Instigator / Pro
49
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1035

It is likely that a God doesn't exist

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
21
9
Better sources
14
10
Better legibility
7
7
Better conduct
7
0

After 7 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
26
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

Burden of Proof

The BoP is shared in this debate.

Definitions

"God" is defined as "being the creator of the universe and possessing the following attributes:

-Omnipotence (has the power to do anything)
-Transcendence (outside space-time)
-Omniscience (has unlimited knowledge)"

"Exist" is defined as "having objective reality, insofar as existing outwith the mind."

Format of the Debate

R1: Opening arguments
R2-3: Rebuttals and defence
R4: Rebuttals without new arguments

Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro opens with Quine's Ontological Commitments, Con argues (after first forfeit) without evidence that OR may not apply beyond the bounds of the universe and then offers Plato's Argument from Contingency. Pro refutes Plato with the Hume-Edwards principle and ignores OR counter as unsupported. Con forfeits again then denies or misapprehends his use of Plato. Con then argues that if matter was created then matter's creator must be immaterial- non-sequitur defense of Plato or new argument- either way, dismissed. Con never addressed Hume-Edwards and failed to counter OR. Arguments to Pro.
Con to Pro for Con's double forfeits.
Sources to Pro for succinct & relevant use. Con did not even credit Aquinas

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PinkFreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to pro for conduct.

>Reason for Decision:I'd like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT
Con Forfeited the majority of the rounds leaving the debate unfinished, that's poor conduct!
All other points tied, hardly a coherent debate due to the vast amount of Forfeits.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is sufficient. Voters may award only conduct points - without referencing arguments A in the case where one side forfeits half or more rounds. However, it is obviously encouraged for voters to assess arguments where possible.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Dr.Franklin

No, I'm pretty sure that he's an agnostic, he just did another debate about God existing

great ANOTHER athiest

-->
@semperfortis

sure thing

-->
@GuitarSlinger

It is the power to do anything - even logically impossible tasks. Don't worry, my argument will not include the omnipotence paradox - I find the argument fallacious anyway.

Is this okay? I won't be boiling into the semantics of omnipotence per se.

-->
@semperfortis

Sounds interesting. I'm game.

But first, in terms of omnipotence, can you clarify? Power to do anything or the power to do any that is logical or in the realm of possibility? You're not going to pull the classic trick of "Well if God has the power to do anything, then can he make a stone so heavy even He can't lift it? No? Well then God doesn't exist!" or "Can God make a triangle with only 2 sides? No, well then God doesn't exist!".

I oddly agree with BoP being shared on this. It hopefully leads to each side presenting a case, instead of just the BoP game.