Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

CONTENTION ONE: PART ONE: "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 opponent's argument: 1. Something creating itself is illogical 2. God is outside the realm of logic and is all-powerful 3. God must then be the only thing that can create itself First of all, if my opponent makes this case that God and the concept of God is outside the realm of logic, he will have conceded the debate because it would be definitively irrational. Second, my opponent can only use contention 2 if one develops the idea of an all-powerful being that operates outside the realm of logic. Conceiving of such an idea is the same as dividing by zero. We can speak about it, but cannot accurately conceptualize it and thus, any use of it is void. Third, I can simply argue that a thing existed such that it had the power to create itself. I need not state that it exists today, nor state that it is omnipotent. Occam's Razor: All things being equivalent, the simplest answer is the best. Why attach unnecessary details if our only concern is the ontological argument? CONTENTION TWO: PART TWO: Inductive reasoning that leads to a contradiction in inductive reasoning is similarly rejected by the scientific community. Traditionally, "God did it" is not an answer that can cut it in terms of math and science. The inductive principle of "everything falls down" was replaced with "everything falls towards Earth" and then refined to our current concept of gravitation in terms of mass because it contradicted with other data. Similarly, this inductive principle of causality must and will be modified because it leads to an infinite regress and/or an equally illogical prime cause. Thus, as the product of this conclusion as well as the process by which it was contrived are both faulty, we cannot say it is the product of right reason. CONTENTION ONE PART THREE: In that case, I argue that in a potentially unlimited field of omnipotent things, the choice to believe in God becomes meaningless in this regard. If 20,000 omnipotent things were potentially the cause of the universe, then my opponent's entire first contention is nullified. If all those omnipotent things are equally rational to believe, then the choice to believe God is not objective. CONTENTION TWO PART ONE: Sadly, one cannot believe in both. http://en.wikipedia.org... The first commandment states that the Judeo-Christian God shall not tolerate those who put other Gods before him. And as a necessity to worship Bareth'Napal, you MUST put Bareth'Napal before all other Gods and believe in no other. Thus, I must rationally choose to believe only in Bareth'Napal because his punishment is far worse than the punishment of the Judeo-Christian God's. CONTENTION TWO PART TWO: Bareth'Napal is quite different from God. As I have stated before, his believers get to send all their loved ones to heaven too. Thus, it would be IRRATIONAL to believe in the Judeo-Chrisian God (Doing so would have bareth'Napal send you and your loved ones to Hell). CONTENTION THREE My opponent has conceded this contention CONTENTION FOUR PART ONE: My opponent's flaw is that he assumes that all people value things equally. While the belief in God may be beneficial to some, the possibility that all the benefits come about according to a lie may violate greater values in others. The plot of the Matrix was about the escape from a false land of mass human complacency to the illusion. Similarly, the belief in God restricts our very freedom. We give up the search for truth in exchange for false hope. We give up out own, personal meanings to life in exchange for the one the Bible gives us. Our outlook on life is skewed towards that which the Bible teaches us, not a result of our personal decisions. Assuming that people value their freedom more than superficial happiness, this belief is then irrational, because accepting this belief would be forfeiting the value they hold highest. CONTENTION FOUR PART TWO: My opponent has just stated that base don Pragmatism, the rationality can develop in the belief of many gods, not just the Judeo-Christian God. As his position is to prove the rationality of believing in the Judeo-Christian God, he has essentially forfeited his position by conceding that it is rational to believe in *any* God, since the core tenet of belief in the Jude-Christian God is to not believe in any others. RESPONSES TO CRITICISMS "Just because the creation of the concept of God may not be divine, it does not disprove God's existence." I was not trying to disprove God's existence, I was offering a more rational possibility that the concept of God may have developed out of need. Yes, I admit that people can create imaginary things that happen to be real, but it is highly unlikely that one fashioned to be perfection is real. "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." I contend that since I have seen lions but have never seen God, my opponent needs to give his explanation as to why he believes so. My opponent's points have all been addressed, and he currently has no outstanding argument as to why the belief in God is rational. I have defeated his ontological proof and shown it to be illogical and thus, irrational. I have shown that belief in God as per Pascal's Wager is irrational given the multitude of beliefs in which belief in God would be detrimental (Bareth'Napal). My opponent has conceded his third point. In his final point, his argument that Pragmatism supports the rationality can be disregarded given that there is always a subjective exchange between two actions. Subjective reasoning is not right reason because only objective reasoning can be valid for this debate. I await my opponent's final response, Thank you.