Debate #1 - The supposition"God exists" is a valid proposition for consideration in logical analysis

We must acknowledge the contenders bravery and his/her valiant attempt to defend the truth. .. As he sees it. To properly reply to his rebuttal, I will first analyze his arguments, determine which premises and "con"clusions that Con has that are valid and reasonalbe for consideration. Secondly, I will attempt to disprove on or more of his valid premisis and conclusions. Finally, I will attempt to refute his conclusions with an example of reason. [Analysis of Cons Rebuttal] [Logical Analysis of Intro] = contains some premises, one conclusion, and a few opinion. P: "where logic applies of course this can mean many things in most cases involving facts" Q: "logical analysis is required only when in doubt of facts or when there are too little facts and assumptions must be made" R: "Logical analysis is done to reach a conclusion on something" Hmmm, is this true? Q states "logical analysis is required when in doubt of facts" umm YES! R states "THEN, logical anlysis is done to reach a conclusion" umm YES! ! As "God exists" is a supposition and by definition not a fact, it appears that cons Intro Argument aggrees with my position that "God Exists" is valid for logical analysis. This argument is actually my argument reworded. DOH! Con may want to retract his intro paragraph. [Logical Analysis of 2nd Paragraph] P2:A1:P: "The uncertain belief that god exists cannot be a valid assertion to consider in a logical analysis" P2:A1:Q: because it's pointless to consider it. NOTE: though this argument P2:A1 precedes A2, it is obvious that Con needs Paragraph 2, Argument 2 to define pointless. P2:A2:P: "Its pointless to wonder whether a being thats all powerful exists" P2:A2:Q: "since it will never be proven or disproven first humans should figure out how our world works and how the universe works" P2:A2:Example: many advancements have been made mainly the theory of relativity by Einstein and quantum mechanics by several Dutch scientists. " Argument A1 and A2 are dependent. P2:A2:P is that same logical argument as unresoned men of history that "it is pointless to wonder wheter the world is round" becasue "it's stupid" It can be noted that most men chose the same position as Con when the opposing proposition was considered stupid. Only AFTER an unproven is knowably true or false can one consider the opposing position stupid. Con indicates that it is only neccesary to work one side of the equation and the other side is irrelevant and as he knows the answer already, he has no need to look at the other side. If con is asked what the square root of 4 is, he will reply 2 an overwhelming majority of the time. WHEN we ALL KNOW that the answer is BOTH 2 and -2. By definition, reason requires us to look at both sides no matter what you "believe" when you cannot "know". If you are only working one half of the possibilities, then you are only reasoning half of the problem. If you only reason half, then you have NOT reasoned well. P2:A3:P: My opponent must prove that this consideration is relevant. This proposition is valid, and true, and is part of no argument, therefor we can ignore it as it has no bearing on our argument. P2:A4:Q: If one believes in god P2:A4:R: then theirs no reason to consider anything. P2:A4:Example: Those that don't believe but question gods existence either want to be proven wrong and want to believe or want to be proven right of course neither will happen. AWSOME, HERE, we can see that my opponed USED logic, AND used the similar reworded proposition "If one believes in God" to conduct his own logical analysis. WOW, if we supposed his argument were true, then we MUST suppose his reasoning is invalid as P2:A4:Q is by HIS definition "stupid". How can he use it to validate his reasoning and debate that I cannot have the VERY SAME right. This is a logical contradiction and as you can see, quite absurd. BUT NOTE: it does not mean he is wrong, he just made a mistake in reasoning. Hi argument is really another familiar argument worded differently. This one would have us suppose that nothing we don't know is worth discovering. He would propose that anything we do not know is not worth the effort of reasoning about it. If he does not mean this, then he is saying that men should be allowed to determine what other men can reason about AND if the majority agree that it is "stupid" then they should not be allowed their "ridiculous" assumptions, suppositions, and beliefts. Men such as this would have prevented us from ever circumnavigating the globe or visiting the moon. Men such as this would have us believe in democratic truths such that the majority wins and pop culture can dictate that "God Exists" is stupid. It's unknown. [Logical Analysis of Paragraph 3] None needed, all statments in this paragraph argue OR give example of the truth value of the proposition "God Exists" which is NOT in dispute or up for debate. Therefore, we can reduce Paragraph 3 from our analysis as off topic. The true or false value of the proposition isn't under consideration. .. our right to suppose as we choose is. This attempt to insert a true that has no relevance is often used to "gain the votes" of an audience that might accidently aggree an irrelevant argument supports Cons "Con"Clusion. [Summary] It appears that Con actually proves my points in all cases. It appears that Con, for some "reason" chooses the position that he and his peers are the ultimate deciders of what we can think about or suppose. His closing paragraph indicates he is either young, or clearly on the left AND in a position that gets to "decide whats best for us" and what "we can think about. " This exact same arguemnt is possible with someone on on the right as well. Where they would differ in Cons opposition, they would oppose something like "The Theory of Evolution is True". Their argument would have similarities with Cons, that" evolution is stupid, because God created man" They too would be thought police attempting to control and direct our explorations of truth. They too would have us NOT investigate or explore the other side of the coin. The reasoned position is obviously my position and the unreasoned is obviously Cons. An example of proof would be the U. S. Constitution and its ammemdments. Reasoned, logical men fought and died for this very principle that Con and I argue. If you truly believe that men have the right to suppose, then why would you oppose and riddicule those who believe different than you when you KNOW you can't prove them false? If you COULD prove them false, they they would in fact be stupid. If you cannot, then they ARE NOT STUPID.