Does God Exist?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 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
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.
All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.In the case of the universe, the fact that the microwave background has such an exactly thermal spectrum indicates that it must have been scattered many times. The universe must therefore contain enough matter, to make it opaque in every direction we look, because the microwave background is the same, in every direction we look. Moreover, this opacity must occur a long way away from us, because we can see galaxies and quasars, at great distances. Thus there must be a lot of matter at a great distance from us. The greatest opacity over a broad wave band, for a given density, comes from ionised hydrogen. It then follows that if there is enough matter to make the universe opaque, there is also enough matter to focus our past light cone. One can then apply the theorem of Penrose and myself, to show that time must have a beginning.The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21:20 + Exodus 21:21
"no proof of the young woman"s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing...by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 22:13 - 22:21
C2 "Because the universe began to exist, this cause...must exist necessarily...this is exactly what we call God." -Pro
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause. From nothing comes nothing. This is a metaphysical truth and it would be absurd to deny it."
"P1: If objective moral facts exist, then God exists.P2: Objective moral facts existC: Therefore, God exists"
"If atheism and naturalism is true, then all things are morally permissible."
"If the atheist says that evolution can account for morality, then the atheist needs to answer the question when did these moral facts exist. If we could go back in time before this evolution, would it be morally permissible to commit genocide or torture babies for fun?"
As for this round of rebuttals, the KCA is invalid and unsound because of circular reasoning and virtual particle pairing respectively, and the moral argument ignores atheistic objective measures of morality like homeostasis.
2. Bu
3. Cu
Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?
If you can't, then how do you know that this exemption has occurred?
"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes.""Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."
Consider now an oak tree. Let’s say we have one oak tree that has strong roots and sinks its roots deep into the ground, and the other has weak roots and doesn’t sink its roots deep into the ground. Which one is the good oak tree? Which one is the bad?
Obviously, the former is the good oak tree, since it does what an oak tree is supposed to do given its nature—that is to say, it achieves the ends its nature directs it toward (e.g., sinking deep roots into the ground, taking in nutrition, and growing). Notice once again nature determines what is a good or bad instance of a thing.
The oak tree’s nature also helps us determine what is good and bad for the tree. If we were to spray the tree with poison, would the oak tree achieve its natural ends of sinking roots deep into the ground, taking in nutrition, and growing? Of course not! Therefore, we can say that poison is bad for the tree given its nature. And notice that what is bad for the tree is independent of what you are I think; it is an objective fact.
---
The same reasoning applies to human beings. Human beings have a nature or essence with various capacities and ends the fulfillment of which is good and the frustration of which is bad, as a matter of objective fact.
As we see, there are many things God cannot do, many "limitations" He cannot bring upon Himself. But this is because these "limitations" are not really limitations at all, but rather the necessary result of being unlimited.In other words, the resolution of the omnipotence paradox is that God's inability to make Himself finite is not a lack or flaw on His part at all. This limitation is not testimony to His imperfection. On the contrary, it is actually the ultimate expression of His perfection."
The greatness of an infinite, unlimited being is that He can never lose His unlimited nature. God can never go against logic and make a round triangle, expend too much energy and become tired, nor compromise His perfect memory and forget things. God can never become bound by finite terms. It is an error to view this inability as a limitation that reflects a weakness on God's part. It is really the exact opposite. What makes God so infinitely powerful is that He cannot do the things we mortals can do.85 It is only because of our finitude – our natural weakness and restrictions – that we experience limitations such as sickness, depression, immortality, or the inability to lift a heavy rock. For the Infinite One, however, His all-powerful nature simply does not allow for such weaknesses.
1. http://www.aish.com/atr/Who_Made_God.html
2. https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html
3. https://www.britannica.com/science/homeostasis
4. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-natural-law-a-guide-for-how-to-be-human
5. http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Can-God-Create-a-Rock-He-Cant-Pick-Up.html
"Con argues that the argument inherently separates things into the category of things that begins to exist and things that does not begin to exist. This is a gross misunderstanding of the argument!"
"Con completely drops the argument that the universe is finite."
"God, however, is infinite (per the definition). Because God is infinite, He did not have to be created (1)."
"Whatever created the Universe must be, by logical definition, exist outside the realm of creation (transcendent). This cause also had to be infinite and causeless because of the very fact that God is infinite."
"Do you agree that an infinite regress is impossible? If so, you must accept that there is a first cause."
"these fluctuations are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum."
"So we see here that the laws of physics pre-dates the universe."
"Con concedes several major points: (1) that objective moral facts exist; (2) that these facts can be known through reason and logic; and (3) these laws are rooted in natural law."
"why should we act morally from an atheistic point of view? As I pointed out in the first round:"
"These commands must come from a competent law giver for these objective commands to be binding on all of humans throughout all of time."
"Why should humans act morally?"
"What should be/are the consequences for acting immorally?"
"As we see, there are many things God cannot do, many "limitations..."
1. God cannot create a square triangle.2. God cannot sin.3. There are things He cannot bring upon Himself.4. God's inability to make Himself finite.5. He can never lose His unlimited nature.6. God can never go against logic.7. God can never expend too much energy.8. God can never become tired.9. God can never forget things.10. He cannot do the things we mortals can do.
