It is likely that a God doesn't exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
RFD in comments.
50% F
As Con pointed out, Occam's razor isn't infallible. (Note: when intelligent cause comes into play, example: a magician's trick, then Occam's razor is less likely.) It implies in this case that a theistic universe is less likely than a non-theistic universe. From there the arguments go to contingent and non-contingent causes, which didn't seem to have a lot of backing either way, and it kinda went over my head so I'm ignoring it. But then Con says "we experience and witness everyday-- things coming in and out of existence." in order to refute a hypothesis that matter has always existed. I have personally never seen "things coming in and out of existence." and according to thermodynamics, this is impossible. Because of this last point and the slight support from Occam's Razor, I give Arguments to Pro.
Arguments
1/2 rounds forfeited by Con. Conduct to Pro.
Con forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds
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.
Wow. Excellent debate by pro here, and probably one of the more one sided examples I’ve seen.
On the case of Occams Razor, pro outlines his arguments, and spends the remaining time correcting cons mischaracterization or misunderstanding on its premise. The best part of this for me, is the way pro links likelihood using the razor. He specifically outlined the main reason the razor sets up the likelihood of God based on its pressuppositons. Con was never able to respond due to forfeits.
Cons argument, the argument from creation was dismantled by pro as both special pleading and outlined as a text book example of fallacy of composition. The winning element was that con relies on a non contingent entity being God for no reason. This was excellently explained by con and con again was not able to respond, the final round was mostly ignored as it was primarily a new argument, and the only relevant part was not fully clear how it ties in.
As a result. Pro both affirmed his side and negated his opponents.
Arguments to pro.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit
It should be telling that I am not bothering pulling out my template.
Pro ended up outright schooling con on con's own propositions and what they would necessarily entail, to such an extend that con seemed unable to understand his own case but just relaunched the first cause argument without first offering any defense of it. In contrast, pro's case used Occam's Razor, which con repeatedly joked about rather than refuting the conclusion drawn (or sliced) by it. Bare in mind, the resolution was dealing with mere likelihood, to which Occam's Razor is perfect for displaying.
Sources: I don't normally give this for so few, but con's lack of any sources vs pro giving him the educational material to understand his own case is not to be dismissed. My favorite source was of course LogicallyFallacious, as it allowed me to quickly review the logical rule pro was using separate from pro's representation of his and con's cases.
Conduct: Repeated forfeiture.
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
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
No, I'm pretty sure that he's an agnostic, he just did another debate about God existing
great ANOTHER athiest
sure thing
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.
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.