Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Life coming into existence without god is Zero

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 3
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
Round 1
Published:
The burden of proof is on con.  He needs to get a number that can happen

anything over

1/10 to the power of 50 is considered NIL

Which means It will not occur



watch this for an explanation on what that number is.



anyway The chances of just the  enzymes in the human body occurring is

1/10 to the power of 2 million 825


This is Just the enzymes in the human body.


Far above the 1/10 to the power of 50 in which is needed for life to occur. for me to wright this out i would need 2 million 825 zeros i only have a ten thousand character limit i would need a 2 million 825 character limits to wright out this number. This is just for humans



In the video it says


"The chances of life occurring Randomly. Is like if a tornado went into a junkyard and left an airplane."

This is a fair comparison because the human body is built the exact same way a car is or an airplane is.  making a bunch of parts then putting them together.
though people fail to grasp on to what i am saying.







god gave us legs so we can walk


god gave us eyes so we can see


God gave us kidneys so we can detoxify toxins



god gave us a heart so we can pump blood

god gave us antibody's in order to protect us

god gave us bones so we have structure

god gave us an digestive system so we can fuel our self's



man gave an airplane wings so it can fly


man gave an airplane wheels so it can role


man gave airplanes engines so it can function


man made the airplane out of metal so it has structure


man gave the plane a gas tank so it can fuel itself


Man created an airplane by creating a bunch of tiny parts around 1000 plus. Then putting them together.

God would have to do the same with humans he created a bunch of parts then put them together. There was no random explosion



What are The chances that life would occur randomly with every human body part having a function.
And what are the profitability that we do not look like a bucket full of slime. The Nickelodeon slime stuff


the appendix has a function
How does everything have purpose. Legs are created for the purpose of walking. Arms are created for the purpose of holding things



Only god can create things with purpose. Now the odds That life can over time produce into something that has purpose  is  really highly not going to happen number.



Dna is just like computer code.


Dna is information that tells the  body parts what to be. Computer code  is information that tells something what to be.


The way computer code got its information is because a computer guy programmed it in. The way DNA got its information is because god programmed it in. Not via an explosion


"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.



Why does it require great intelligence to create revolutionary medication. But superior medicine  is found in plants .But that can happen randomly.
yes medication in plants is superior. people of old mistook it as magic I am referring to how witches thought  medical mushrooms were Magic mushrooms. Because god medicine is so great




Why does it require great intelligence for man to create primitive stuff like computer software, car engines. modern medicine. But Complex stuff like Dna the brain herbs can happen randomly.




If there is nothing. how was there an explosion. if there is no explosion there is no chance of life occurring.

If there was nothing what caused the explosion.



something needs to be there for there to be an explosion. An explosion needs to be there for something to exist.

Its the chicken and egg thing. What came first.


God has the answer god made the chicken then the chicken made the egg. Simple




Do random explosions from nothing happen regularly.


If i go outside is there a chance that is 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 that an explosion from nothing might kill me



What caused the explosion.



Its like when i ask what caused the gene mutation that turned the polar bear white. Was it something in the snow that would cause a gene to mutate and turn the polar bear  white. why would snow mutate my genes. Snow is just frozen water so if i drink water will my genes mutate and turn me white like the polar bear. what caused this.


Should i not let my kids out to play outside in the snow during Christmas. Because the snow has properties that will mutate there genes and turn there skin white. What should black people do. what is in the snow that would cause this mutation





Complex thing can not happen randomly

ps The coloring was an intelligence choice




Published:
Pro claims that the probability of a past event occurring is effectively 0%; and assigns me the burden to disprove this claim. I shall demonstrate that all past events have a probably of 100%.
 
My case will be on two fronts:
  1. Math
  2. FSM

1. Math
In this section I shall be explaining misconceptions to probability theory.

Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Statistical probabilities usually deal with the element of uncertainty, but when an event is already known it has an odds of 100% [1]. Flip a coin and record the outcome, now double check the recorded outcome and it will be the same, it will stay the same outcome no matter how many times you double check. It’s not a new 50/50 each time you check what the old result was.

