Instigator / Con
7
1527
rating
8
debates
87.5%
won
Topic
#5220
Is the belief in God/Gods reasonable?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
baggins
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 7,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
3
1500
rating
9
debates
33.33%
won
Description
The Burden of Proof would be on both participants.
The participant who agrees with the statement needs to present a hypothesis explaining why believing in God is reasonable or more probable than not.
The participant who disagrees with the statement needs to prove that the hypothesis does not meet the criteria of being reasonable .
The statement being a positive claim would require the one who’s making it to start the process of BOP.
If the participant’s hypothesis does include sound arguments, logically entailed conclusions and strong evidence the hypothesis would be considered reasonable.
I have no preference in the way the other participant will choose to formulate their answers (formal / informal).
DEFINITIONS:
“belief”:
- a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in something
- something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion
- conviction of the truth of some statement
“reasonable ”:
- having sound, sensible and rational judgment
- does not commit any logical fallacies
- of or according to the rules of logic
“God”:
- In this discussion/debate I will be referring only to the deistic and theistic version of God/Gods when I mention the term, and not pantheistic or other.
- a supreme being with ultimate powers/abilities that created existence and reality itself intentionally
- a thinking agent who created everything purposely
Round 1
New to this website, not sure why am I the one starting so I will use the first round just to state my opinion until the other participant provides their hypothesis.
To put it simply I’m just not convinced theres any strong evidence God exist therefore the belief is unreasonable. I would be willing to change my mind if I’m proven wrong and I’m not saying God does not exist or not possible to exist.
My opinion is that its impossible at this point for humans to come up with a way to verify the existence of a God because of our limited knowledge and our limited nature.
Knowing that, I’m interested why some people are absolutely certain in something that’s impossible to prove/know and is that belief reasonable?
One word: Yes
It is reasonable to believe in God.
It is reasonable to believe in God.
Round 2
Given that my opponent did not follow the description of the debate in the first round and failed to provide any type of reasoning, argument or proof I would respond in the same manner.
One word- Why?
Why is the belief in God reasonable?
"One word- Why?
Why is the belief in God reasonable?"
Your question seems oddly formulated, but if you want answers for that question then you should seek answers from someone who has their reasoning ability extrapolated.
Your question seems oddly formulated, but if you want answers for that question then you should seek answers from someone who has their reasoning ability extrapolated.
Round 3
Is just that you read the description and you read the question beforehand and so far you haven’t given me any reasons for your answer other than stating that it simply is reasonable. I already know your position in this debate from the fact that you accepted to participate as a PRO.
The only other thing you’ve done so far is state that you have a problem with the question “Why is the belief in God reasonable” (which is the whole debate) and that I should seek an answer to that question from someone else.
Firstly you shouldn’t have accepted the debate if you have a problem with that question which is simply asking you to justify your opinion and provide proof.
Secondly If you want me to look for someone else to debate that question all you have to do is forfeit.
The description of the debate clearly states that the one making the positive claim has the BOP and has to show WHY believing in God is reasonable. If you wish to continue please provide your reasons.
The only other thing you’ve done so far is state that you have a problem with the question “Why is the belief in God reasonable” (which is the whole debate) and that I should seek an answer to that question from someone else.
Firstly you shouldn’t have accepted the debate if you have a problem with that question which is simply asking you to justify your opinion and provide proof.
Secondly If you want me to look for someone else to debate that question all you have to do is forfeit.
The description of the debate clearly states that the one making the positive claim has the BOP and has to show WHY believing in God is reasonable. If you wish to continue please provide your reasons.
First of all, me mentioning sentences about people with extrapolated reasoning abilities─ establishes a relationship between my arguments and the debate.
