Instigator / Pro
27
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1092

Does God Exist?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
30
Better sources
10
20
Better legibility
5
10
Better conduct
0
10

After 10 votes and with 43 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
70
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Description

I want to thank semperfortis for accepting this debate.

RESOLUTION

Resolved: It is probable that God exists.

Rounds:

1. Opening
2. Clash
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general 4'Os (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being) who is the source of creation.) That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence religious texts and religious doctrines are irrelevant to the debate. .

The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.

The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence.

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:

FF

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:

Occam’s razor doesn’t do enough to negate independently. It proves that, other things being equal, we should assume the naturalistic position. As evidenced by Pro’s entire case, he doesn’t think other things are equal. So really, it doesn’t do too much for Con beyond shifting the burden of proof.

Pro’s cosmological argument clashes directly with Con’s argument on a caused universe. Pro argues that since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause, by intuition. I’m not sure I buy Pro’s intuitive justification for this, given that it’s unclear why a rabbit is analogous to the entirety of space-time, especially since Pro’s own quote says “the laws of physics are broken down” at the beginning of the universe. Pro also fails to link this contention to the definition of God in the description—“extremely powerful” doesn’t mean “omnipotent,” and I’m unclear why the other three properties of God are met here either. Con has a convoluted description of the A-series and B-series of time to challenge that the universe began to exist—but there’s a couple of sentences here and there that make it somewhat clear what they’re talking about (e.g., “[there is] no *objective present* as each frame of reference perceives the present differently and are all equally correct”), which means that the universe does not require a cause. This argument gains offense from the idea that if the universe exists as a tenseless block, it cannot have a cause that precedes it. (In practice, this seems like a defensive argument because simultaneous causation would still be possible, if my understanding of this is correct, but Pro doesn’t respond to it or bring it up so I don’t factor that into my decision.)

Pro has a bunch of other arguments remaining that Con doesn’t address—the ontological argument and the one from a fine-tuned universe. Neither of these seems to link directly to the very hard BoP Pro sets on himself through the debate description of proving an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent/omnipresent God. The ontological argument is underexplained, because I don’t know what “maximally great” means. Pro needs to show the link that a being defined as necessarily existing which also carries the definition of the four Os exists in some possible world—and that’s a pretty high BoP that Pro doesn’t fulfill. The teleological argument links to some intelligent design of the universe—not necessarily from the kind of being defined.

Pro’s arguments don’t link directly enough to the resolution, and he drops Con’s offense by forfeiting. Thus, conduct and arguments to Con.

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:

3/4 forfeit. Arguments were equal first round.

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:

Full 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:

Pro FF the majority of the debate! That's poor conduct!!!

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:

Full 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:

FF

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:

FF

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:

Full forfeit.