Pro’s logic would of course argue that the probability of that coin even existing is zero, and yet not only does it exist but the result of flipping it already occurred. No amount of the argumentum ex culo [2], no matter how handsome old white man in the video is, can change this.

For life, we know it did occur on Earth, and we can double check that it’s still there, thus this has a 100% probability of having happened.


2. FSM
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) [3], or any similar didit fallacy [4] has not been proven to be involved, thus can be discounted. If not discounted, pro would need to prove with 100% certainty that it was exclusively God and no other mythological being creating life anywhere.
 
ID v. UD
Intelligent Design (ID) from God would not lead to cancer and other ailments, whereas Unintelligent Design (UD) from the FSM would lead to flawed creations rife with defects.
 
Are humans perfect without illness? No, we get sick all the time. Thus, if a divine being is involved, the FSM is more likely than God.
 
 
Bonus: Refuting the Video
The factuality of pro’s YouTube video has been renounced by its author repeatedly. If in doubt see highlighted comments [5]. Worse it has more errors in its apology for errors, causing them to outright insist they were never meant to be taken seriously, only intending to “imply” what they presented as undisputed facts.

That the author of the video could not make it a mere 30 seconds in without being wrong, says all we need to know about their credibility.


Sources:
  1. https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/10/q-what-is-the-probability-of-an-outcome-after-its-already-happened/
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PIDOOMA
  3. https://vimeo.com/31543194
  4. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE&lc=Ugj6NrUCC3PUqXgCoAEC.8VgcHuNfOxk8W17K6VdX9y
Round 2
Published:
You do not know if  it is a past event or not. yes the universe was created. But we do not know if it was Via God evolution  or even something entirely else. It is a theory that evolution created life not fact. its like saying you know god created life. And you say no he did not create life and i respond by saying he did create life we are here are we not.



The factuality of pro’s YouTube video has been renounced by its author repeatedly. If in doubt see highlighted comments [5]. Worse it has more errors in its apology for errors, causing them to outright insist they were never meant to be taken seriously, only intending to “imply” what they presented as undisputed facts.

That the author of the video could not make it a mere 30 seconds in without being wrong, says all we need to know about their credibilit

ya i saw that. Anyway The information i pulled from it is correct. i Guess it is like a moldy fruit just cut off the mold and eat the good part.





con said
Intelligent Design (ID) from God would not lead to cancer and other ailments, whereas Unintelligent Design (UD) from the FSM would lead to flawed creations rife with defects.
The biblical reason we die is because god designed us to breakdown after Adam disobeyed him
 and he cursed all his children. Don't you guys already think god is mean and not nice???




The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) [3], or any similar didit fallacy [4] has not been proven to be involved, thus can be discounted. If not discounted, pro would need to prove with 100% certainty that it was exclusively God and no other mythological being creating life anywhere.
i believe demons created these religions in order to muddy the water. and the calling themselves god is like if a McDonald employer had all his employees refer to him as master.And i believe bible is true because of prophecy for example pharmakeai.

 God refer to pharmakeai as sorcery because that is what it was back in the ancient times. But he later starts referring it as it is seen today. Jesus refers the church in pergamum as Satan throne. now the church in pergamum is the temple of asclepoin. which is a famous hospital of the ancient world. asclepoin is the snake god of healing which we see his staff as the World health associations symbol. It is also where the famous physician galenus lived who was the father of modern medicine. And this hospital was the prototype for modern hospitals


 Revelation 3:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.


temple of Asclepion. The prototype for modern hospitals is the church in pergagum in which Jesus refers to as Satan throne in the book of revelation

The famous Hospital of the ancient world dedicated to the god of healing

 Revelation 3:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.
I got this from this book

Pharmakeai the hidden assassin page 88-89








Want you opinion

Anyway you do not have to answer this for the argument. But i can not seem to find anyone who would acknowledged this  new point. Can you  Give me your opinion on it. I want to make Sure it is understandable. You don't have to disprove it  just want to make sure it is understandable.

