Instigator / Pro
16
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#242

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
6
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

MagicAintReal
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
23
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Description

Thank you for agreeing to debate this topic with me.

TERMS

Resolved: It is probable that God exists.

Rounds:

1. Opening Arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Closing arguments/Rebuttals

For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence religious-specific doctrines such as the incarnation, Sinaic revelation, and the trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.

The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.

The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence.

-->
@Mopac

I’m still waiting for you to give me a reason why you think my interpretation of the code is conduct is wrong.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@Ramshutu

The fact that a couple of fools does not take me seriously does not bother me.

Ya'll are the ones who are going to suffer, not me.

-->
@Mopac

It’s stuff like this that shows why no one takes you seriously, and sometimes wonder whether you have genuine issues in either communication or intelligence:

I am simply wrong? What part specifically, and why? What I said is close to verbatim what the code of conduct says about how you should vote and what ways it is valid, so not only am I not wrong, your vote got removed because you’re wrong.

I get the feeling that you are not capable of even comprehending that people don’t agree with you, and you appear to be resorting to the eroneous conclusion that your utter inability to present a reasonable argument is a problem with all the innumerable people who find your argument irrational, rather than in the one person who made the argument.

-->
@Mopac

Your response to your premise being flawed is:

"you are wrong."

Noted.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@Ramshutu

You are both simply wrong.

-->
@Mopac

Look.
You're running a circular argument, almost an argument tautology, that is just saying:
P1 God is the truth.
C1 If you claim truth, then you claim god.

The problem is that no one's buying that god is truth, i.e. your P1 in your circular argument is not automatically made sound by adding truth to the definition of god in the debate.
Neither debater indicated god is truth, so saying that if we accept truth or agree with truth then we necessarily accept god's existence or agree with god's existence is irrelevant.

Your P1 is rejected sir.

-->
@Mopac

You can’t vote based on the arguments you would have made, of the reasons you are thinking of for why one side is wrong. You vote based on what both sides argue.

-->
@bsh1

Con conceded the moral argument when he admitted objective morality existed.

Neither con or moderator realize this because they don't understand the conception of God. If they did, they wouldn't identify as atheists, because anyone who holds a believe that literally means nothing is ultimately real is crazy.

-->
@bsh1

Virt shouldn't have to say that God is The Truth because that is what God means.

It says in the description we are talking about judeo-christian monotheism.

I know what my God is.

-->
@Batman485

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Batman485 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: Pro had a way better argument, and there is definite proof in his arguments. Con has provided a list of fantasies that he tells himself to justify not being in a religion.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to justify all of their non-argument points, and their argument point justification is insufficient. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner.
************************************************************************

-->
@Purple

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Purple // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: CON had the more convincing arguments and was able to conduct himself much clearer as well as being able to ask questions that PRO could not answer which pushed me towards CON.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points awarded. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner. To award Conduct points, the voter must either identify a forfeit, unfairness, or excessive misconduct.
************************************************************************

Mopac's RFD:

I thought that both debaters used good sources and there wasn't anything that stuck out enough in the spelling and grammar department to warrent anything other than a tie. Even though pro apologized for forfeiting a round, I still think that is bad enough to sway conduct in favor of con.
As far as the arguments themselves...
When it comes to the cosmological argument, I don't buy into con's claim that God is special pleading, because it makes eense to me that there had to always be some form of existence, and that is what "supreme being" means. We are talking about God after all.
As far as the moral argument, it seems to me that con concedes that there is objective morality, which couldn't be the case if there wasn't an "Absolute Truth". We are talking about God after all. That said, I think instigator's argument seems to be contingent on revealed scripture, and the description says we are not talking about that... either way, con claims that there can be objective morality which is nonsense because without Truth there is no objective anything.
The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford. It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means, which I can say is not really correct. I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily.
In the end, I think instigator argued better, but I must admit he is pretty much representing William Lane Craig's case. I don't think he is trying to hide this.
In the end, what is the question? Is it probable that God exists? Not only does it seem probable, it really seems necessary.

-->
@Mopac

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mopac // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently justifies awarding conduct points by pointing to the forfeit. What is problematic about the vote is that the voter seems to insert analysis external to the debate into his vote, namely, that nothing can be objective without the "Truth." Nowhere does this seem present in the debate, and indeed, the voter fails to consider any counterarguments along the lines of objective morality at all. The voter must, per the site policy, assess both the main arguments and counterarguments in their RFD. As this is not done, the argument point justification is insufficient.
************************************************************************

-->
@Mopac

Yes - among other things it means omnipotence - which means limitless power - which both pro and con argues does not exist.

-->
@Ramshutu

Judeo-christian monotheism

I know what that means.

It's in the description.

