Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

"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. " That is not true. 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. "Second, my opponent can only use contention 2 [I assume he means 1] 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. " Just because we cannot conceptualize something does not mean that we can not use it. For example, i. The square root of one is fundamentally impossible to conceptualize, but it is necessary for many mathematical operations. We defined as i, because it is impossible for us to comprehend, but it is essential in advanced mathematics. I am contending that although God is fundamentally incomprehensible, He is necessary for creation of the Universe. "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? " 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. "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. " You claim that the concept of God is as illogical as a an infinite regress, but that is not so. An omnipotent being can literally do ANYTHING, including self-creation. This inductive reasoning does not lead to an illogical conclusion unless you deny the existence of a Creator. "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. " 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. It makes perfect sense for someone in this situation to choose God, because that is the socially acceptable deity to believe in. Also, as I said earlier, God, being perfectly good, and omniscient is most likely to ensure that you are allowed into Heaven if you are good. Also, these 2000 deities would all have to be distinct. If they are the same, that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, et cetera, they are God, just with another name. "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). " As I said earlier, God is most likely to uphold his end of the deal and actually send you to heaven if you're good. 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'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. " 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. You obviously have never read The Brothers Karamazov, in which Dostoevsky demonstrates this point. Also, as John Stuart Mill, my homeboy, has shown, all that can be desired is pleasure. Freedom has value because it makes us happy. Furthermore, belief in God is not belief in the doctrine of the Bible. Quakers believe in God, yet they reject the Bible. "My opponent has just stated that base don (sic. ) 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. " 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. "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. " I have shown that God=i, and i exists, does it not? "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. " 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). 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.