Your arm span is equal to your height.
picture of someone who arm span is 5 foot 7 and is 5 foot and 7 tall


This is because god measured you out. So your arm span would be the same as your height.




This can be off some times. Old people shrink and we have a insane chemical diet. But a  good 90 percent of the time this is true.


If i am 4 foot 9 tall then my arm span will be 4 foot 9. If i am 5 foot 11 then my arm span will be 5 foot 11.  If i am 6.3 then my arm span is 6 foot 3. This can get off sometimes maybe i am 4 foot 7 and my arms span ends up at 4 foot 6. but i believe that he programmed these measurements in our DNA. I believe that he programmed that your arm span must equal your height. but sometimes that data is corrupted by a mutation and our genetic information in our DNA screws up. honestly i expected to see a cm off  on most stuff. but all the symmetry numbers are all the exact same at least for me. which is amazing i had trouble finding even a cm off.



The average human arm span of a woman is 5 feet 4 inches while the average arm span of a man is 5 feet 9 inches. In typical humans, the arm span is equal to the height; therefore, the average arm span is also roughly the same as the average height, with males generally having longer arm spans than females.

"yes, your arm span is about the same as your height. If you hold your arms straight out from your sides, the distance from the fingertips of one hand to the fingertips of the other is about how tall you are. Some slight variations exist, though."









Published:
Pro, please copy/paste the headings to keep the cases organized.


1. Math
Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Pro’s reply to this was “You do not know if it is a past event or not,” which might be the most interesting Kritik I’ve seen (that we don’t know if recorded events take place in the past or the future...), but needs massive substantiation to be taken for something other than Word Salad [1].

Until pro disproves the ordered flow of time from past to present as perceived by us, which is needed for his defense to hold water, my argument has been effectively dropped.

Evolution
Pro asserts that “it is a theory that evolution created life not fact” to dismiss it. This is a common misconception involving the fallacy of equivocation [2]. Theory in normal speech is some vague idea, but in science that is called a hypothesis, which only rises to the level of theory after rigorous falsifiability testing (which if it is false, it ceases to be a theory). Evolution is a tested scientific theory, which stands shoulder to shoulder with things like the theory of gravity [3, 4].


2. FSM
Pro asserts that the FSM and every other religion is just demons, but this first misses that each supernatural being reduces the odds that any single one didit. And worse, by this logic there’s some thousands-to-one chance that God too is just another demon (if each god is a demon, then why would a random one from the Middle East be held to a higher standard?).

ID v. UD
Pro’s reply is that “because god designed us to breakdown” which completely misses that we are not beings designed by a perfect creator (as God is defined) but are rife with defects. Were we to gradually break down on a measured out schedule I could entertain God’s involvement, but we get random things like cancer and congenital heart defects.

Limb Length
This could have been covered under evolution, but for fun I’ll do it under religion...

If a perfect creator individually measured us out, then the disorder of Limb Length Discrepancy would not exist [5]; nor would women suffer asymmetrical breasts [6]. So, by this seemingly off topic area, pro brought into the debate more proof that the FSM (not God) is more likely to have made us.


3. Refuting Video
Factually Renounced by Author
Pro’s reply to this is: “ya i saw that. Anyway The information i pulled from it is correct”[sic]. Which outright admits that he used it despite knowing the author himself conceded he was wrong; then insists the author is wrong again to have said he was wrong, which is just an extreme example of fallacious confirmation bias [7, 8]. He further misses that the numbers stated in the video were already argumentum ex culo [9].


4. “prophecy for example pharmakeai”
I fail to see the relevance to how life came to be (unless pro is proposing that pharmacies created life? Which would be a concession of the debate).

Further, words have cultural origins, which easily explains the coincidence of a word in modern times being similar to an ancient one; were it a conspiracy, they would have renamed it.