A reason to why believing in God is reasonable is also because generally, there are people who are more reasonable about having a reason to believe in God than the people who are less reasonable about having a reason to believe in God. I'm pretty sure that those people who are more reasonable than the people who are less reasonable have their own reasons to why they believe in God, including people who have their reasoning ability extrapolated. People with extrapolated reasoning abilities tend to make things reasonable to a very promising degree, making the things that they reason with very reasonable and much more reasonable than those who have their reason about things that are less reasonable; People with extrapolated reasoning abilities are pretty much more trusted with making reasonable explanations, including explaining a reason to why the belief in god is reasonable to a prominent degree. The idea itself of having people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believing in God oddly points out how ridiculous it is to even ask such a question considering that there are people who have very advanced level of reasoning believing God, which also looks a little ironic to me.
Another reason to why believing in God is reasonable, is also because of the questioning of one's existence and their surroundings and what created everything.. indicating that one's existence is promoting developmental growth and his/her nature of an approach to adapting to existence, or in other words, the individual is simply experiencing an approach of adaptability, the individual is simply figuring out what is happening around their surroundings and also will be able to start questioning how their surroundings work and how they can interact with it; this action can be a part of human nature, it also is a part of human nature indeed. So, in conclusion, one can say that believing in God can promote beneficial development; allowing one to grow.
Believing in God is also considered a decision, in general, making decisions are also integral to human adaptability, learning and growth. This also supports my argument to how believing in God also promotes developmental growth and this also supports my argument to how believing in God also promotes beneficial development.
A reason to why believing in God is reasonable is also because generally, there are people who are more reasonable about having a reason to believe in God than the people who are less reasonable about having a reason to believe in God. I'm pretty sure that those people who are more reasonable than the people who are less reasonable have their own reasons to why they believe in God, including people who have their reasoning ability extrapolated. People with extrapolated reasoning abilities tend to make things reasonable to a very promising degree, making the things that they reason with very reasonable and much more reasonable than those who have their reason about things that are less reasonable; People with extrapolated reasoning abilities are pretty much more trusted with making reasonable explanations, including explaining a reason to why the belief in god is reasonable to a prominent degree. The idea itself of having people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believing in God oddly points out how ridiculous it is to even ask such a question considering that there are people who have very advanced level of reasoning believing God, which also looks a little ironic to me.
Another reason to why believing in God is reasonable, is also because of the questioning of one's existence and their surroundings and what created everything.. indicating that one's existence is promoting developmental growth and his/her nature of an approach to adapting to existence, or in other words, the individual is simply experiencing an approach of adaptability, the individual is simply figuring out what is happening around their surroundings and also will be able to start questioning how their surroundings work and how they can interact with it; this action can be a part of human nature, it also is a part of human nature indeed. So, in conclusion, one can say that believing in God can promote beneficial development; allowing one to grow.
Believing in God is also considered a decision, in general, making decisions are also integral to human adaptability, learning and growth. This also supports my argument to how believing in God also promotes developmental growth and this also supports my argument to how believing in God also promotes beneficial development.
Round 4
I think the debate is going slightly off topic. I am not arguing that people who are generally capable of extrapolated reasoning are unreasonable in general by believing in God. Those same people are not immune to having unreasonable beliefs and just because you're a reasonable person does not grant that all of your belief are reasonable. This debate is about one specific belief not about what kind of people can hold or hold that belief. Intelligent people can be wrong. Smart people can hold not so smart beliefs about certain topics. Pointing out that many reasonable people have come to the conclusion that God exist does not support or relate in any way to PRO's position in this debate. You can't say something is reasonable because a lot of people who are good at reasoning think its reasonable. This is a logical fallacy. The conclusion does not follow the premises. You can't also assert that there's people who have used reasonable thinking therefor the belief is reasonable. You have the BOP to show that their methods and thinking (reasoning) is actually logical and has some sound arguments. Therefor it can be reasonable. You are in the position of one of those people who are assumed to be good at thinking and I'm asking you to present your arguments for that specific belief.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what I understood from your first point you suggest this:
P1: There are people who are generally very skilled and capable of reasoning
P2: All of their beliefs and opinions are therefor reasonable
P3: Those people believe that God exist
C: Therefor believing in God is reasonable
They could be reasonable, they could be not but if they're so good at reasoning they should show us the reasoning process. Simply stating "they are reasonable people in general or capable of reasoning therefor whatever conclusion they come to is reasonable" is fallacious.