-->
@Mopac

Actually Mopac - OED defines omnipotence as “(of a deity) having unlimited power.” This is exactly what con was arguing, and it was pro who was attempting to argue a different position. Both pro and con were effectively arguing that omnipotence as defined can’t exist.

Your RFD appears to be pulling much information from outside of this debate, including from your own beliefs - as you appear to be justifying your RFD based on argument from some sort of “absolute Truth”, which is an argument pro didn’t make. You should be making voting decisions based on whether pro and con made a better argument, not whether con didn’t refute information you have in your head.

-->
@MagicAintReal

The way that he addressed your argument was satisfactory and the way the William Lane Craig would debate this. Instigator is pretty much arguing straight William Lane Craig.

I would recommend the book Reasonable Faith for you to read, it is pretty interesting.

-->
@Mopac

"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."

Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I will do no such thing.

And I have been voted against on sources for using my opponent in a debate's sources which I don't think is fair.

It's a good thing that an arbitrary panel of judges doesn't determine what truth is, eh?

-->
@Mopac

Ok, well I urge you to urge the mods to remove it.

-->
@Mopac

"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."

Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.

"It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means"

Which was unchallenged by Pro, right?

"which I can say is not really correct."

Are you voting on what Pro says is not really correct or are you voting on what YOU say is not really correct?

" I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily."

Really?
Give an example.

"In the end, I think instigator argued better:"

Because of what YOU thought of or what the debater brought up?

-->
@MagicAintReal

Even if I wanted to, I cannot change my vote.

-->
@David

Can you chime in on this being the debater in this silly vote.
Please tell Mopac what's up.

-->
@Mopac

Ok, please respond to my questions first.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I don't always address every argument someone might address toward me. That doesn't discredit my position. lf that was the case, the person who comes up with the most convoluted arguments would always be the best debater.

The Standard model of physics that is accepted and even believed on b ly those who out of ignorance of the subject matter deny God agree that there was a beginning of the universe.

Steven Hawking, who the instigator referenced spent his whole life trying to get around this, and despite his cleverness couldn't. People are still trying to work their way around this.

I'm not really interested in debating you on the comments section though, Instigator made a better case imo.

-->
@Mopac

1. Did Pro respond to the claim that any action considered by him to be moral is reducible to homeostasis?
2. Did Pro ever answer the question, without time how does Pro know the universe didn't create god?
3. Did Pro ever counter that without spacetime, creation is impossible?

I'm going to let you know that he didn't, and these are all resolution-impacting points.

You have to analyze Pro's performance for what Pro did, and because of the forfeit and the mispost, Pro did not fulfill his entire burden which was to show:
1. an entity not limited in power, in terms of number, quantity, or extent i.e. has all powers
2. an entity not limited in knowledge i.e. has all knowledge
3. an entity not limited in goodness, in terms of extent
4. an entity that used the process of creation to bring about the origin of the universe and therefore spacetime
5. an entity that exercises dominion over said originated universe
6. an entity that serves as a source of the principles concerning right and wrong with respect to the ways in which one acts towards others.

If Pro did not counter any of the charges that Con brought up for each of these, then you cannot vote Pro.
I mean this is ridiculous that I have to explain this when it's obvious from the forfeit and mispost that this debate goes to Con.
Stop voting your opinions.

-->
@Mopac

In your reading of the arguments, did Pro drop any arguments...be honest

-->
@MagicAintReal

I know what the monotheistic God is.

The Supreme Being

The Ultimate Reality

The Absolute

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

If that helps.

But I stand with my vote. As I said, your ignorance of what God means does not shift the burden of proof. I did read all the arguments. I also took points away from instigator for forfeiting which I believe was appropriate. Many words don't make the better argument.

Much love. God exists, it is a surety.

-->
@Mopac

"You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator."

My understanding of god is irrelevant, what do the definitions of god in the debate say?
That's the definition of god to be talked about, no other definitions.

"Sorry, I found instigator more convincing."

It's ok to find the instigator more convincing, but to say that Pro met their burden without showing how they met their burden, you're voting in how YOU would counter these arguments, not the debater.
Also, you ignoring the obvious drops by Pro is unfair.
Are you aware of Pro's drops, or no?

"You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God."

Ok, while it may not make sense to you, you need to show HOW Pro countered this, not how you think it should have been countered.
The truth is, that Pro never countered my homeostasis examples and you simply ignored that.

" I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause."

While it's nice to know how you perceive things, it's irrelevant to HOW the debater countered my quantum fluctuation argument and the argument of temporal creation.
Did you consider these things when you voted?

-->
@MagicAintReal

You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator.

You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God.

Instigator presented evidence began, which is what created means. It came into being. I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause.

Sorry, I found instigator more convincing. Good show.