Sources:
  1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
  3. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution#It.27s_only_a_theory
  4. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory
  5. https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/limb-length-discrepancy
  6. https://www.self.com/story/one-boob-bigger-than-the-other
  7. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
  8. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
  9. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PIDOOMA
Round 3
Published:
If past events are 100 percent. Then it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life. Because that is a past event and i meet the burden of proof. That life coming without god is zero.



Explain to me how an explosion can come from nothing. Because if you can not. Then i would have to assume that this is impossible. It's like saying a flood can created fire. if i do not see evidence that water can create fire.Then i am not going to believe that it can. If i do not see any evidence that an explosion can come from nothing. Then I'm not going to believe it can happen. Scientist just randomly claimed that an explosion came from nothing. But did not explain how an explosion came from nothing. If you can not show how this is possible. Then it is impossible and the chance of it happening is zero


How can an explosion make life. If you have facts that this can happen. Please share them with me. or else i would have to assume that life coming from an explosion is impossible and is a zero percent chance of happening. Explosions kill people last time i checked.Just look at the previous wars. When we nuked japan we killed people with the explosion. Life was not created with an explosion. If i claimed that a flood of water created fire. I would need to show how a flood of water can create fire. Evolution just randomly  claim this stuff with no facts and people believe it. Have they shown how scientifically an explosion can come from nothing.No they have not. They have just claimed that an explosion happened from nothing. But did not show how such a thing is possible. Even though something like that is impossible. Its hypercritical atheist always claim that we claim stuff without facts but that's what they do. I have only seen evidence for creationism.so has Isaac.

“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”

Isaac Newton


Isaac then went to Trinity College at Cambridge University with the intention of becoming a Church of England minister.

Newton applied his binomial theorem to infinite series and from there developed calculus, a revolutionary new form of mathematics. For the first time it was possible to accurately calculate the area inside a shape with curved sides

2. FSM
If you do not know what the story of Adam tells. Then you should not be doing these kinds of debates. Its amazing to me that the only flaw that you people can come up with is that our body dies.or our body parts do not have uses and later we find that they do. I am speaking of the appendix. We always here about how Things found in nature are a billion times more advance then the stuff Made by man. For example the computer. It took all of mans intelligence knowledge and thinking in order to create the computer. But a Computer that is  a billion times more  advance is found naturally.We call it the humane brain. This Brain is a computer a billion time more advance then  any computer. It took mans greatest minds to create the computer using there intelligence knowledge and thinking to create computers. Would it not take intelligent knowledge and thinking that is a billion times greater than mans. in order to create the computer/brain that is a billion times greater than mans computer.


FSM part 2

Bill Gate said

"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.

We always here how things found in nature are ten billion times more advance then invention done by are smartest humans. But we are still to stupid to realize that the reason why things found in nature are more advance then inventions done by are smartest people. Is because the one creating it is smarter then our smartest people and that being is god.


Limb Length

Do you know how your hands are exactly the same size. Put them together examine each finger. Now look at you feet there exactly the same. This is because God measured you out. Or to be more exact he measured Adam and eve out perfectly And you have only inherited these perfect measurements. For example my hands are not even a cm off there exactly the same. same with my feet there exactly the same . my ears are both exactly the same God measured them out.
God measured Adam and eve perfectly. Adam and eve had children And the Information/Measurements in the DNA code were past onto the children. It is DNA it is possible that measurements can get mutated. But generally most of your body parts have been measured precisely. My nose holes are exactly the same.
If you ever come across a butterfly there right wings are exactly the same as there left butterfly. exactly the same not a cm off. This is because god measured the first butterfly out and these precise measurements were past down through them via there DNA.
if you say i bet i can find one that is not precise. And i would agree with you the information in our DNA can get mutated.But you will have to catch 100 butterfly till you find one that is off





Bonus: Refuting the Video
Dude the numbers the odds of stuff  happening were correct. i can google it and find an evolution site saying that life coming from nothing is an not going to happen number.