Every conclusion or belief has to be examined separately.
P2 does not follow from P1.
About your second point (and I'm sorry if I misinterpret something, you just didn't present any clear premises and conclusions) , if I'm correct you're saying that the belief in God could be beneficial for our development or be part of our human nature therefor its reasonable? Or simply that we are designed to adapt and to adapt we must wonder and question our existence and our surroundings? Not any of this logically fallows that belief in God is reasonable. Sure it can have benefits, especially hundreds and thousands of years ago when our species did not have access to modern science and attempted to explain the universe however it can. I can go on and on about how many positive AND negative effects religion had on our life back then or even now but it's irrelevant to the topic. Sure it can help in some cases I'll grant that. (beneficial ≠ reasonable)
Us questioning, exploring, wondering about something is fine and completely reasonable and part of our nature yes I agree on that also. The debate is not "Is the search for God reasonable or beneficial to something" its specifically about holding the opinion "God is real". Is that reasonable?
The reason I think your first point is irrelevant is that I'm not talking to all of those people with high reasoning skills that came to the conclusion that ''God is real". If you know anyone like that you can ask them what their reasons are, come back here, we can discuss them and find out if they are being reasonable.
The argument "there are people capable of high level reasoning that think God is real, therefor to think God is real is reasonable" is fallacious. If you want to go deeper into that please provide theirs or yours reasons.
The reasons I think your other points are irrelevant also are simply because:
beneficial for development ≠ reasonable
Even if we grant that it was beneficial for human development long ago I think it's pretty clear that we are talking about current times, unless you claim it's still beneficial for our development which is another thing you have to prove. Then you have to prove why beneficial equals reasonable. I can think of things that I can do that are beneficial in some way to me but are not very reasonable.
adapting to exist ≠ reasonable
What is the connection with us adapting to exist, questioning our existence and the belief in God being reasonable in this case? Evolution made it that we have no other options but to adapt. Not everything that exist comes from that. For some things to exist they only have to be not in our disadvantage. In some cases the belief in god maybe helped us to adapt to what? Existing? Is that what you're saying? And if you are, are you going to acknowledge that in some cases it did the opposite?
what's part of human nature ≠ reasonable
I won't go too deep into this, its pretty obvious that not everything in our nature is considered reasonable.
making a choice to believe ≠ reasonable
just because for you to make the choice to believe in something you have to practice thinking and apply reason does not make it reasonable. You might be unreasonable and that's how people come to the wrong conclusions sometimes.
Even if we assume all of your points have some truth in them, none of them are strong enough to support the claim that believing in God is reasonable.
To reasonably believe a huge claim like that you would need better reasons (logical arguments, proof, hypothesis, ...) otherwise your belief is not reasonable by the definition that I provided in the description. I apologize if I missed any points that you made or if I made mistakes in my writing. English is not a native language for me and I don't consider myself highly proficient in it even though I try to be.
P1: There are people who are generally very skilled and capable of reasoningP2: All of their beliefs and opinions are therefor reasonableP3: Those people believe that God existC: Therefor believing in God is reasonable
To clarify the points that are incorrectly pointed out:
Point 1 is simply interpreted in an irrelevant "manner", or not as interpreted as it should be, to clarify P1:
P1: generally, there are people who are more reasonable about having a reason to believe in God than the people who are less reasonable about having a reason to believe in God. (To expressively explain P1: it means that there are people in comparison who are better and less better at being reasonable, and those who are better at being reasonable; this can mean that there can be people who are less reasonable have a poor reason to why having a reason to believe in God is reasonable, this in addition, makes things less clear and not seem reasonable, hence it's probably the best to have someone more reasonable to answer such questions, this is all considered generally)
People who are more reasonable should be more trusted than people who are less reasonable(including people with extrapolated reasoning abilities); people who are more reasonable give out more valid points and they give out information that seem reasonable, and generally this is because of how they function mentally, anything they usually say just makes sense, but it can sometimes cause misunderstandings, this is not entirely up to them, it's rather more in their nature to behave in such ways.
