Instigator / Con
21
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

Is Theism a Sound Position?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
3
Sources points
6
4
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
0

With 3 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...

semperfortis
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Pro
10
1498
rating
8
debates
43.75%
won
Description
~ 894 / 5,000

*Terms*
-Theism: "the personal cause of our universe attributed with the 4 O's"
-Sound: X would be considered sound if and only if, X has been proven to be logically consistent, objectively true, or at very least most likely to be true given our current understanding of the universe.

*Burden of Proof*
-Shared
-Pro ought to show why theism is sound (meeting the criteria provided)
-Con ought to show why theism is unsound (not meeting the criteria provided)

*Rules*
1. No kritiks
2. No forfeits
3. Obey the debate format
-Failure to adhere to these rules is deemed poor conduct.

*Format*
R1: Con provides opening argument, Pro responds with opening argument and a rebuttal
R2: Clash (rebuttal and defence)
R3: Clash (rebuttal and defence)
R4: Con provides final defence and rebuttal with closing statements, Pro waives the right to defend and rebut but can summarise their arguments.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Great debate! Pity it didn’t go the distance.

1.) Con - The universe wasn’t caused. - there for no need for God.

This argument is basically that the universe only has a cause if the A theory of time is true (there is a material difference between past and present - evidenced by tensed facts) . This was quite a complex topic to wrap your head around, but actually pretty compelling; con shows (imo) that the a theory of time can’t be true - and refutes causation per that syllogism. Con appears to be arguing a boundless universe; that there is no point in time where the universe isn’t in existent - thus the existence is not tensed.

Pros rebuttal didn’t scratch the surface here; merely arguing that the pro is claiming an absence of change - which isn’t the case. I feel con didn’t do himself any favours though as I feel his explanation was a bit on the complex side. There was back and forth, but nothing pro seemed to offer that dealt with the apparent lack of tensed facts.

Retrocausality was an interesting issue raised by con; arguing that B theory of time theoretically allows events in the future to affect the past. I don’t feel this point was particular compelling - it was a possibility but not one I feel was well enough established to affect the debate.

2.) Occams Razor.

Con argues the premise of parsimony; that if an entity was less than the utmost of key properties, it would be parsimonious; as would the premise of emergence rather than divine creation - the first point was elaborated, but I was hoping for more as to why emergence was more parsimonious.

Pro mostly dismissed Occam’s razor; imo pro has to show that his example is more parsimonious, instead pro appeared to dodge the point.

3.) secondary properties are inconsistent.

Con argues that God as an entity can’t exist as the properties posited are all secondary (like temperature).

I don’t think this is a great argument, as I don’t think that there is any statement that these properties are the only properties. It’s not well refuted by pro who mostly hand waved; so I would consider refuted, but imo it didn’t have warrant.

4.) Argument from contingency.

Pro argues that the universe must have a cause as things within it all have a cause. Con points out that this falls foul of the fallacy of composition; that pro is assuming that the nature of the universe must be the same as the objects within it. There is some back and forth, with an example of a red carpet - which I felt con based away well.

This was enough imo, to invalidate pros argument: note, I didn’t really assess the dichotomy argument con made as even if I assume he’s wrong, the main argument still holds.

5.) KCA

Boiler plate KCA, it’s similar to other examples so won’t waste ink.

- Con argues actual infinities exist, that the issue is that infinite’s seems unintuitive rather than illogical.
- That pro assumes everything requires a cause based on observation - yet pro assumes that things can be created ex-nillio despite the lack of observation.

Imo this ties in with cons statement of fallacy of composition. The Big Bang theory portion of this also appears closely related to B theory of time (no point of creation).

In all these cases con has the edge, or wins all 5 points. Thus arguments to con.

Conduct to con for the forfeits.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

50% forfeit by pro

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Gist:
It felt like pro (the contender) copy/pasted his case from elsewhere, without proper modification to meet con’s points. This was made very evident when he got caught making points that were pre-refuted without bothering to defend why they would be valid in light of the existing case against them... Needless to say, if an argument is invalid, it cannot be sound.

1. Cosmological Argument
This boiled down to pro asserting something, and con accusing it of being a fallacy of composition, which pro tries to defend with an analogy of if we observe part of something being red we should assume the whole thing is red... Which upholds that the fallacy of composition has been committed, doubling down on it does not change it away from being a fallacy; and thus invalid.
This ends up pointing to contention 2 for proof...

2. KCA
Pro makes this, even when con had pre-refuted it during his opening. He pulls it back to contention 1, when contention 2 was needed to uphold contention 1.
There’s a lot more depth, such as explanations of dark matter, Hilbert’s Hotel and how it does or does not uphold this contention, but pro chooses to drop it all.

3. Uncaused Universe
This section is very lengthy, and mostly dropped even from the start (awhile before the forfeitures)... A highlight from this broad area was pro complaining that he simply did not understand how a causeless universe would not require a cause.

4. Occam’s Razor
This was con hammering away at the four O’s, and ended with con pointing out that pro refused to offer evidence; but instead commits steadfast to special pleading. Given that the resolution is about soundless not just logical validity, pro could have lost the whole case on this.

5. Internal Inconsistencies
Very informative section, which teaches us all about how we misdescribe things by calling them by their secondary instead of primary attributes. Pro fails to understand this section, saying because he says God has secondary properties that those are the primary properties... Con makes short work of this blunder with a car not being defined by being red analogy (tying back to an analogy from pro previously).

---

Arguments: con
See above review of key points. I could list the various times pro treated his case as a truism, but to what point; he needed to uphold that something was a sound theory, but failed to even show that it was valid.

Sources: con
Twenty vs. zero. Pro's attempts at using sources, were badly broken links, which made it feel like he copy/pasted his early arguments from elsewhere, rather than properly responding to cons points.
Con’s explanation of the Hilbert’s Hotel and how it’s not a real paradox but an intuitive trick, was a strong note, as it was highly effective use of sources to outright flip part of pro’s case; which pro then chose to wholly drop.

Conduct: con
Multiple forfeitures.