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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

50% F

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.