Regardless of such matters, there are people with extrapolated reasoning abilities that do believe in God or some sort of a creator, I can also give out a proof or a source at least, or someone as an example that believes in the existence of a creator:
Fengzhi Wu
Theoretical IQ: >190 (rarity 1 in around 1 billion)
"Jacobsen: How did God create the world?
Theoretical IQ: >190 (rarity 1 in around 1 billion)
"Jacobsen: How did God create the world?
Wu: That’s a good question. I believe in the existence of a Creator, but I don’t believe he has a specific appearance."
https://in-sightpublishing.com/2022/06/15/wu-1/Fengzhi Wu is a very profound intelligent male who is very talented and is a genius(not exactly a smart person, because he's more than that, though he is considered a smart person), nobody exactly realises how intelligent he is, believe me, it's beyond most people's comprehension to even consider it as he exists outside of the average or the "mostly considered" range as well. Excluding the stupid question the questioner is asking:
Fengzhi Wu's belief in the existence of a Creator, including the belief in 'God' is enough to make the topic look very ironic and a little ridiculous. Here's the irony if you don't see it.. How is believing in God something unreasonable when you have someone who is reasonable believing in God?
When you have someone who is reasonable believing in God, you are not allowed to question how the action of believing is reasonable or not, because that someone who is reasonable.. is reasonable, hence it is reasonable believing in god(Also because of Fengzhi Wu being considered reasonable in general). To also note, Fengzhi Wu's beliefs are, on average, reasonable, including Fengzhi Wu's current belief in the existence of a creator in that source I've provided. (Hopefully you see the irony now)
Moving on to P2:
Okay, P2 is not relevant to my arguments in general, the opponent misunderstood this point as well, I'm not sure if I've even written such a thing. If I haven't written such a thing, then it is already proof for it not being relevant to my arguments in general.
Okay, P2 is not relevant to my arguments in general, the opponent misunderstood this point as well, I'm not sure if I've even written such a thing. If I haven't written such a thing, then it is already proof for it not being relevant to my arguments in general.
Putting in more effort into this point is unnecessary since people can read, and because I've put enough effort into this point already. (This point refers to P2 in "Moving on to P2")
Moving on to P3:
No, there are people with extrapolated reasoning abilities that believe in God. It's not that those people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God, because it would then mean that those people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God, which pretty much a generalization that is considerably fallacious; you're pointing out that all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God when that is entirely true.
However, saying "there are people with extrapolated reasoning abilities that believe in God" is rather a different concept with a different meaning compared to what you had written in P3, so P3 should've been written as "There are people with extrapolated reasoning abilities that believe in God." not "Those people believe that God exist", since we have P1, P2, and P3, I'll also group into the term "P", hence the parts of the term "P" are different from each other and they all have their own point.
Also, this misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my argument should be considered lightly, so, readers do not interact heavily about his considered poor legibility.
Also, this misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my argument should be considered lightly, so, readers do not interact heavily about his considered poor legibility.
Moving on to C:
Based on the clarifications I've given and the clarifications of my reason then, why can't you have the belief in God as a conclusion to be reasonable?
It seems reasonable to me that having someone who is reasonable believing in God(The irony here as well is that it is reasonable believing in God). But of course, having the belief in God being considered reasonable or being reasonable is subjective as well due to other definitions of "Reasonable", hence neither of us can exactly give an objective reason entirely to why believing in God is reasonable, and to why believing in God is unreasonable. But I don't think that the topic is asking for an objective reason either or the description of the debate. Remember, we are not just talking about "smart" people here, we are talking about people with intellectual capabilities surpassing a rarity beyond exceptional; the intellectual capability here considered is also "extrapolated reasoning abilities". Not many people like this exist. You can consider at least.. nearly.. around 100 people to a few thousands in 8 billion that exist with such kind of reasoning abilities. This is not common. The one I've mentioned "Fengzhi Wu" is not only "beyond exceptional", but rather more rare. but for someone with his level of intelligence, you can consider at least 1-50 people in existence that currently have such ridiculous amount. This clarification is intended to also point how rare it is to have such scales of intelligence, the clarification is also intended to make you realize what I've given to you is pretty much limited, and it's limit helps support my argument even further.
