Instigator / Pro
0
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1267

Life coming into existence without god is Zero

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

I have been trying to explain this for years. And when i say years i mean years. But i found a video That explains it.

Rules

must watch this video 3 times. to get the grasp of what he is saying. Mind you i have thought this and have tryed to explain this but failed. He explains it perfectly yes

watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE

-->
@Ramshutu
@Christen

Thank you both for voting.

Given that someone previously tried to votebomb in favor of RM (who did not participate in this debate...), would a person or two mind casting a safety vote?

-->
@PressF4Respect

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con

>Reason for Decision: "Moar Sorces”

Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

Yup. My bad.

-->
@TheAtheist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.

>Reason for Decision: "Pro's entire argument is a massive hot mess of strawman fallacies, arguments from authority, non sequiturs, and outright bullshit, crowned with the worst formatting I have seen in my life and absolutely terrible grammar. Pro said such "genius" statements like: "If past events are 100 percent. Then it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life", which is the most ridicolous non sequitur I have ever seen. I don't have time to write down all my reasons, so I'm just giving Con a win because Pro had god awful grammar and formating. Vote Con.”

Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, as it does not go into enough specific detail on any of the arguments presented from either side, nor weight why the grammar was so sufficiently bad to outweigh the arguments.

To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

*******************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Counting unrated debates, oooooooooooh bad no no

-->
@Dr.Franklin

If we don't count the draw.

Your win percentage is 44.44%

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I am 5-4 in rated debates, how is that bad?

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Doesn't understand I am 6th.
Cries in the debate comment section because is to much of a coward to debate me
Thinks forum posts will compensate his bad debate ratio.
It won't.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Lives on type1 debates
Cries when speedrace beats him at everything
also moved to forums, but ignores that

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Has an abysmal debate record.
Can't to make it better.
Move to 1 sentence andy in the forums.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

crybaby, who cried over the boat debate when I voted,haha

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Crybaby

What Bullshit

-->
@Barney

Rag rag
Going to bag
Another win
Making his opponent dim

*LMAO*

-->
@Dr.Franklin

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to pro.

>Reason for Decision: "CVB The Atheist
He did not evaluate Con's argument
He also did not back up his claims on spelling and grammer.Remove when neccasery
I ask other voters to counter wizofz too
Everybody deserves a chanch, even crossed
I guess RM was right all along,huh smh.”

Reason for Mod Action>Counter Vote Bombs are expressly prohibited on moderated debates. If you have issues with another vote, this should be dealt with by reporting the vote in question.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Wizofoz

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wizofoz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.

>Reason for Decision: "Pro simply made bare assertions, argued from the authority of religious texts, and at times simply ignored factual evidence give by con (such as thw scientific meaning of "Theory".
Con backed his arguments with logic and relevant references.”

Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

*******************************************************************

-->
@TheAtheist

If someone intentionally prevents you from reading their case, it's fair to vote on that. Besides, you got the gist of the debate quite well marked up in your vote.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Hard to have any true inaccuracies on one of these (when I accepted this debate I genuinely thought he'd attempt a new argument, rather than spam trolling the old tried and not true ones). I honestly suspect you read more of what pro wrote than I did.

Regarding spaghetti, it would be an intelligent creator (not just intelligent life, I assume this was a typo) and a bowl of pasta. The FSM is a useful bare minimum test for any absurd claim, if the claim makes more sense with the involvement of sentient omnipotent pasta (or the invisible pink unicorns... being invisible they lack color, but we have faith that they're pink anyway), it's probably just garbage.

Regarding BoP, I am pretty certain pro saw people saying the other person has it in debates, so tried to copy that without understanding what it means. Were he to have BoP (as the setup outright demands... but I'm willing to play), if he proved that life could not develop without God he would win no matter how much I ridicule him; by shifting it to me, if God not being involved has any chance greater than zero (even the absurdity of someone else like Jesus having done it, as pro conceded), I win no matter what the bible says about the appendix (I seriously did not read that argument from him in the debate, but I assume it's in there given pro's comment about it).

-->
@Barney

What do you think of my vote?

Was it accurate?

-->
@Barney

Sorry I did not mention your arguments, but you that would have taken me so much time. You win just on grammar, since Pro's formatting is absolutely terrible.

-->
@TheRealNihilist
@TheAtheist

Thank you both for voting.

Crossed,

You hit a golf ball into a bunker. It hits a few grains of sand out of the trillions on earth. The chances of it hitting THOSE grains, rather than any others, is virtually nil.

So, God.

That's essentially your argument.

A great many events that may have had different outcomes led to the current state of the universe. A great many different outcomes may have occurred. But it is a 100% probability that SOME outcome would have happened, and any different outcome would have been just as unlikely as this one.

Unless you can show that the state we see around us is somehow less likely than any OTHER outcome, your argument is invalid.

-->
@Wizofoz

Thanks for the vote. Unfortunately it falls a little below the standards for a couple reasons, so an admin will be removing it.

Also welcome to the site. I hope you have a lot of fun here.

-->
@Barney

i forgot the appendix source.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84937.php

-->
@Barney

Thanks for taking this debate up. I am saying the numbers are so high they can not occur

-->
@crossed

Thanks for changing up your debates. Since it's a new one from you, I'll debate you rather than waiting for the voting period. Hopefully I can correct your misunderstandings related to probability theory (or you correct mine), but either way we should be able to have a decent discussion.

And yes, I assume this debate is intended to be about probability theory, if I am mistaken please put the corrected debate resolution into the start of your R1.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Well to late. What i will do to prove my point is use NIL rule.

anything over 1/10 to the power of 50 is considered NIL

NIL means the number is so big that it will not occur.

Luckily the probability of life occurring by chance is a billion times bigger then that

yes yes yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE

-->
@crossed

Note, you might want to say very slim, if it's zero, then it's easily kritigued