It is possible for the Christian God to exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
It is possible for the Christian God to exist.
Advice:
Pro, pretty good job. I do suggest resolutions which imply some degree of probability, but by pulling things back to the resolution rather than side tangents you won this debate.
Con, don't worry so much about line by line rebuttals to whatever someone else says, come up with an attack on the resolution itself. ... Don't get me wrong, still address the theme of someone else's case, but even when they have BoP there is nothing to stop you from introducing your own contentions. As an example, you could argue that possible things can be assigned some probability (there's various calculations for aliens as an example), and there is no basis for God having a probability (maybe even stack it and say the probability of God not existing =0.99999... to infinity, which in turn equals 1, leaving no possibility of God existing).
Arguments:
1. Many complex planets, solar systems, and galaxies in our universe
Doubtful, but possible.
Con's counter about aliens, really hurt his case. Were the debate about aliens possibly existing, saying their existence hasn't been proven would not counter the possibility.
2. The laws of science are universal
This could have been leveraged against the possibility of something violating those at a whim, instead con pointed out it hasn't been proven, which does not address the possibility as per the resolution...
3. DNA
Completely unsure how this is supposed to relate to God.
Conduct:
When asking voters to weight conduct, ensure yours is the preferable side...
"Please voters review this as a forfeit by my opponent or unwilling to give rebuttals so essentially the same thing just the same thing."
A forfeiture would give the conduct point, asking for this due to not liking the concise defense style of using the resolution, is very poor conduct. Much better to just adapt and make a better case (or explain the error in their reasoning, and extend points if they're proven topical). This is worse for the amount within that "forfeit" to which con then went on to reply. ... Con, you would not want people to consider your R4 forfeited, when you truly gave nothing to respond to within it. The end result of the waived round was not quite a final round blitzcreig, but it entered that dangerous conduct area.
Going on to Kritik the debate as unfair, would have been a valid tactic in R1 (E.G., 'mere possibility is meaningless, thus this debate is a truism troll debate, and I should win for possibly being the true uncaused cause which caused all others...'), but late in the game it felt like special pleading.
Pro's argument wouldn't be compelling in empirically proving God's existence, but does explain how it is 'possible'. Con's rebuttal would have been effective if the resolution were different, but the resolution questions the 'possibility' of a Christian deity existing; not the deity existing in actuality. Since it is the 'possibility' that is in question, Con would have been required to demonstrate that it is meta physically impossible for the Christian God to exist. The only part in Con's rebuttal that remotely touches on the 'possibility' of the Christian God would be that Creatio ex Nihilio (CEN) has never been observed (since if CEN is impossible then it would be impossible for the Christian God to exist). However, Con failed to demonstrate that CEN is an impossibility; at face value just because something hasn't been observed does not mean it is impossible. For example, aliens are metaphysically possible, yet have never been observed. Hence, at best, Con depicts the existence of the Christian God to be unlikely, but this is not enough for him to win the debate.
Let me help you out here
"I am not arguing that the Christian God does exist, but that it is possible for Him to exist. "
Then if it is possible, he HAS to exist, think of it like that
if there is a possible world where God could exist, then he exists in that world, but God is the greatest being ever conceived, so naturally, he would have to exist in every possible world to be the greatest, it's like if we have 100 possible worlds, God is the greatest being ever conceived, so the greatest number would be he exists in all 100 of the possible worlds. It is greater to exist in 6 possible worlds than 5.
So theoretically, all you have to argue is a God, something that is perfect,all-knowing and all-powerful could exist. It would then logically follow that it HAS to exist,
Video to explain what I am trying to say-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74
I agree with you completely, although that wasn't quite the topic of this debate.
You are addressing something that i have been trying to say for years. all planets move in elliptical and are all conveniently round.sun and moon are both round. All the planets are round. I say god did this. They say it is because of gravity.The laws of physics have something to do with it to. I responds by saying god used gravity the reason why the laws of physics state everything must be perfect is because god is a lawmaker. you did not prove that it formed naturally. you just describe the details of my statement.
me
All planets are round all and move in an elliptical
Atheist
Gravity makes planets round and the laws of physics Issac nutan discovered says they must go in an elliptical.
So you agree with me. you just repeated what i said
Even though your not saying there is proof that he did it. your just saying there is no reason why he could not be the one to create it. While i am saying there is reason why he is the one who created it.
My apologies. I managed to say trustworthy instead of reliable in my direct quote of you. I really have no idea how I did that.
i agree anything is possible if not probable
Cool.