argument, then we can agree on what is and is not sound logic, and therefore get back to actually having a discussion. As I again stated previously, logic has shown itself to be trustworthy in understanding the reality that I am able to interact with, so I am able to have a reasonable belief in its explanatory and predictive power.
Getting on to the question of torturing babies for pleasure, you've made a good choice of moral question to create a false dichotomy of "yes or no?" In fact, "I don't know" would be a perfectly sound answer to the question. If you do in fact demand that I make a judgement on this moral question, then my short answer is no. You might be quite shocked and uncomfortable about this, and I am as well. However, that doesn't make it objective, it means you and I agree that it's uncomfortable. Subjective morality, like all subjective things, is something to be discussed, so allow me to expand on my answer by giving you a different situation.
A man has broken into your home and is threatening to kill and maim your family. It's clear you will be unable to overpower him, and you have no access to outside help. However, you have been granted the ability to cause him to die instantly. It is obvious that if you do not kill him, he will kill you and your loved ones. The Bible, of course, says that God does not approve of killing, right in the ten commandments. Are you morally justified if you kill this man to defend yourself? The American legal system says you are, but remember, you are arguing that God is the source of morality, and you've made clear that you believe the Bible to be his word, so will you go against the morality set down in that book?
Truth is that which is real? I disagree. Truth is an abstract concept - you're thinking of reality. I've already noted my issues with your definition of knowledge, but I'll accept it for the sake of brevity. I still think that truth is that which we can observe to match with reality, or at the very least, the reality we have the ability to interact with.
In response to my commentary about how "certain" we can be of reality and that which surrounds us, you said
"Mr. Guitarkirby, is everything you wrote in your response to me subject to this? You stated that I was telling you what you believed, that I wrote word salad, that I am not actually debating, that morality is subjective, that logic can change, so on and so forth. Since you said you have to take everything with a certain level of uncertainty, are you certain we are having this debate? Are you certain that what you are seeing, hearing, feeling, and reasoning is not an entirely made up dream world?"
Several questions here, allow me to tackle them in the order you stated them. Yes, everything I wrote in my response is subject to my statement about certainty, and that is because I am allowing for the possibility that I am wrong for the sake of philosophical and intellectual honesty. I am certain we are having this debate to the point I am able to be certain about most things. I can observe the debate, read additional speeches, and show others the speech page and have them confirm that they also observe it. It agrees with everything I understand about the only reality with which I am able to interact, so I am forced, for the sake of pragmatism, to act as though it is the case. As I said, I am not a solopsist, so I do not believe that the world I am able to interact with is a dream/computer simulation/etc. However, if you are demanding absolute certainty as you seem insistent on defining it as, then know, I am not certain. It is quite impossible in my experience to get past this issue of hard solopsism while being intellectually and philosophically honest. But, as I said, we have a level of pragmatism that we have to address the world with lest we be unable to interact with anyone or anything.
I notice you're quick to condemn the Greek gods for their morally questionable behavior. Bringing up the issue of slavery alone in the Bible - which is really the only guide we have to understanding what God wants - could produce some morally questionable behavior. Additionally, if you insist on absolute morality and that morality coming from the Bible, you're going to have to accept ALL of the biblical moral commands, not just the ones you like. The great thing about subjective morality is that we can discuss whether something is moral and come to a consensus with one another. When we find that we've made an error in our judgement, we can take steps to correct those mistakes. Yes, it is subjective, but it allows us to make changes when we have to.
This has been a big round, so TL;DR in two parts, one to respond to my opponent's recap and one to make my own.
1) In our case, the judges decide if arguments are fallacious. If you and I agree on the logical rules ahead of time, then we can also agree on what qualifies as fallacious.
2) Nope, not objectively wrong to shoot me, because there is no objective morality. Subjectively, I think myself, the judges, the legal system, and the vast, vast majority of people would agree that it would be wrong to shoot me. Ironically, of course, if I wanted to shoot you in self-defense and we were going by your Biblical moral code, I wouldn't be morally justified in defending myself since I might kill you.
3) Yes. I am allowing for the possibility of being wrong given the correct information; it's called making a falsifiable claim, and it's the intellectually honest thing to do.
1) My opponent thinks it's fine to proclaim that there are absolutes but has provided no evidence of such.
2) My opponent is going further by saying (again, with no evidenciary support) that for logical and moral absolutes to exist God must exist, but they haven't even proven their first point.
3) My opponent also wants to insist on moral absolutes based on the Bible. I will respond by linking out to several Biblical verses, along with the endorsements they give of ideas that we in western society find unacceptable, all from the KJV.
1 Timothy 6:1-2: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." The word "servants" is translated in almost all other texts as "slaves," and is noted in text versions of the KJV as being interchangable. Jesus is outright endorsing slavery.
Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Endorses autocracy and monarchial leadership, along with execution for defying autocratic leaders.
