It is likely God doesn't exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
BoP is shared
'God' - "the sentient, eternal. efficient cause of the contingent universe"
'Contingent' - "actual world"
'Exist' - "to have necessary, metaphysical existence"
Format:
R1: Instigator waives - Contender forwards opening arguments
R2: Instagator forwards opening arguments, with rebuttal - Contender rebuts and defends
R3-4: Defence and rebuttals
R5: Last defence and argument summary
BoP can be fulfilled without deductive argumentation; inductive and/or abductive reasoning will suffice.
"Because everything is conceptual, as far as we know."
"And 2+2 could just as easily = 6. Depending on the point of view of the judge.In fact the likelihood of 2+2 =4.Is the same as the likelihood of God either existing or not existing.All things considered."
"When is objectivity truly never subjectivity?"
Arguments:
Pro made an excellent argument based on Occams Razor; this was well explained, and laid the foundation for a good discussion. However, his opponentlargely ignored everything said and focused on whether the concept of God exists. Pro dealt with this in his opening round - and it was indeed covered in the debate terms and resolution. Aside from this, con didn’t really offer any arguments of note, and really just asserted that Occam was wrong and appears to be denying the existence and truth of anything.
This was not a good debate for con.
On the grounds of the arguments related to occam - which were unrefuted: arguments to con.
Conduct: pros obtuse and unnecessary arguments were infuriating to read, and were highly disrespectful to pro: he gave the appearance of simply trolling rather than getting involved in a detailed back and forth on the topic. As pro did his best to malign the intent of the debate and not take his opponent seriously, this warrants a violation of conduct too.
Oh okay ;3
I'm still experimenting with the formats - the contender needn't waive the last round because the instigator is shoehorning a rebuttal with their opening argument.
Will the contender waive the last round since the Instigator (you) are waiving the first round?
I've also supported His non-existence in a previous debate as well :)
On another debate you supported the idea that God's existence is likely. Now, you're supporting the opposite. Why?