Instigator / Pro
14
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#2191
It's illogical for a non-theist to judge an ALMIGHTY God's works/deeds
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
9
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
It is illogical because logically, Any person that judges or determines anything must do so from a criteria. That criteria must be proven. . . . . . . . Justified. . . . . . . . . Beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . . Sufficient and correct. The standard upon that which is used to decide things with, Conclude, Measure and declare things with must be definitive in reason.
Moreover being that this criteria is quite truthfully and logically insubstantial, It could never be up to par to make the topic statement false.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
Round 1
The description will serve as the first round.
I'll paste my Rounds from the previous debate on the matter: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2138/it-is-illogical-for-a-non-theist-to-judge-an-almighty-gods-works-deeds
So I have thought about this debate from many different angles and basically all of them favour Con because of the following:To the atheist, God is neither real nor so supreme in status and complexity that the atheist things it can't be regarded as something that the atheist has the right to judge.I am aware that I say 'atheist' as opposed to Deist, Pagan (some Pagans are non-Theists while others are Theistic and even polytheistic), Agnostic and the variants under those sub-categories of non-Theist but the atheist is the most easy example to explain just how logical it is for the non-theist to judge the God of a Theist's religion. In other words, unless you truly believe in and worship the being, you have every logical reason to judge it.
It is only beyond logic to the one who believes it even exists to begin with. Both Theists and atheists actually believe God isn't beyond logic, Theists just don't realise that they believe God is limited to logic.If Theists truly thought God was beyond logic, they wouldn't logically conclude that God exists as this requires you to limit God to the logic in your thinking process.Even if I am totally incorrect on that, it is definitely the case that atheists don't see God as beyond logic whatsoever. They logically conclude God isn't real and other variants of non-Theists don't see God as some over-the-top sacred being such that they can't question or use critical thinking to explore the ideas of what God/s is/are and how she/it/they work.
The being is being judged as almighty if you think it's almighty.1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises2: to form an estimate or evaluation ofit's very simple to understand that even a Theist judges God, they just do it involuntarily and indeed illogically. The non-Theist steps back to genuinely do the weighing of likelihood and validity behind the various theories of God(s) and attributes assigned to it/them as well as acts done by them and moral teachings they give or don't give.God is logically judged by the non-Theist as God doesn't surpass judgement in the eyes of a truly rational being. It's that simple.
Round 2
And the logical basis to be able to judge something beyond logic is what ?
"Both Theists and atheists actually believe God isn't beyond logic, Theists just don't realise that they believe God is limited to logic."
Well atheists of course. That's where this topic derives. But for the theist it doesn't compute any logic entering into it. The Bible speaks of things beyond what logic can explain including God. Now you can make the statement that God is limited to logic and it just wouldn't make sense. It shows you don't know what an ALMIGHTY being is. Now to fix your statement, you can say it is true that theists and anybody else for that matter, contain UNDERSTANDING limited by logic. That's why the rest, you give over to a belief system. Which is what a religion is.
"If Theists truly thought God was beyond logic, they wouldn't logically conclude that God exists as this requires you to limit God to the logic in your thinking process. "
Again it's a religion. Why would logic enter to any conclusion anywhere? It's because these things like miracles, divine revelation and supernatural events that go beyond, extend past logic, you would have to have faith. You surely can't use the scientific method.
"Even if I am totally incorrect on that, it is definitely the case that atheists don't see God as beyond logic whatsoever. They logically conclude God isn't real and other variants of non-Theists don't see God as some over-the-top sacred being such that they can't question or use critical thinking to explore the ideas of what God/s is/are and how she/it/they work."
Well if course, when atheists realize an ALMIGHTY being has an ALMIGHTY knowledge and standard for everything, what possible standard could they use to measure up?
It's not about God being real. You can just go with the premise of the identity to apply a logical response to it. I as a human being cannot apply the same moral standard to an animal(non-person). The intelligence and nature of these things are separate. I cannot apply the same moral standard fit for a human to a non-human. Why? The code of do's and don'ts, rights and wrongs for each are separate as they operate by a separate understanding.