If you're also not aware, people can be a reason and so can a person, so it is not that ridicule to see things in such ways. Sure, you can also have highly intelligent people believing in God unreasonably, but you can also have highly intelligent people believing in God reasonably. But here I am as well, putting Fengzhi Wu as a reason believing in God is reasonable.
Round 5
Before I continue with my response I would like to ask my opponent not to bring any new arguments in the final round because I won't be able to respond to them. I will do the same and I'm going to stick to responding only.
I think we could've really gotten somewhere in this debate if PRO started like this from Round 1 and if I didn't interpret your premises as they should be it's because you did not present any syllogism. I was forced to extract them from your arguments and even in Round 4 you still didn't present your own premises and conclusion. You clarified my interpretation of your assumed P1, then said P2 is irrelevant, you did not understand what P3 is (It pretty much means exactly what you say it should be and I do not say all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God, I simply say the same thing you say: There are some people with extrapolated reasoning abilities that believe in God). That still doesn't mean that ALL of their beliefs should be assumed to be reasonable. I won't focus too much on interpretations and assumed premises so I'll try to address your main point I guess.
I agree with a lot of the things you said, but I don't see them bringing you to the conclusion that the belief in God is reasonable. I think you're also making an argument from authority.
An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.
Again, you cannot point to someone or many people who believe in God (doesn't matter what their proposed skills are) and say the belief in God is reasonable just because they think so. It does not matter who has 190 IQ or how many people believe in that. All sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, that is to say, that this is a logical fallacy, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is always fallible. You accepted the debate with the BOP of showing and providing evidence that the reasons are reasonable. Not saying that there's people with reasonable reasons that we should trust. Yes, this might be a reason for you to believe in God but if this is your only reason then your belief in God is unreasonable, thats my whole point. Do we know the reasons of those people who are more reasonable about their reasons than the people who are unreasonable? No, because you didn't provide them so I don't know anything about them let alone if they are reasonable. Saying they are generally capable of reasoning is not a proof that this specific belief is also reasonable. I do not deny that they could be very reasonable or super intelligent on other things.
Yes, a person (Fengzhi Wu in this case) can be a reason for someone to believe in God. Is that reasonable? Because Fengzhi Wu is considered highly intelligent with extrapolated reasoning skills. Now we have to just trust that person's conclusion about everything? Isn't it more reasonable to first know his reasons for that and examine them or are we just going to accept God because of Fengzhi Wu. You said it yourself that highly intelligent people with extrapolated reasoning skills can also believe that God is not real? So how do we decide what to believe is true? We just pick the person with the highest IQ? If that is your reason okay but I disagree its reasonable to believe or disbelieve because someone thinks so. If you ask Fengzhi Wu why he believes in God I doubt his reason will be "because someone with 260 IQ believes it". You have succeeded in providing reasons to believe in God but not any of them are reasonable. You have just assumed that there are people who have reasonable reasons basically but failed to provide any of them. Does Fengzhi Wu have reasonable reasons to believe in God? Maybe, maybe not, I do not know because you did not present his reasons, you presented him as evidence.
Just an example from the source you gave, this Fengzhi Wu believes in astrology and zodiac signs aka pseudo-science. Things that are widely and majoritively denied across all of the science community. Is it reasonable to believe in something all of science has rejected? Is the belief in astrology now reasonable because Mr. Wu with theoretical IQ of 190 thinks it is?
I have barely anything to respond to because all of your arguments are other allegedly highly skilled and extrapolated reasoning people. Again that's a cool story but find out what their reasons are and we can see if they are being reasonable about this specific belief. Maybe its the KALAM or the design argument or the complexity of the universe? Maybe they believe because they think there's an objective morality? I was hoping you would bring actual arguments like that not "there's people that this, there's people that that....", "This guy has 190 IQ, he believes in God", "super smart people that are very good at having reasonable reasons believe in God...". I get what you're trying to say, that it just sounds ironic that the belief could be unreasonable if those people believe in it but that's what we are debating. You don't get to assume it is, you need to provide their reasons first and show that they used the so called extrapolated reasoning that was presumably flawless.
