Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

"My first response is the concept of a self causing cause is just as illogical as the concept of an infinite regress. If my opponent's conclusion is that an illogical thing must be the cause of the universe, why not just choose the infinite regress?" God is all powerful. This gives him the power to break logic. If he is all powerful, nothing stops him from self-creation. Infinite regress is simply impossible under my premises. "My second response is that the notion that everything must come from something is not right reasoning. We understand that things come from other things based on our day to day interactions. Thus, the premise that all things come from other things is not right reason, making the conclusion unreasonable." Inductive reasoning allows us to generalize this principle, and it is a principle which virtually all science and reasoning rests on. If cause and effect are not necessarily in existence, we cannot answer any question. That is the more illogical idea. "My third response is that even if all the above were true, the proof only lists that a powerful "thing" was responsible for the creation of the universe. This thing is substantially different from the Judeo-Christian "God" as stated in the topic." God is an all-powerful thing. I can choose any of the all-powerful things. It is just as rational to believe that God is the all-powerful thing as it is to believe that Freddy the Unicorn was the all-powerful thing. I choose God simply because I want to. He is one of many similar answers. "Though Pascal's wager is quite convincing, I myself have a problem with it. You see, I worship the God Bareth'Napal, and the believers of Bareth'Napal get to go to the Christian Heaven as well as bring any loved ones with them. However, if I am not a believer, Bareth'Napal will send me AND my loved ones to the Christian Hell. Thus, I would much rather believe in MY God than the Judeo Christian God." Actually, I'd believe in both. Because if I do that, I am more likely to go to heaven. "In all seriousness though, there are hundreds and thousands of religious beliefs present today. Pascal's wager holds absolutely no power. To throw in another response, I'm not sure that God, being as omniscient and benevolent as he is, would be too keen on people falsely believing in him just for the after-death perks." God is the only god that is considered all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, all-loving, and all-just. This God is much more likely to uphold his end of the deal than Zeus is. I anticipate you will object that you could come up with Uthmal, another all-powerful, all-knowing, et cetera god. This logic does not overturn Pascale's Wager because a god with the same characteristics as God is effectively God, so belief in Uthmal is belief in God, just with a different name. For example, Allah, the Muslim God is God, and to extend this even further, Dios, the Spanish name for God, is still God, just because He has another name does not change the fact. Also, Pascale said that this wager was not why we should believe, but why belief was rational. So, I'm not believing in God because of perks, it's just that my belief has potential advantages that make it rational. "The wizard Merlin was feared by all for his ability to throw fireballs. Today, we have grenade launchers that essentially do the same thing. The amazing, beyond belief things of today are not quite so impressive tomorrow. The examples that my opponent produced, namely, the mystical magical numbers, are relevant to those fields of mathematics purely because mathematics is a perfect science, created by man. It is akin to looking at a 10,000 piece puzzle and being amazed that each piece seems to fit in perfectly with its neighbors. Of course it does. That's the nature of the puzzle. It is the same case with mathematics. Mathematics operates under perfect principles developed by man, so doubtlessly, perfection will arise from it." I could offer more examples, but I feel like giving you this point. However, one conceded point does not lose me the debate. "My first response: Nothing would make me happier than having rampant, unprotected sex with numerous, unbelievably attractive women day after day after day. And you don't need a scientific study to show that sex makes people happy. However, this is unreasonable to dedicate my life to. This argument is quite weak in that there are SO many ways in which one can find happiness, adopting a religion is only one out of millions." William James, founder of Pragmatism says "Pragmatism asks its usual question. 'Grant an idea or belief to be true,' it says, 'what concrete difference will it being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized...What, in short is the truth's cash value in experiential terms?'" On God says that we must determine whether belief in God improves life, or if it makes no difference/has a negative impact. Belief in God makes one happier, gives meaning to life, and gives one a positive outlook on life. Whether God exists or not is unknowable, but the benefits of belief are numerous, and this rationalizes belief. My opponent misinterprets Pragmatism. Pragmatism is an answer to metaphysical questions, not a system of action. "My second response: There are a number of different religious beliefs that entail the pursuit of happiness or an equivalent state that does not revolve around God, or even any god. Even if you were to conclusively show that Religion is a necessity for happiness, you cannot specify which and thus, cannot complete your proof." There is no reason to like vanilla cake more than chocolate cake, yet it is not irrational to like vanilla cake more. Also, it makes sense for me to be Presbyterian because it is the socially accepted religion in my family, and it makes sense for my friend to be Hindu, because his family accepts Hinduism. It depends which religion one ought to believe in, just based off Pragmatism. I use Pascale to further justify belief in God. "The concept of a God and the concept of afterlife developed from ignorance and fear. Much like how small children would create superheroes with their friends on the floor of their bedrooms to thwart bullies and give them toys, people also gave attributes to a being much like themselves. Humans feared death, so gave God the attribute of immortality. They gave God the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience because they crave power and knowledge." Although this is a rational explanation for why God was believed in, it does not negate my argument. People can often create imaginary things that end up being real. Just because the creation of the concept of God may not be divine, it does not disprove God's existence. My opponent then relates God to the boogieman. Fact: some children also believe in lions eating them. Some beliefs are false, others are true. I contend that belief in God is like belief in lions. Summary of the debate so far: I have made four contentions. Contention 1: Proof of First Cause I said a first cause is necessary, and that God provides a first cause. My opponent attacked my assumption that everything had a cause, and attacked the rationality of self-creation. I rebutted these attacks by using inductive reasoning, and showing that an omnipotent being could reasonably self-create. Contention 2: Pascale's Wager I used Pascale's Wager to justify belief in God. My opponent then said Pascale's Wager can apply to all religions. I rebutted this by arguing that only God will definitely uphold the deal. Contention 3: Empirical Evidence I conceded this point. Contention 4: Pragmatism I said Pragmatism justifies belief in God. My opponent's attack was based off a misinterpretation, and is therefore dropped. My opponent also made the case that God is a primitive explanation for man's fear. I answered this by showing that God can still exist, regardless of these men's motives in