The Probability of Life. The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 80.

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!




Flying pasta  monster

con said
by this logic there’s some thousands-to-one chance that God too is just another demon (if each god is a demon, then why would a random one from the Middle East be held to a higher standard?
I said my god was true because of prophesy like pharmakeai


Evolution

it is not fact

Published:
1. Math
Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Pro has now conceded that life came into existence in the past rather than the future (as he claimed last round). He makes a new argument that it was about 2000 years ago, created by Jesus. This is a direct concession of the debate as Jesus is not God, and no suggestion he is has been offered.
 
Evolution
Pro makes some off topic use of the didit fallacy [1], and a straw person claim that I’ve stated life was created by an explosion [2]. I’ve mentioned life came from the complex process of evolution (millions of years ago, slowly growing in complexity, etc.), which is way more likely than some Jewish guy 2000 years ago whose very existence depended on humans already existing (and humans depended on breathable air, preventing him from existing before plants to make that air...).
 
He then concedes again by linking us to a previous debate of mine, which is just evidence that God is a fictional being created by civilization [3] (I’m quite confused as to why he brought that into this).
 
 
2. FSM
God is Just a Demon
Pro has dropped that his own logic leads to this conclusion, which in turn removes God from consideration as having any impact on humans other than as a deceiver tricking people into thinking he created anything.
 
ID v. UD
Pro does some more straw person here [2], claiming that I claimed any death is proof against God, when I in fact pointed to the random schedules of our breakdown instead of a perfect one from a perfect creator. This leaves the proof that God did not create us uncontested, meaning we came into being through any other means.
 
Humans Are Computers
As for the idea that the human brain is some great computer... For this I will borrow a source from the previous debate pro linked us to, specifically the information within about Alan Turing, father of the computer [4]. With it in mind that we won WW2  in 1945 thanks to his computer, it is proven that computers are better at decoding than we are; otherwise there would be no need to use them for coding and decoding... By pro’s logic of scaling up, us building something smarter than ourselves would mean we in turn are smarter than anything which created us, and what is dumber than the FSM? The FSM is the supreme unintelligence!
 
Limb Length
Pro has entirely dropped that his argument here is disproven by Limb Length Discrepancy and asymmetrical breasts (which are actually more common than them being perfectly the same size) [5, 6]. Heck my heart takes up more space on the left side of my chest than my right.
 
Plus, pro agrees life changes through mutation (evolution). He also talks of Adam and Eve, who he’s already implicitly conceded could not exist as they are older than Jesus (whom apparently created life).

 
3. Refuting Video
Pro’s new arguments this round were pre-refuted under the math heading, plus it is refuted by his own source on it:
“If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

"Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry...