Is the belief in God reasonable?
-you can have highly intelligent people believing in God reasonably
How do you know its reasonably?
-They are generally intelligent and capable of extrapolated reasoning
Ok so what? What are their reasons? I'm not asking you if there's people who are good at reasoning that believe in God... The belief will not be reasonable based on reasonable people believing in it. Another logical fallacy. The belief will be reasonable if its reasonable, that's all there is. This is my objective opinion based on my subjective standard for what is reasonable and what is not. I think it's pretty easy to say what's objectively reasonable after we subjectively define what "reasonable" is. Based on the definitions that we agreed to debate the topic was :
Is having the opinion that God is real based on any rational, sensible, logical arguments?
Is having the opinion that God is real based on any rational, sensible, logical arguments?
You have failed to present any, you have succeeded in assuming that there's people who assumingly have all of those (rational, sensible, logical arguments) because they are highly skilled in whatever you say. All irrelevant unless you want to present the rational, sensible, logical arguments that those geniuses have. It is not ridiculous to ask if the belief is reasonable even if a generally reasonable person holds it.
Okay, let me just say that we are not talking about "Kylie Jenner" here, nor is my argument an argument from authority, you have written it to be such a thing in a hypothetical way (by using the word "would").
Fengzhi Wu as a person can be a reason, and just because we can have him as someone who considered highly intelligent with extrapolated reasoning abilities, or skills, it doesn't mean that we should trust that person's conclusion about everything. But it can mean that we can at least trust this person's conclusion about something, because perhaps he has a very good reason about that something. Set aside, I believe that you can also have a person to be a reason for something just because they are highly intelligent and have extrapolated reasoning abilities, especially without having that classified as "an argument from authority", I also believe that all of us have a perspective and an opinion as well as a belief, not that any perspective is ever "the only one" for all cases.
The word "Reasonable" isn't always defined as "having sound, sensible and rational judgment" and "does not commit any logical fallacies" and "having sound judgement; fair and sensible.", hence, we can all have another definition of "Reasonable" to work with. But, for this, I'll be using "having sound judgement; fair and sensible.".
Since "Reasonable" is also defined as: "having sound judgement; fair and sensible."
For that definition, having anything like that is also subjective, and when applied to individuals, it is pretty much different for individuals, including all individuals. For me as "Pro" here, I willingly judge that making such argument is reasonable, and I also willing judge that that my argument is not an argument from authority because I didn't include an argument from authority in my argument, and this in general, I consider to be reasonable and not illogical to have such an argument, because my argument can not be illogical, and no argument is ever illogical because it can have parts to it that is logical, including for my case and my argument in general. My brief perspective about the definition of "Reasonable" is also that having sound judgement will differ from person to person, and to also have it sensible and fair, also differs from person to person. Anyone, including the readers can treat my position and perspective on this matter, because, we all have a position that should also be respected as well as a perspective that also should be respected and treated equally likewise with others, especially on this website.
Before I continue with my response I would like to ask my opponent not to bring any new arguments in the final round because I won't be able to respond to them. I will do the same and I'm going to stick to responding only.
It's considered by me as if the individual is telling me not to argue anymore and forfeit the final round and not provide any new arguments in the final around, but, fortunately for me, I can publish an argument and bring a new argument in the final around and that is because I can and the website seems to allow it from my point of view.
Now I will provide another reason with an explanation that I will give and pretty much support my previous arguments, it also should make the previous arguments of mine look more detailed by the aid of this current new argument, or rather explained about furthermore by the aid of this current new argument. Another reason that I provide with an explanation about it is:
Believing in God can provide a sense of purpose, confidence, comfort, and moral guidance, which can also promote beneficial development. Not only that, but any sense of purpose, confidence, comfort, and moral guidance also promotes beneficial development. Many also argue that faith in a higher power offers a "framework" for understanding the complexities of life, instilling a sense of meaning and direction. Also, religious beliefs often promote ethical principles and values, contributing to a moral compass that guides individuals in making decisions. Belief in God may also provide believers with a unifying framework that lends itself to confidence in the existence of purpose. Many studies have found that religious belief and practice have a positive effect on physical and mental health. I also believe that "religious belief" is relevant to the debate because it is also mentioned in "tags", and tags also contribute to what the debate is, itself, or the topic, hence it is relevant to the debate as well as relevant within the debate.
