Instigator / Pro
19
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1315

Atheism vs. Theism: Atheism is more probable than Theism

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
1
2

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
9
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

Intro

I'm going to do something different this debate and argue for the atheistic perspective. I haven't argued the atheist perspective in a while so I thought I'd give this a chance.

Definitions

Atheism: The position that God does NOT exist
Theism: The position that a god exists.
Probable: likely to be the case or to happen.
God: For the purposes of this debate, "God" will be defined as the God of classical Theism which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being with the 4 O's (omnipotent etc.)

Structure
1. Opening arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Defense
4. Close

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:

Comment #59 - #70

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:

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1315/comment_links/21036

Gist:
The debate ends up favoring non-existence of any creator deity, largely by cons own arguments as flipped by pro. Pro’s arguments on the other hand were in large part intentionally dropped for disproving God, so there’s not much of a contest left…

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:

I don't buy that requiring Con to argue for god's omnibenevolence is abusive. Firstly, this is a trait commonly attributed to god, and so it is not absurd that Con would be asked to defend it. Secondly, and more importantly, Con was under no obligation to accept the debate as it stood, and the definition of god was clearly stated. Buyer's remorse is not a compelling argument. At this point, then, I can essentially conclude that Pro won the debate. Even if Con won every other argument, the problem of evil gives me a compelling reason to believe that god as defined (one which is ominbenevolent) does not exist.

That said, Con did not win every other argument. He pretty soundly loses his consciousness argument. Without a credible source to back up his claims inside the debate, his argument does in fact boil down to a god of the gaps fallacy (i.e. "Goddidit"). Con's handling of the KCA was also solid. Con's reply that it was okay to engage in special pleading with god because of god's unique properties strikes me as being special pleading itself. Instead of countering the allegations of fallacious logic, Con admits to them.

Con is winning a couple of points. On his case, his discussion of morality was mishandled by Pro. Why not simply suggest that altruism is necessary from a rational point of view? You cannot have a functioning, complex community if no one trusts anyone and if everyone is afraid of being robbed by some more aggressive adversary. I think the whole premise of Con's argument was fundamentally foolish, but he was able to dispatch with Pro's responses easily enough. Con is also winning his fine-tuning argument at the end of his case--yes there are risks to life here, as Pro notes, but overwhelmingly, just the fact that life like ours is possible here is improbable without some sort of deity. That message from Con comes across loud and clear.

I am not going to talk about the main body of Pro's case, because he failed to defend it when he forfeited. It is odd then, that despite Pro's failure to defend his case, that I am voting for him. Ultimately, I have to find abuse arguments reasonable to credit them, because they ask for the judge (me) to intervene in the round. I don't find Con's abuse arguments creditable, and so I give Pro the weight of his POE argument. Con manages to show me that a god who meets three of the four O's is probable, but not that a god who meets all four is. I grant argument points to Pro as a result. For the forfeit, I grant Con argument points.

Also, I want to add that I really dithered about this vote. Part of me feels that Pro is winning in absentia, and that doesn't sit well with me, and Con did well. But I couldn't reconcile a vote for Con with my issues on the POE. I would also encourage Con to sign-post better--his presentation style was confusing at points. And both of you--avoid block quotes! Hopefully this counts in your views as a solid vote, since I know you've had a lot of spam votes on this debate. Keep at it--it was a good debate!