Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

This has been a long debate, and my opponent has circled around my counterpoints. In order to address my opponent's concerns and to clean up the mess, I have simply decided to organize my final response in a manner easy for the audience. The first section will be my rebuttals and the second will be a summary of how I have categorically debunked each and every one of my opponent's contentions. Please skip the first section if you are tired. *********REBUTTAL "It can be rational to believe in a being that is outside of the realm of logic, if it is necessary for the truth to be true. " Incorrect. I will now show the extraordinary flaw in my opponent's argument. My opponent's argument string P1: The universe is a thing P2: All things come from other things Thus, something must have come before the universe. This repeats ad infinitum, thus, a being outside of logic must rest at the top of the chain for P2 to be true. The flaw in his argument is that his initial premise that all things come from other things may not be true. My opponent goes to great lengths, even trespassing outside the realm of logic and possibility to give an irrational argument in order to prove the premise of an argument. If my opponent were to abide by the laws of logic at all, he would know to abandon the faulty premise before appealing to an impossibility. Thus, his cosmological argument is debunked. "I am contending that although God is fundamentally incomprehensible, He is necessary for creation of the Universe. " Incorrect. Your argument only tries to show that an omnipotent being is necessary for the creation of the universe. You have not yet proven that this being MUST be the Judeo-Christian God. In addition, your argument fails in that it relies on a faulty premise, that all things must come from other things. Inductive arguments are inherently flawed and open to exceptions. The principle of causality is the result of an inductive argument, and this is one of the exceptions. It is more logical to declare this the flaw of the principle of causality than to invent a meta-logical being. "How is something that existed only long enough to create itself, and the universe simple? That seems even more complicated than the concept of God. " My opponent misinterprets my argument. I am saying that my opponent's ontological argument would only fulfill PART of his case. He may be able to show an omnipotent being, but what about benevolence, omniscience, and omnipresence? What about all the other aspects of the Judeo-Christian God? Thus, even if I did not debunk his ontological proof (which I did), he would not have done enough to prove his case that the universe was created by "God" of the Bible. "Here I bring in other contentions to defend God. First, it is pragmatic. Most people live in a society where Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is socially acceptable, and most other religions are not. " Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. The truth of an issue does not rest with how many people believe in it. The question is whether the belief is the result of right reason. "Bareth'Napal either is not as likely to reward you, as he is either not perfectly good or he is not all-knowing, and may make a mistake, or he is perfect, just like God. If he is just like God, he is God, he just happens to be named Bareth'Napal, and the rational thing would be to simply treat him as God, yet call him Bareth'Napal. " My opponent has ignored the main issue. Bareth'Napal is exactly like God, except that when you go to Hell, your loved ones go with you, and when you go to Heaven, your loved ones go with you. He has never addressed by debunking of Pascal's Wager, wherein belief in God as opposed to Bareth'Napal would be irrational since the loss and the gain is greater for Bareth'Napal. "God does not restrict freedom at all. He gives us free will. Otherwise, we must succumb to the belief that all is pre-determined, and that is most restrictive of our freedom. " False Dichotomy Fallacy. I can also believe that we have free will that is not imposed on us by God. In addition, my opponent's counterargument is a strawman. I never argued that God himself limited our free will, rather, that the devotion of irrational belief in God (as there are preconditions to the imaginary Heaven) limits what we can and cannot do. "As I said, the Judeo-Christian God is the most socially accepted God to believe in. That creates a feeling of a filial bond with your fellow man, which makes you happier. " Happiness is subjective. So is social acceptance. One man may wish to worship the Grass and Sun god that his tribe members worship. He would be a social reject if he did not. Thus, my opponent's counterpoint is invalid. "I have shown that God=i, and i exists, does it not? " Non sequitor fallacy. The fact that the concept of I exists does not go to show that it exists in reality (even though it does). You cannot argue that God exists purely because the concept of God exists. "You should try going to a Seventh Day Adventist Church with a lot of LSD. I guarantee that you will see God that day. But anyways, I say this because God can be rationally shown to exist (Cosmological Proof). " Proof has been debunked. "In summation, I say that I have three arguments, and that I have shown that belief in God is very rational and beneficial, and therefore you vote LR4N6FTW4EVA. " *************SUMMARY Cosmological proof: I have thoroughly debunked this argument. To summarize, my opponent declared that the only way for all things to come from other things, is that a being that is omnipotent and free from logic must have created the universe. Thus, The Judeo-Christian God must exist. His argument fails on 3 points. Fail #1: He is referencing something illogical to prove something logically. Fail #2: Causality is the result of induction. All inductive proofs have exceptions and are open to exceptions. If use of an inductive premise leads to an impossibility, REJECT the premise. Instead, my opponent chose to tell a fairy tale. Fail #3: My opponent's faulty argument would only lead to the faulty conclusion that an Omnipotent being created the universe. He needs to prove that the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN God was the one who created the universe, and did not prove benevolence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. Pascal's Wager Believe in God, God exists >> Heaven (100% Pleasure) Believe in God, God doesn't exist >> Nothing (0) Do not believe in God, God exists >> Hell (100% Pain) Do not believe in God, God doesn't exist >> Nothing (0) My opponent uses this as justification for believing in God. However: Given: Bareth'napal's existence is just as likely as God's existence, and Bareth'napal is the same as God in every single way except in how he deals with people in the afterlife. Believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal >> Heaven for you and your loved ones (300+% Pleasure) Believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal doesn't exist >> Nothing (0) Do not believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal exists >> Hell for you and your loved ones (300+% Pain) Do not believe in Bareth'napal, Bareth'napal doesn't exist >> Nothing (0) Thus, one must rationally choose to believe in Bareth'napal over God since both gods require total loyalty. Pragmatism My opponent contends that the belief in God leads to happiness and wellbeing, and thus, the belief is rational. However, happiness is defined differently for everyone, and everyone's route to happiness is different. Given this subjectivity, my opponent's argument cannot be viewed as valid since we are trying to analyze the validity of the belief in God, ensuring that it is the result of right reason. I have debunked each and every single one of my opponent's contentions, and no outstanding case is left for the belief in God being rational. Since this is the case, I urge you to vote KLEPTIN.