Sources:
1) is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979581/ The "3)" study is also focused on the relationship between belief in God and mental health which also supports the idea that the belief in God can also promote beneficial development, even though they focused on how the extent of belief in God related to three indices of psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) in a sample of undergraduate students (N = 632) with a variety of religious identities but, the sample size that is represented by "N = 632" as well is a bit large considering that any sample size with an N above 50 is cited as sufficient to obtain stable means and standard deviations in normative test data, which also provides support to my argument. The findings revealed that belief in God was negatively linearly related to depression; this relationship was fully mediated by meaning in life, feeling comforted by God, positive religious coping, positive reappraisal, and substance use coping. In contrast, belief in God was curvilinearly related to anxiety but unrelated to stress. The findings in general supports my arguments as well, the findings also indicate that belief in God was "negatively linearly related to depression", one can say that the belief in God is negatively correlated to depression, or that the belief in God and depression is negatively correlated or negative linearly related; It can mean that as you have more belief in God, the less depressed you will become, furthermore aiding you in growing or becoming more healthy, which also promotes beneficial development.
Source for the sample size considered" sample above 50 is cited as sufficient...": https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27655971/
We can say that the belief in God can support the promotion of beneficial development. Therefore we can say that the reason to having a belief in God can support the promotion of beneficial development. I also believe that the belief in God is in general, reasonable. I have also given you a more logical approach as well as a more scientific and mathematical approach towards the debate. I also have had logical approaches included in my argument as well as my other arguments. Note, there are many reasons to why finding belief in god reasonable.
Unnecessary, the argument of mine at last is no longer necessary to reply to or argue against, it's already been filled in and it's pretty much provided in explicit information.
Maybe should’ve set more time for the voting, is 1 week usually not enough? If nobody votes I guess it’s a tie
I’m not going to address the same things in the comments but just going to say that “don’t bring any new arguments” doesn’t mean don’t argue more and forfeit lol ( I think that’s obvious). All it means is don’t bring up any new topics because I won’t be able to address them, the debate is over. You can still argue about the same things you brought up and respond to everything I said it’s just that it wouldve been unfair if you had the last argument in the last round and you bring up something completely new (lets say first cause argument) that I wont be able to address. Like how would you want me to start a debate about something completely different than what we’ve talked about when I have no more turns.
The reason I created this debate with this amount of letters allowed is completely random. I created my profile couple days ago, I haven’t debated anyone before so I just looked through this website and through a couple random debates on the front page to see how exactly this works. That’s all.
I really don’t know what’s a good limit so let me know and I can put it in my next debate, thanks!
I think it’s a little unfair to blame me tho since you wasted a couple rounds posting “arguments” with one word answers and now you blame me that you can’t say all you want to say. Even if you don’t I mean you accepted the debate on your own and saw the limit beforehand, I don’t know whats the point in complaining about it now.
There are missing words in my argument by the way, the person who created the debate limited the number of letters hence I couldn't add those certain words that are also necessary in my argument.. so I'm going to clarify certain words that I couldn't clarify or the certain words that I couldn't clarify entirely:
For this part of my argument: "you're pointing out that all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God when that is entirely true. "
The correct sentence is "you're pointing out that all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God when that is NOT entirely true."
This "mistake" can of course be clarified by common sense, so it should be clear that there is a fault in it.
Note that, in my perspective, there is actually more to my arguments than it already looks, it's just that the number of letters do not support the quantity of information that I wanted to put in my arguments.
Why is the number of letters very limited?
Just to clarify something because I might've missed your point in Round 3 (and I'm still not sure this is what you're talking about) but I'm trying to argue that the belief itself is not reasonable not that there aren't reasonable people that hold that belief