It is a fact, logically so and valid that according to a premise true or not, that an infinite being, designer of all things would have a greater standard than those smaller, with a smaller mind attempting to place a larger mind into.
The being is being judged as almighty if you think it's almighty."
What premise are you going by? Certainly not the one for this debate. You have to go by the religious claim and definition. This is why you get off track coming up with your own stuff.
"it's very simple to understand that even a Theist judges God, they just do it involuntarily and indeed illogically. The non-Theist steps back to genuinely do the weighing of likelihood and validity behind the various theories of God(s) and attributes assigned to it/them as well as acts done by them and moral teachings they give or don't give."
So does this mean that a person is able to have a higher standard to judge the works of the being that established ALL standards? All as in ALMIGHTY. IS THAT LOGICAL? IS THAT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE? The problem once more is, you're not going along with the premise. Sometimes you have to consider these things for the sake of arguing.
"God is logically judged by the non-Theist as God doesn't surpass judgement in the eyes of a truly rational being. It's that simple."
What's your proof for this entire statement?
First off, a person can probably do anything in attempt to use logic. But according to the premise of God, a creator, of all things, including logic, which came first? God or logic? If you say logic, that is your God.
You have to display that you or a person can have as much knowledge as a thing that's an inventor of logic in order to be able to calculate, analyze anything up that high to ad infinitum. Last time I checked, humans do not know all things, understand all things, to be on that level to circumvent that high a criteria . It is however highly rationale to conclude you as a person will not have the criteria to match.
According to the religious belief of God, start with that.
Well we got that out of the way and off our chests. Time for your new arguments. What ya say there, pal?
Whether you think it's almighty or not, you are judging it as almighty to even claim that about it. This debate is actually impossible to uphold because to even deem it 'too almighty to judge' is to judge it.
Round 3
"Whether you think it's almighty or not, you are judging it as almighty to even claim that about it. This debate is actually impossible to uphold because to even deem it 'too almighty to judge' is to judge it."
Let me help this situation here with the foundation. It's been established that this is part of a religious belief system. The argument is not trying to prove or disprove that.
This is an exercise testing the logic of those that misapply rules to inapplicable things.
Going by any premise accordingly applying reasoning to it has to be consistent in order for sound points to hold true.
It's consistency in logic being looked at , not so much the veracity of the premise.
So case and point, we can claim, judge, believe many things about the past. That is , what it was before anything existed. We really don't know or have any evidence to go by. The goal is not to get to the bottom of that right now. It's just our premise, what we think followed by a conclusion. Which can be followed by very logical points. Now we can test for consistency based on general truths.
We start with the premise of there being an occurrence of total non-existence for everything and that includes nothing too. There are absolutely no elements. Now being that we have a general truth regarding the law of causality, nature, physics, etc, it would not be logical and consistent to apply those laws to where they don't or didn't exist . To be consistent with the premise, we can't make sound determinations about a past like that using or going by those laws as they would be inapplicable at that "time". Of course time has not entered in the equation but I mean at that moment.
So it's not so much about the premise being true but if we say A followed by B will get C, is that part true?
The way to find out should be clear.
The premise of a real ALMIGHTY God that established everything including standards and judgment, going by that logic, we're just going by it, how am I, a non- Almighty being able to supercede in the knowledge of judging things with a "less than" knowledge?
The god is not almighty and real to the non-theist. Every single argument Pro is making ignored this fact.
Round 4
"The god is not almighty and real to the non-theist. Every single argument Pro is making ignored this fact."
After all I explained, no offense but actually I won't even say it's like talking to a wall. Some things if not just flat out rejected , are just not understood.
Particularly with you I have to repeat countless times until it registers.
ITTT DOES NOT MATTERRRR WHETHER GODDD IS REALLLL OR NOTTTTT.
Like I don't know any other way to emphasize this to get your attention. Flashing lights, a bullhorn, what is it that'll let you know what time it is?
