It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

Con said: ” My opponent seems to think he can justify faith as logic by looking at all of the definitions, but he is mistaken. None of the definitions say anything about faith in the slightest.” Rebuttal: That’s another straw man argument. The definition does not say anything about buildinga space shuttle either, are we to assume that engineering sciences are illogical? You cannot limit the application of the definition, simply because you are bothered by it. --------------------------------------------------- Con said: “Definition 1. My opponent is not using formal logic deductions.” Rebuttal: Incorrect. Formal logic is defined as the study of inferences with purely formal content. I can apply formal logic or modal logic to scripture and to God. Consider the Kalam cosmology [3], Formal proof for God [1], Gödel’s Ontological argument [2] and many more. Regardless, I’m not here to discuss the variety ofmethods; I’m here to prove that a logic method can lead to faith. --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: “Definition 2. Inference does not equal faith.” Rebuttal: You are misinterpreting the definition. Inference is not equal to faith, but the inference can lead to faith. Faith can be (and often is) the logical conclusion drawn from an inference; or are you saying that logical conclusions cannot be rooted in inferences? See the example [1]: Something Exists.Whatever exists is limited or infinite.Whatever exists is limited.Whatever is limited requires an explanation for existence.Whatever exists is explained by itself or another.A limited thing cannot explain itself.A limited thing is explained by another.Another cannot be limited.Another is infinite. Is this formal logic leading to an inference of God? Could this lead to faith? Absolutely, on both counts. --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: Definition 3. Even in Theology, faith is not part of the system and principles of reasoning. Rebuttal: As per the thesaurus, Theology is synonymous with faith. The two cannot be separatedfrom one another. Faith is intrinsic to theology. Theology -[thee-ol-uh-jee]: noun Definition: religious theory or belief Synonyms: belief, credo, creed, doctrine,dogma, faith, theism --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: Definition 4. Faith is not reason. Rebuttal: Wow. Just like that? No source argument? That’s a mighty protest my opponent hasprovided. I’m going to ignore this little oversight and simply claim:” Argument Extended.” Or even better yet, allow me to answer in kind:” Yes it is.” --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: Definition 5. "My opponent wishes to debate the logic of God without actually talking about God." Not true at all. I never said this debate was intended to not be actually about God. That was the original intention. Rebuttal: Good. Establish your rebuttal with source and mechanism. I’m still waiting a refutation of the 5th point of Calvinism. --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: Definition 6. That is definitely not about faith. Rebuttal: I did not use #6. I argued 2/3rds of the definitions. 6,8 and 9 where never established. --------------------------------------------------- Con said: Definition 7. "Places, people, events, calendars and methods are seem to conclude the Bible has viable content of fact." My opponent makes this huge assertion without any proof whatsoever. Until such proof becomes clear, we cannot regard the Bible as anything more than fairytales." Rebuttal: Allow me to provide a list of Biblical characters that have been verified: Ahab, king of Israel Ahaz (Jehoahaz), king of Judah, Artaxerxes, king of Persia Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria Azaliah, scribe Azariah, grandfather of Ezra Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah Balaam, Moabite prophet Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon Benhadad, king of Aram Cyrus II, king of Persia Darius I, king of Persia David, king of Israel Esarhaddon, king of Assyria Evil-merodach, king of Babylon Gedaliah, governor of Judah Gemariah, scribe Geshem, Nabatean dignitary Hazael, king of Aram Hezekiah, king of Judah Hilkiah, high priest Hophra (Apries), pharaoh of Egypt Hoshea, king of Israel Jehoiachin, king of Judah Jehu, king of Israel Jehucal (Jucal), court official Jerahmeel, prince of Judah……..(etc). [4] As per archaeologist William F. Albright: “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: My opponent contends that he has met his BoP. He has not. To meet his burden of proof he must explain why it is logical to believe the Bible is accurate on the subject of God. Rebuttal: My Burden is to provide logic for faith in God. As stated:” It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.” My opponent keeps redefining the burden. --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: One does need faith to understand my opponent's R1 article. Rebuttal: No. One needs to read the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith. I don’t need to be anatheist to understand secular reasoning. What kind of objection is this? --------------------------------------------------- Con said: It is illogical to believe in something if there is no proof for it. Thus part of providing logic for faith is providing proof for God. Rebuttal: Formal logic relies on inferences, not facts. As stated in the previous round, my opponent is myopically reducing the definition of logic. in·fer·ence - noun 1. the act or process of inferring. 2. something that is inferred: to make rash inferences. 3. Logic a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises. b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises. c. a proposition reached by a process of inference. --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: Providing logic for faith and logic for existence are close to the same thing. Rebuttal: Right. Except one is my burden and the other is not. --------------------------------------------------- Con Said: My opponent provides no evidence that the golden ratio does appear. Not everyoneagrees with this. Rebuttal: As requested, the evidence. Golden Ratio in Nature - http://science.howstuffworks.com... Golden Ratio in the Human Body - http://milan.milanovic.org... The Fibonacci sequence - http://people.hws.edu... --------------------------------------------------- Round 3 / Point 3 – Personal Experience –Ontological Argument derived from Alvin Plantinga [6] I submit to the voter, my 3rd point of evidence. The logical argument for a religious experience: Premise #1 - If God is real, it is very probable that humans are granted a “cognitive faculty” thatsupplements the others, commonly referred to as the “sensus divinitatis.“ Premise #2 - If mankind is equipped with a sensus divinitatis, then faith in God is supernatural andfoundational. Therefore –“ If Christianity is true, (very probably) Christian belief can be justified,without independent evidence.” Over to you Con. http://xianphil.org... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof [2] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... [3] The Archaeology of Palestine, 1960 [4] Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, 1969, p. 169 [5] http://www.leaderu.com... [6]