Ephesians 6:5: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." Again note the translation. Endorsement of slavery.
Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Blantant sexism. Repeated at Colossians 3:18.
I could have pulled plenty from the Old Testament, but as many Christians insist that we are under a "New Covenant," I thought I would stick to the new for the sake of clarity.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-06 17:28:37| Speak Round
I would say all debates deal with small parts of worldviews, for example if we debated the reliability of the New Testament, eventually our world view concerning miracles would come up, but the presuppositional method deals with worldviews in their entirety, that's how I understand it though.
"Certainly, I believe circular logic to be fallacious and that fallacies in general can be pointed out as examples of poor reasoning. However, as I stated before, logic is a human construct and an abstract. If my opponent, the judges, and myself are in agreement on the rules of logic used for this argument, then we can agree on what is and is not sound logic, and therefore get back to actually having a discussion. As I again stated previously, logic has shown itself to be trustworthy in understanding the reality that I am able to interact with, so I am able to have a reasonable belief in its explanatory and predictive power."
So, we are not really going to win or lose this debate based upon who was objectively right, but rather how many judges arbitrarily agreed with your logic as opposed to mine. I do not agree to the conventions of logic my opponent is using, I used to, but again, they have since changed, and may in fact change in my next round. By the time the judges get to voting, logic may have changed in your favor, or it may not have. We will see.
God exists because He exists. I hope I have several judges who will agree with me and make a convention that this logic is perfectly valid.
"Getting on to the question of torturing babies for pleasure, you've made a good choice of moral question to create a false dichotomy of "yes or no?" In fact, "I don't know" would be a perfectly sound answer to the question. If you do in fact demand that I make a judgement on this moral question, then my short answer is no
Are false dichotomies logically invalid? In regards to your response with "no" there are only two positions in life:
Christ or absurdity. That is the point of this debate, if you do not start with God, there is only absurdity, and it is this absurdity my opponent has so willingly and lovingly embraced, so much so, that my opponent does not even believe torturing babies is objectively wrong.
Are we getting this guys? My opponent does not believe torturing babies is objectively wrong, but rather a matter of subjective opinion.
Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened
That was not an attack on my opponent, it was a bleak diagnosis of the condition of the human heart without God. A condition only Christ can heal, sir you are in my prayers regardless of the outcome of this debate, and I pray if there are any other Christians on this website, please pray for GuitarKirby.
Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him
When God says "Thou shalt not kill" He is talking about shedding innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17) In the O.T. God would have blood shed for somebody guilty of murder, if I committed murder my blood would have to be shed, God said no blood would be shed for killing a home invader here so it is not murder. God does not exclude killing in self defense. So no, I would not allow my family to die. Also, we need to be very clear about something here, just because certain moral gray areas may exist, does not mean all morality is a gray area.
"However, if you are demanding absolute certainty as you seem insistent on defining it as, then know, I am not certain"
And this is the choices we are left with, God and certainty, or no God and we don't even know if we are debating at all. We can believe all we want, we can even make reasonable guesses, but knowledge without certainty is not knowledge. If a doctor said "I know I have found the cure for cancer...I'm just not certain it will work." Does this doctor know the cure for cancer? No, of course not. But this is not relevant, we might not even be having this dialogue
"I notice you're quick to condemn the Greek gods for their morally questionable behavior. Bringing up the issue of slavery alone in the Bible - which is really the only guide we have to understanding what God wants - could produce some morally questionable behavior. Additionally, if you insist on absolute morality and that morality coming from the Bible, you're going to have to accept ALL of the biblical moral commands, not just the ones you like.The great thing about subjective morality is that we can discuss whether something is moral and come to a consensus with one another. When we find that we've made an error in our judgement, we can take steps to correct those mistakes. Yes, it is subjective, but it allows us to make changes when we have."
I will accept the morality given to me in my particular covenant. Why bother bring up slavery at all? Is slavery objectively wrong? Perhaps slavery was agreed upon by the ancient Hebrews, and they deemed it moral for them during that particular time and society. Who are you to objectively tell them they were wrong about that?
In reality, slavery in the Bible was not anything close to the slavery of early America, but again, it should make no difference, slavery or torturing babies is not objectively or absolutely wrong according to my opponent.
"My opponent thinks it's fine to proclaim that there are absolutes but has provided no evidence"
Is it absolutely true that I have provided no evidence? Is it even absolutely fallacious to proclaim things without evidence?
"Jesus is outright endorsing slavery."
" Endorses autocracy and monarchial leadership, along with execution for defying autocratic leaders.
