All those coincidences are just God
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
2 weeks do not take if you want short debate
Arguments - Pro delivered a fleshed out argument, which essentially boiled down to identifying nifty interactions between nature and the human body and attributing said interaction to god. Although the basic structure of the argument is sound, in that a claim is made and points are given to support it, the substance of the argument is poor, in my opinion. Pro has a long way to go to convince me that silver regulates our body temperature because god wanted silver to regulate our body temperature (or that god's hand is behind any of the other phenomenon mentioned). In order to convince me of this, Pro would 1) need to explain why it is unlikely that some elements of nature have convenient reactions with our bodies, and 2) need to explain why it is likely an all-powerful supernatural entity would care if some elements of nature have convenient reactions with our bodies. In absence of these explanations, I am unconvinced.
Arguments - Con probably has a great seed of an argument here, but he puts in no effort to make it grow. Attempting to turn Pro's logic against Pro is a smart move, and it's quite possible I could have been convinced. But without putting in the legwork of explaining why god's existence should be considered analogous to Pro's proposed coincidences, and without fleshing out the implications of the supposed infinite regress loop (I don't think providing a definition of infinite regress is sufficient on this front, although it's a start), I cannot award arguments to Con.
Sources - I was not impressed with either side's sources. As far as I can tell, some of Pro's claims went unsupported by the sources he provided, and some of the sources he provided made claims that should have been sourced, but were not. See the Cure Joy pages for an example of the latter. Con dumped two sources in his last round, but they were just definitions. These were helpful but not game-changing.
S&G - I was very tempted to award S&G to Con, as Pro's writing is quite poor. However, it did not seem entirely fair to compare the two, as Pro wrote many words, while Con wrote very few. In a way, Con provided too small a sample size for me to feel comfortable awarding Con S&G. That, and I did note a few minor writing errors in Con's limited text.
Conduct - Since Con forfeited Round 1 and put in little effort Round 2, points go to Pro.
Pro opened his argument by exploring several scientific phenomena the ability of silver to help regulate body temperature, and the ability of certain plants to help regulate the body’s hormones and blood pleasure.
Con forfeited round 1.
Pro presented an interesting video on how science falls utterly short of explaining abiogenesis.
Con then claimed that God must also be a coincidence.
Pro then explains how evolution runs into the same dilemma when trying to explain the uncaused cause.
Con continues to support his position that God is a coincidence.
Arguments:
Pro: I would have liked to see Pro explain the purpose of his arguments more. From what I gathered the sources presented in the first two rounds were intended to point toward intelligent design. Since Pro failed to provide explanations as to the significance of his sources his argument fell a little flat.
Con: Assuming Con’s claim that God is the product of coincidence, I still fail to see how this is supposed to counter Pro’s argument that all coincidences we observe are actually designed by God. Simply put, Con seems to be making an argument that does not address the topic of the debate.
Sources: Pro provided good citations of decent sources supporting his position. For Con, I don’t see how defining coincidence and infinite regress is supposed to counter Pro’s argument that all perceived coincidences are actually designed by God. Therefore, I must vote for Pro who provided all relevant sources.
Grammar: I noticed several grammatical mistakes by Pro. For example in the second round Pro used ‘them’ where sentence structure called for ‘those’. Grammar goes to Con.
Conduct: Since Con forfeited round 1, the best conduct goes to Pro.
god does not throw dice with the universe - albert einstien
what does that even mean?
I think I finally figured out how to counter it. See posts 34 through 36...
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2644/god-precisly-set-asteroids?page=2&post_number=39
that's concision- pretty much sums up the crossed philosophy in a single sentence