-->
@Purple

I know, but the rules of the debate have voters considering all resolution impacting points. As it stands, you've mentioned none of them. Again, thank you for your vote, but if you could analyze points like the creation of the universe, omnipotence, and objective morality, you can put up a solid vote to show how Pro's burden, to prove a creator of the universe, was met or not met. Rewrite it and include all resolution-impacting points. Otherwise it might get removed.

-->
@MagicAintReal

It was based on the debater performance I believed you conducted yourself better if the votes cannot be opinionated then no one can vote period. The two of you made good points however I found you were able to ask harder and better questions for PRO and that PRO could not answer them.

-->
@bsh1
@Purple

While I appreciate the vote, and realize it's for me, it is in no way thorough enough or addresses all of the resolution impacting points. Also, you can't vote your opinion, you have to vote on debater performance.

-->
@Wylted

Looks like I'm gonna need those argument points bud.
A forfeit and a misposted round are not enough to fend off theist voters.

-->
@bsh1

Look at the comment below for Mopac's vote please.

-->
@Mopac

I appreciate you voting, but if Pro did not respond to all of Con's contentions that directly impact the resolution and show how Pro has not met his burden, you can't give Pro argument points because of YOUR thoughts on how there is absolute truth, or there must be a creator. You have to vote based on debater performance, and even Pro in this case has mentioned that he did not meet his burden.
I ask that you reconsider your vote to reflect debater performance instead of your own opinions about it.

God loves you. You are not going to burn in a fiery pit regardless of what any fire and brimstone preacher has told you

What does the bible say about hell "sheol" ? What part describes it I. The way you describe. Google the translated word sheol to find out what he'll really is

God is pretty mean. He decided to burn most of the world's population in hell forever with no chance of escaping. No one deserves to burn in hell forever.

Batman's vote will likely get removed, so you should still have a comfortable lead even if I fail to follow through

I have to go to work shortly. I don't want my vote removed for not providing a thorough RFD. I plan to give a more thorough RFD when I clear up some time

-->
@Wylted

You stated in your RFD that I won arguments because the burden was not met, but you didn't award me points because you need to analyze it further?
You said tri omni was not met, you can't just give me the points?

-->
@Wylted

Ok.

-->
@MagicAintReal

"Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part."

Language is imperfect and impercise, it is also short hand for much broader concepts. If I tell my wife she can do whatever she wants after she divorces me, I'm not telling her she can grow wings and fly. I am saying she is unrestricted by me personally. Julius Caesar was often referred to as omnipotent, and somehow the definition of that has been twisted. When they called Caeser omnipotent they were aware he had human and natural limitations (despite being declared a God later). I think more time needs to be taken to hash out semantics before any religious orientated debate happens, so many terms have different interpretations by different participants. If you think omnipotent means that God can pie a triangle (a nonsense statement) and your opponent thinks he is all powerful in respect to how much power he has not in his ability to do anything, than it is not going to be a productive debate. Let's do 5 rounds where nothing is voted on and me and you just hash out some semantics on a God debate, so we have a common understanding of words we can agree on

-->
@Wylted

1. Is the ability to fly a power that god has?
2. Is the ability to fly "triangling a circle?"
3. Birds can fly and are not limited by unnatural means yet to admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air, so is god still omnipotent given this natural lack of an ability to fly?

-->
@Wylted

""having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."

This definition makes you and I both omnipotent just like that definition of golf made baseball golf.

-->
@Wylted

"Nobody can violate logic, even god. He is still omnipotent, it is just nonsense to ask if he can do shit like "make a square octupus rectangle himself blu in the basketball" nonsense,"

Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part.

"no less sensible than trying to refute omnipotence by asking if he can make a rock even he can't move or hwatever lame scenario kids are talking about these days."

Why is it not sensible, if the claim is that god is able to do anything, as nearly every definition of all powerful i.e. omni-potent corroborates, for god to be UNABLE to violate logic would be a direct contradiction and if he does violate logic then the power to infinitely remain logical is not possessed by him and thus is limited in the number of powers...it's not omnipotence, period.

Just read the debate, your definitions are descriptive not prescriptive and the definition of omnipotent is incomplete. Here is the definition "having power not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything."

Definitions are kept short in dictionaries on purpose. Here is the definition of golf "a game in which clubs with wooden or metal heads are used to hit a small, white ball into a number of holes, usually 9 or 18, in succession, situated at various distances over a course having natural or artificial obstacles, the object being to get the ball into each hole in as few strokes as possible."

I could take a bat and start smacking baseballs into ten random holes I dug by tossing the ball into the air and batting it in those directions, but we all know that isn't golf. A more proper but yet still incomplete definition of omnipotent might say the following:

"having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."

-->
@ethang5

Look at you run away...you run funny!

-->
@ethang5

Hahaha ethang5 submitted to me.
He has no answer to the flaws of his vote that will be removed anyway...