Do you know what supposing something to be the case is? When folks say "for the sake of supposing", are you familiar?
The argument is not about whatever thing it is being real. Let's suppose it is, then what would logically follow, that's where your arguments come in at. Refuting or proving what would logically follow. Not the existence of the subject, not the existence of the subject, not the existence of the subject, but what follows the existence of the subject.
I UNDERSTAND THAT A NON-THEIST BELIEVES WHAT THEY DO SO ALL THIS WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE , IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
THEREFORE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE WILLING TO RUN WITH A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT FOR CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY.
They would have to say , "ok for the sake of discussion, if this God is real for me to judge it substantially, I'm more mightier than it as I can supercede its knowledge in the judgment of things." That wouldn't logically follow up but at least they're rolling with the assumption.
You're really having a tough time, I mean super rough time in separating when a topic is about God being real versus for the sake of God being real, this would be or wouldn't be the case.
Pro tells you that the flaw is in me not understanding that the 'almighty' God is beyond judgement but I already defined judging as something that means to even judge God as 'almighty and beyond judgement' itself requires judgement of how almighty God is.
On top of that, non-theists do not think God is almighty to the degree that it's beyond judgement, most don't even think God is real since a huge portion of 'non-theists' are atheistic as opposed to deistic variants. God is a fictional character that they judge in the context of the story told.
If the God happens to be real, they'd be judging it just the same as clearly they don't know it's real and almighty and so in their framework of reality and facts, it is indeed logical and thus not illogical for a non-theist to judge an almighty God.
Round 5
"Pro tells you that the flaw is in me not understanding that the 'almighty' God is beyond judgement but I already defined judging as something that means to even judge God as 'almighty and beyond judgement' itself requires judgement of how almighty God is."
Why confuse us? Is it simple or hard to understand that in order for you to judge things in an Almighty knowledge, you have to be ALMIGHTY yourself?
"On top of that, non-theists do not think God is almighty to the degree that it's beyond judgement, most don't even think God is real since a huge portion of 'non-theists' are atheistic as opposed to deistic variants. God is a fictional character that they judge in the context of the story told."
As I said they'd have to go along with the premise. The definition of ALMIGHTY GOD doesn't have the word "fictional". It's a given they'd have to assume or suppose God is real for this premise to be logical. God has not been DISPROVEN so it's illogical to argue one way or the other on that. Once more, it's not about they're belief. They'd have to put that to the side.
Furthermore there's no point to judge anything you believe is not there . So what else can be done but to suppose something is there?
That something that is there supposing it knows more than you, how valid is it to say you know more than it?
"If the God happens to be real, they'd be judging it just the same as clearly they don't know it's real and almighty and so in their framework of reality and facts, it is indeed logical and thus not illogical for a non-theist to judge an almighty God."
I think you're struggling with what Almighty power and knowledge is.
How can I tell you more about medicine and health when you're a physician in medicine and I'm not?
Whether God being real or not, I'll say over and over, is not up for debate. The principle is, it is illogical , irrational, would not make sense to say my determination of things is just as great or higher in validity according to my limited knowledge compared with something that would have an infinite knowledge.
When judgment is based in facts, something that has a greater count in facts than I do, how does my position supersede?
I can't be a greater judge .
The wall built up to block out supposing will have to be taken down .
The mind can be so close minded, it can't accept or understand the reality of there possibly being a God, so these scenarios are difficult to run with .
The mind easily just keeps running back to "well God is not real, God is not real, God is not real." So that is where we say there is nothing greater in knowledge that we can't deal with based on our knowledge.
This may make it easier to grasp, maybe not.
Something that's greater or better at whatever than I am, I can't be better than.
That wouldn't follow logically as it would deny the fact of what "better " is. Now if I don't believe in this "better" thing, the whole matter is just inapplicable. I believe nothing is there to be better over so nothing further gives cause to anything with that.
Forfeited
Mall is winning against RM? No offense to either of the two but this is indeed a rare sighting.
The resolution is never clearly presented but seems to argues that atheists can't rationally critique God's work because atheists don't believe the work is God's to begin with.
