Argufight
teliasfatile wins(3–0)
211
169
Round 1
teliasfatileAGAINST
People who do not believe in God usually dont seek evidence, however leave out crucial things such as logic. A complex computer requires an intelligent programmer, in the same way it is proportional to the universe, the universe is designed complexity that still science lacks answers for a few things and still the most profound the question: The creation of the universe? Hence, it isnt illogical to believe in God as long as there are questions and mysteries in the universe to exist, the logic to believe in God still stands.
EnviroChampFOR
Think about a courtroom: we don't convict someone just because a lot of people feel strongly he's guilty. Believing in God seems like that, since there's no checkable proof. So to me it just seems illogical.
Round 2
teliasfatileAGAINST
Logic isnt just defined based on evidence. Using your example, even if there is evidence of a person stealing, if the dates of the evidence dont match with the prosecutors statements date, then it still leaves the rule for skepticism.
EnviroChampFOR
I think the other side mistakes not knowing yet for a designer doing it. That's the part I don't get. A gap isn't proof. Maybe I'm missing something, but my gut still says believing without checkable proof is illogical.
Round 3
EnviroChampFOR
Surprising fact: which God someone believes in mostly depends on where they were born. My opponent makes a fair point that logic isn't only evidence, and I'm not sure how to argue back. But my gut still says believing without checkable proof is illogical.
Round 4
teliasfatileAGAINST
You just conflicted yourself, you say your "gut believes" but yet still say "without checkable proof", "your gut" feeling isnt evidence or proof itself, thats just personal preference, proof is something that can be checked using outside sources, "gut" feelings are personal.
EnviroChampFOR
I think the other side gets wrong that mysteries make belief logical. Not having an answer yet doesn't mean God is the answer. Honestly, I can't really explain the logic part, but my gut still says trusting something with no checkable proof is illogical.
Round 5
teliasfatileAGAINST
Im not saying mysteries automatically make beliefs logical. But if take the universe for example, its complexity still astonishes people, and to this date scientists themselves can conclude that it was simply nature taking its course, or if it is something more profound (such as a creator), such discourse allows for the belief of God. After all, if you werent sure if a certain sports team lets say The New york giants beat the dallas cowboys. It still leaves me room to assume the dallas cowboys won the match, the only conclusion is we both arent certain who won, but either side can still be correct. Thats logically okay.
EnviroChampFOR
Imagine someone blaming a curse for a storm; we'd call that illogical with no way to check it. My opponent says gut feelings aren't proof, fair. But believing in God feels like that to me.
Round 6
teliasfatileAGAINST
And I agree with you, "blaming a curse for a storm" is illogical as we have proven that is simply nature (the weather) taking its course. But when we get to profound questions such as God, neither sides can say "Yes, God is 100% real or God is 100% fake", the inability for neither sides to answer the questions leave room for possibility, someone saying the belief in God is logical makes sense, in the same sense saying the lack of belief in God logically makes sense.
EnviroChampFOR
The practical consequence is if uncheckable belief counts as logical, then any idea can, like a curse causing weather. My opponent's sports team point is fair, and I'm not sure how to answer. My gut still says believing without checkable proof is illogical.
Round 7
teliasfatileAGAINST
Once again if you believe logic relies solely on proof, then you are directly saying theories and cases cannot be logical since they are yet to be proven or lack proof. My opponent believes proof is nessecary for him to believe in God, thats fair, but its not a sole requirement to conclude if something is logical.
EnviroChampFOR
Imagine someone says an invisible gardener tends a garden, but nothing can ever check it. My opponent says uncertainty leaves room for God, and that's fair. I'm not sure how to answer. Still, my gut says belief without checkable proof is illogical.