"Again note the translation. Endorsement of slavery"
Mr. Guitarkirby, you do not believe any of these things are objectively morally wrong. Stop giving us your opinion. ;)
"For with thee is the fountain of life, in thy light shall we see light." Psalm 36:9
I would like to close this post with that verse and some quick points. My opponent does not believe in moral absolutes, but my opponent will tell me about slavery in the Bible, as though there are objective moral standards by which to make those judgments. My opponent does not believe in logical absolutes, but will be quick to point out any fallacies found in my arguments. My opponent does not believe in absolute truth but will make absolute statements such as there are no absolutes. My opponent will fervently debate me to try and defend he believes is true, but will not believe in absolute truth. My opponent will sit down at his computer, take his fingers to the keyboard, and have logical debate with me about the existence of God.
There's just one problem, my opponent does not even know IF WE ARE HAVING THIS DEBATE.
This is the result of those who deny the God of heaven and earth. Absurdity. Winning or losing this debate is of little significance, what is important is the saving of the soul. I pray that my opponent would no longer ignore the cries of his conscience, but that he would place his faith and his trust in the only solution to the condition of his heart and soul, the atoning Work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-07 01:28:23| Speak Round
Much less to unpack this round, I think. I actually hit my character limit in the last round, so we'll see what happens this time.
My opponent has now devolved from discussing my points to misrepresenting my opinion and asking people to "pray for me," lest my views on subjective morality send me to some unknown hell. My opponent has also ignored the major point I was trying to make last round, so I will reiterate it in as clear and concise a manner as I can:
Subjective morality allows us to change our views over time. Objective morality does not. Yes, my opponent is right when they say that considering the ownership of other people wrong is my opinion. Same goes for sexism, homophobia, violence towards others, autocratic governing, etc etc. I get that sense of morality from a sense of sympathy, a trait that humans have evolved over time as our intelligence and social dynamics have increased in complexity.
I'll try to hit my opponent's misrepresentations really quickly.
1) My view on logic has not changed in the course of this debate. I made very clear within the first round what my view was, and when my opponent asked me to clarify my standard (paraphrased, "how do you decide which logic is valid?") I did so. I don't care that my opponent doesn't like my standard, I only care about being intellectually honest.
2) Wrapped up in this misrepresentation of my views on "absolute" logic is my opponent's little adventure off into torturing babies. Unsurprisingly they stopped at the point where I said "no" to the question of objective morals in their quotation, and quite happily ignored my clarification of my position, because it is inconvenient to them. I view the torturing of babies as subjectively wrong, again due to the reasons outlined above and in my previous argument, which is available for anyone to look through.
3) My opponent is using my positions on morality and logic to try and dismiss the idea of a discussion out of hand. It makes for cute quips but not much for useful debate. As I have pointed out, there has been no evidence of absolutes presented. My opponent is just making declarative statements and expecting myself and you, the judges, to accept them. I do in fact presume that my opponent would want me to provide evidence for a positive claim and I will hold them, at the very least, to their own standard.
Additionally, I think it should be brought to the judges' attention that my opponent blatantly ignored my biblical citations. Rather than respond with their justification for not following the biblical commands I laid down, or giving a justification for following them (which I sincerely hope they do not) as they represent this so-called "objective morality," they gave a little quip about how I don't think these things are wrong. Correction, Pro; I DO think they are wrong. My opponent has taken my statement that morality is subjective to mean that I have no moral sense at all, which is a gross misrepresentation. Same goes for logic, truth, etc. No statements I have made are absolutes, Pro. As before, I am leaving room to correct errors in my thinking.
With all due respect, logic and morality can be explained by biology and evolutionary principles. We are a social species with extremely powerful intelligence compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. Logic is just advanced decision-making, important for a species that has very little in the way of attacking and defending itself built into our biology. Morality is just an advanced form of sympathy and empathy, again, important in a social species that forms into larger groups and has to self-sustain, e.g. not kill or maim the young of the species.
In truth, my opponent didn't come to this debate wanting to debate about God at all. As a reminder, they have stated point-blank that they will not be presenting evidence of God, nor have they done so. Instead, my opponent has spent this entire debate arguing with me about subjective vs. objective morality and logic. I have now explained my position on both multiple times and have been misrepresented multiple times. This is all because my opponent's argument is predicated on the idea that absolutes exist. However, even if these absolutes did exist, what reason do we have to think they come from God? Could they not come from aliens, spellcasters, fairies, etc.? My opponent's argument is circular in the extreme; God exists because logic exists because God exists.
I'm sure my opponent would happily spend the next year making adorable quips about my subjective stances. I hope the judges have taken proper note of the fact that my opponent has shrugged off their burden of proof and assumed their conclusion ahead of time, while making no real effort to prove their point in any way, shape, or form. It isn't God or Absurdity. It's the difference between leaving room for error and assuming your conclusion at the outset while making it unfalsifiable (untestable). My opponent can yell and scream about how logic doesn't change, but they are gladly ignoring the rules of logic that people who actually want to debate agree upon.
No standard of evidence.
No arguments in favor of God presented.
No discussion of deities outside of "praying for Guitarkirby."
No response to my questions about their objective morality.
In short, no reason to agree with Pro.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-07 02:07:45| Speak Round