"logically, Any person that judges or determines anything must do so from a criteria. That criteria must be proven. . . . . . . . Justified. . . . . . . . . Beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . . Sufficient and correct. The standard upon that which is used to decide things with, Conclude, Measure and declare things with must be definitive in reason. Moreover being that this criteria is quite truthfully and logically insubstantial, It could never be up to par to make the topic statement false."
PRO has not bothered to define any of these terms.
Almost all of CON's argument addresses the illogic of theists which is entirely non-sequitur- the subject of the debate is "non-theists" The brief argument CON offers regarding atheists agrees with PRO
"To the atheist, God is neither real nor so supreme in status and complexity that the atheist things it can't be regarded as something that the atheist has the right to judge."
"atheists don't see God as beyond logic whatsoever. They logically conclude God isn't real....such that they can't question or use critical thinking to explore the ideas of what God/s is/are and how she/it/they work."
There's a lot of verbiage, but when we strip CON's argument to the relevant subject, CON seems to accept PRO argument as correct. CON absurdly concludes:
"God is logically judged by the non-Theist as God doesn't surpass judgement in the eyes of a truly rational being."
If one is evaluating God's worth, one is presuming God's existence or else acknowledging the unreasonable premise of the judgement. CON self-refutes.
PRO seems unaware of CON's concurrence and mostly sticks to arguing CON's non-sequiturs. CON harms his case substantially with statements like
"It's not about God being real. "
"So does this mean that a person is able to have a higher standard to judge the works of the being that established ALL standards?"
PRO demonstrates a profound lack of understanding for his subject
"when atheists realize an ALMIGHTY being has an ALMIGHTY knowledge and standard for everything, what possible standard could they use to measure up?'
No atheist could make such a realization as an atheist.
PRO wisely asks CON to state a premise and offers some proof. Neither side has established any groundwork but the first to point that fact out takes the high ground. CON's lazy reply wrongly suggests that judging GOD's existence is the same as judging GOD's works and deed and so even athiests are judging God.
By R3, PRO has taken the CON position against his own thesis:
"Now being that we have a general truth regarding the law of causality, nature, physics, etc, it would not be logical and consistent to apply those laws to where they don't or didn't exist "
"The premise of a real ALMIGHTY God that established everything including standards and judgment, going by that logic, we're just going by it, how am I, a non- Almighty being able to supercede in the knowledge of judging things with a "less than" knowledge?"
CON concisely agrees with PRO's thesis.
"The god is not almighty and real to the non-theist"
PRO agrees with CON at full volume:
"I UNDERSTAND THAT A NON-THEIST BELIEVES WHAT THEY DO SO ALL THIS WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE " They would have to say , "ok for the sake of discussion, if this God is real for me to judge it substantially, I'm more mightier than it as I can supercede its knowledge in the judgment of things." That wouldn't logically follow up but at least they're rolling with the assumption.
PRO and CON agree that it wouldn't be logical for the non-theists to critique God's work without assuming arguendo.
PRO's summary applies to both sides equally:
"You're really having a tough time, I mean super rough time in separating when a topic is about God being real versus for the sake of God being real, this would be or wouldn't be the case."
PRO agrees some more in R5
"On top of that, non-theists do not think God is almighty to the degree that it's beyond judgement, most don't even think God is real since a huge portion of 'non-theists' are atheistic as opposed to deistic variants. God is a fictional character that they judge in the context of the story told. Furthermore there's no point to judge anything you believe is not there . So what else can be done but to suppose something is there?"
PRO's final remarks is a masterpiece of nonsense talk and failure to attach subjects to predicates.
PRO and CON talk a lot about logic but the building block of any well-reasoned argument is a complete sentence with a subject and predicate. This VOTER's assessment is that both debaters argued with such imprecion that neither side realized they were in general agreement on the topic. Arguments to PRO since both sides agreed with PRO's statement.
Conduct to PRO for CON's forfeit.
I suggest you that you create something different every time. You have 3 debates titled the same thing.