Instigator / Pro
5
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1195

Life is created by God

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

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:

Gist:
Massive BoP failure based around non-sequiturs.

1. Medicine
Pro builds a case around some assertions about modern medicine (which doesn't predate life, so relevance?). Con counters in a few ways, explaining why it's a non-sequitur via putting it into logical form, and outright reminding us: “No evidence is offered by PRO to establish medicine as of exclusively divine origin.” All of these are wholly dropped by pro.

2. Space
Off topic to life...
Let's see, pro tries to use the moon (which has no living organisms) as proof of God creating life, but he fails to ever connect it to life, and con proves the numbers provided are false.
Pro insists all objects in space are synced, con explains that would mean moving at the same speed which is false.
Pro offers a big Gish Gallop of random numbers, but as con reminds us "None of PRO's coincidences demand a supernatural explanation."

---

Arguments: See above. Pro never even tried to touch on the topic of where life comes from.
Sources: "This is a fact just google search it and you will get this number." Telling the audience your evidence is they can do your research for you, will always be a pretty bad hit on this... Pro denies being able to find "wear" con got his bad numbers, when the links were presented right over the numbers themselves, as con later explains (not that it was needed). Generally pro offers a bunch of off topic random sites, whereas con offers useful verifiable information... Big thing was con catching pro's own source disagreeing with pro, "...reports the sun/moon ratios are only approximate, that the Moon's orbit is elliptical and slowly escaping Earth's gravity so these ratios are never precise, and that the odds of such a configuration are unknowable because we have so little data. PRO offers this source as more reliable than Wikipedia, so let's note that PRO's second argument is soundly refuted by PRO's own source."
S&G: Pro intentionally obfuscates his points behind a wall of illegibility. Extra lines enters in the
middle of
sentences, extra spaces at random, missing punctuation, and as an example this gem: "on the site it link is from Einstein and Nutan. it is still a huge coincidence. newton discovered that god fined tuned the notion of gravity. nutan did not discover how this came to be like con seems to be saying. he discovered that this is the way it is" [sic]

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 appears mainly to throw out an unending series of numbers and then assert that these numbers prove God exist.

Pro has to justify exactly why these numbers support the contention of God with an argument and justification as to why these numbers show God exists; if appears as if con does a far better job of crystallizing pros argument here than pro does.

Pro really covers two main points; that medicine is in food, and that numbers assoctied with celestial bodies are special.

For the first, con points out that this is a non sequitor, that plants being medicinal doesn’t automatically shown God; for the second con outlines pros failure to show the universe is actually synchronized, pointing out multiple ways in which the universe does not appear synchronized; con also points pros sources own failure to recognize the insufficient sample size of exoplanets - assuming what can be measured now is all that can be measured.

Pro continues not by actually addressing any of the points con raised, but by simply throwing out more numbers, all of which seem to suffer the same issues con pointed out in R1.

Con added some smaller points: that to be medicinal - plants must be dosed properly, which is not done by God.

Con also points out that pro is wandering off topic.

Con continues to disprove the numbers, showing the perfection of the numbers are not neatly as strong as pro claims, with human rounding; and asking why these numbers are actually divinely significant in the first place. There are many individually flawed numbers that con effectively refuted in R1, by pointing out lack of clear warrant.

The final round follows the same pattern.

Arguments: quite frankly, pro doesn’t warrant any of his arguments and fails to meet his burden by failing to show exactly why parameters of Stellar objects, or plants having positive effects are primarily indicative only of an omnipotent super being.

Con does well to go throw each and every point, but fundamentally did his job in R1; my RfD could have been 10 times as long had I detailed each one of pros individual claism here. Arguments to con.