"It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.” [7].
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @Christen
Thank you both for voting.
Contender
#31
Added:
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?
Contender
#30
Added:
--> @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.
*******************************************************************
#29
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Yup. My bad.
#28
Added:
--> @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.
*******************************************************************
#27
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Counting unrated debates, oooooooooooh bad no no
#26
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
If we don't count the draw.
Your win percentage is 44.44%
#25
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I am 5-4 in rated debates, how is that bad?
#24
Added:
--> @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.
#23
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Lives on type1 debates
Cries when speedrace beats him at everything
also moved to forums, but ignores that
#22
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Has an abysmal debate record.
Can't to make it better.
Move to 1 sentence andy in the forums.
#21
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
crybaby, who cried over the boat debate when I voted,haha
#20
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Crybaby
#19
Added:
What Bullshit
#18
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Rag rag
Going to bag
Another win
Making his opponent dim
#17
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Pro's argument that "Complex thing can not happen randomly" and therefore God exists because complex things exist is a logical fallacy known as the Watchmaker fallacy, which is something that this Youtuber debunks very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM
Con recognizes this fallacy and affirms that "pro would need to prove with 100% certainty that it was exclusively God and no other mythological being creating life anywhere."
Pro says "You do not know if it is a past event or not." then immediately contradicts himself by saying "yes the universe was created." The key word here is "was". That means that it happened sometime in the past. This could have been a few minutes ago or a few decades ago, but it was in the past.
Pro also commits another logical fallacy known as begging the claim, in which he states "it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life. Because that is a past event and i meet the burden of proof. That life coming without god is zero." His argument is basically that, Jesus created life, because... jesus created life.
Con exposes pro for these fallacies in the other rounds and pro has nothing to say about it.
So I give my vote to con.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
This feels like pro is simply trolling.
Pro provides little more than a series of asserted arguments, with limited - if any logical arguments to pin it together. Pros points are basically arguing that life is complex, and life is structured in a way that provides useful function:
1.) life is complex
2.) ?????
3.) God.
Step 2 is the most important and appeared completely lacking.
Pros points are largely unstructured, difficult to read and beat no relation to the resolution presented.
Con provides a very simple case: for the resolution to be true; pro must rule out all other divine beings, using the FSM as a baseline example or causes of creation. This point basically undermines pros case, and gives him the burden of proof to show
While I have no doubt of pros personal convictions on this matter, pro offers little else other than his own incredulity about the existence of anything without God : which is no logical basis to form an opinion on.
Pro attempts to reject much of cons case by asserting demons - which appears pretty tied up with the premise he is trying to show in the first place.
Cons argument from unintelligent Design appears to clearly fit the facts better, with the examples con gave for limb length and animals getting ill.
Con also adds the possibility of evolution: broadly covering the process that produces life, which pro mostly replies with simple incredulity to dismiss.
This debate appears to be almost completely assertions by pro, who is unable to justify the conclusions; whilst con clearly introduces doubt into the possibility of something other than God creating everything by showing how other explanations better fit the facts.
On these grounds, the win goes to con.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Pro pushed the burden of proof and still couldn't make an argument for God. Pro's argument can also be summed as a special pleading fallacy or probability equals God. Even if we grant it is improbable for the universe to be causeless. Pro would have to demonstrate that it is more probable for it to be God. Pretty weird he shifted the burden for some reason. Another problem with Pro is that analogy are used in order for the reader to engage with an argument with a tailored context. It doesn't make your point correct but it can show if your opponent is inconsistent. Since Pro started you would have to show outside source of Con being inconsistent but you didn't. I pretty much summed up Pro's argument without the context. This clearly shows how lackluster Pro's argument is.
Con decided to show how probability actually works. Given that most of Pro's argument was on an incorrect assumption of what probability is Con did all that he needed to state how wrong Pro is. Con also used spaghetti to show there is no difference between an intelligent life and spaghetti. This argument wouldn't work if Pro was able to demonstrate God was intelligent but Pro couldn't which is why the argument was helpful in getting his point across.
Pro after this decided to explain what the Bible says while also adding in more points. This all is not helpful in demonstrating God created life. No amount of belief makes your point better. You need to demonstrate it as in show observable evidence of God doing something or something linking to God or even something logically deducing to God but Pro hasn't.
Con didn't really have much to say apart from regurgitate what he said in the earlier Round. So basically Pro failed to counter Con's point and Con was left stating what he said before.
Pro again decided to bring in more points that were pushing the burden to Con instead of proving God created life. Sure his rule did say Con will have the burden but I don't have to take into account your rules and moderators don't enforce it. He also did add a Bill Gate which doesn't actually support him since he isn't a scientist nor parroting from other scientists he quoted.
Con like the same in other Rounds said pretty much the same thing, modified with new information. Con also pointed out Pro does state Evolution is a fact.
So even though the rules stated Con has the burden to show God didn't create life the debate centered around Pro giving claims Con refuting it. Given that Con did a better job than Pro he wins as I have demonstrated it.
I think Pro should really attend English classes. It helped me with my argumentation as in point, evidence and explanation while also philosophy. In order to find arguments for your side while also presenting it well. Hopefully this leads you to seeing the other side and see how wrong you are but I think I have said enough.