Instigator / Pro
11
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1720

Does God exist?

Status
Finished

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

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

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

PressF4Respect
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1523
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

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:

In pro's first round, he directly references the "the law of non contradiction," and insists the god with a capital G is the necessary cause; and pretty much immediately raises a problem of "The universe does not have to exist the way it does," and never really connects God in there other than some slight of hand with the didit fallacy.

Con counters with the the fallacy of Composition, which pro defends by saying his argument isn't based on causality (the whole God is the necessary first cause thing he argued... very weird). Con also counters with an infinite regression loop, which pro fails to defend, merely proclaims any random thing can be the first cause without explanation for why that would be necessary; which leaves the question of why would it be God just hanging.

I will say that pro did a decide job with con's own arguments on the subject...

I should first say that pro's insistence "it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss Biblical doctrine" is false. When you argue something based on biblical doctrine instead of just /the universe had some cause/ you can't then throw it out when it's no longer convenient. That runs dangerously close to moving the goalposts.

On rocks, pro successfully defended. God can theoretically do anything otherwise impossible with all matter in the universe, and it would be a logical contradiction to then change the rules against itself to not. ... Not grading based on this, but a glaring weakness con could have exploited was that the spontaneous creation of matter is impossible, so God existing and creating things would be a violation of the limits pro has stated.

On omnibenevolence, pro begs the question of what if an omnibenevolent being isn't really omnibenevolent. This challenges if the creator is really the capital G God or not, so greatly harms pro's case.

On omniscience, pro does manage to defend by throwing out free will. Con likely would have extended it with further explanation for why, but this was not done. Of course, this likely would have done even greater harm to the omnibenevolent point as evil people have no power to not choose otherwise.

Con was the only one to use sources, but with so few, I do not feel they had enough impact on the debate. I am however learned on these theologies, so the sources offered no surprises for me.

Conduct for forfeiture.

In the end, this debate doesn't lean much in con's favor, but pro was the one with the primary BoP.

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:

Con FF the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct.

Debate is largely incomplete, all other points tied.