"As we see, there are many "limitations" He cannot bring upon Himself. These "limitations" are not really limitations at all, but rather the necessary result of being unlimited. This limitation is actually the ultimate expression of His perfection."
Pro responds:"Easy. How does one distinguish an inventor and an invention?"
"The answer to this question is that the Creator is an infinite and eternal being and the creation is finite in nature."
'In my survey of the abortion debate, the question of whether a zygote, embryo or fetus is alive is one of the most crucial. Frequently those who are pro-life argue, as Rubio did, that science is clear on this issue. Human life begins at conception. The pro-choice folks then question this and say there is debate about it. Although I am pro-choice, there should be no debate about this issue. The facts are clear and with the appropriate definition of terms we can unequivocally conclude that human life begins at conception."
It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic - literally, without a brain.
Thanks for the debate Pro; it's been real.
Pro wins the moral arguments and proves that something transcends the world to have created it. I disagree I think things are cyclical in nature so the universe can kinda keep creating itself, but that is irrelevant. I see some arguments about the judeo christian God which is off topic. Really Con won because it is not enough for him to prove some transcendent creator existed, which I think he did prove, but failed to assign this creative force any intelligence, he has to prove this creative force was omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The task is too big for a single debate. Perhaps prove existence in one, benevolence in another omnipotence in another etc. I read the debate and analyzed it, Pro proved god but did not prove the tri-omni definition of God, and therefore loses arguments. I don't have time for an analysis that does this debate justice though, so I'll just vote on conduct. Pro's forfeits cause me to award con conduct.
1.) KCA
Pro established his Initial BOP with this, but con blew the KCA out of the water; expertly justifying is the logical flaw - both that it is textbook special pleading, and circular based on definitions. Pro never gets close to addressing this, and mostly chooses to simply reiterate the form of the proposition. Con hammers this home in the final round.
This argument devastates pros first position. The quantum fluctuations argument simply knocks it out of the park by providing a factual refutation of the premise pro states is self evidently true.
1:0 Con
2.) Morality: I didn’t feel pro really hammered this home, his justification of this point felt a bit laboured and unconvincing as I felt he didn’t justify the objective part of the morality well enough by showing it is indeed objective (transcendental), he made an argument though - which needs to be rebutted (but doesn’t require a strong one).
Con does this pretty well by providing an alternative explanation of morality, the homeostasis argument is actually - pretty good way of describing right and wrong without God, and I felt con did pretty well here. Primarily though, con pointed out something that I didn’t notice (i write my critique as I read the debate), namely that pro did not establish that such laws necessarily come from God. Pros follow this up in a way that largely misses that point and attempts to reassert this initial contention, mostly re-enforcing by asking who created it - an implicit follow on from the successfully rebutted KCA
I felt con won this part too by really showing the fundamental premise is faulty, or unproven - and following it up with a naturalistic argument.
2-0 to Con.
3.) thomastic argument.
I read this a couple of times, and this seems mostly an argument based on an asserted premise. Reading it twice, pro didn’t fully justify the premise and simply relies on asserting it. I noticed that pro appeared to drop it. Con touched about the rebuttal but I won’t score this one.
So at half time, pros position has effectively been destroyed. But con has to support his position to the same degree. So on to cons point.
4.) Omnipotence problem 1+2
So, con was rather verbose here - essentially pointing out that there a number of contradictions with a typical definition of Gods omnipotence. He did a good job of this - and pro largely objected to this by arguing that such contradictions are not limitations as they are impossible. Pro seems to fundamentally undermine his own definition - by arguing that limitlessness has limits - as Con pointed out. For me, pro implicitly destroyed the definition of omnipotence as defined and as I understand it - effectively arguing omnipotence as defined can’t exist, and therefore God as defined in the details can’t either.
Con 3:0.
Note: con wins arguments at this point. All pros points are destroyed, and con offers one unrefuted argument.
5.) temporalness/spaxefjme. Con offers my favourite argument against a creator - how can a God create something if there may not be a before in which something did not exist. He does his via cause and effect, time in general, and it being impossible to “create” without space time (a flavour of the first).
He offers sources to provide evidence that this is the case. Which for me is a massive slap sunk for con.
Pro offers no rebuttal 4:0
Conduct to con due to pro forfeit.
Sources to con: i almost awarded this as a tie. But as con had the only real example of evidence that flat out cut down his opponents key premise (quantum fluctuations), and supported his own premise with evidence to support it - the inflation science link. I felt that Pro didn’t cite any compelling evidence for the contested premises in even close to the same way. Those two sets of sources were knockouts in my view. The reason I considered a draw was that con didn’t present too many other sources, whereas pro tended to offer a lot of sources, but mostly to reiterate portions of the rationalist argument - rather than backing up the premises.
"Without time existing first, how do you know that the universe didn't create your god?"
This is an important point pro did not answer. From a previous round to the last round. Con asks how can you have creation without time. I don't think Pro answered this. The answer is easy... who says there wasn't time before the BB or that time and space were different... but, i didn't see an answer to this question. Probably bc Pro dropped two rounds due to being inattentive to this debate. If you can't keep track of debates do one at a time Pro. It was very frustrating as a reader. Besides the above, con did a good job disproving the definition and their paradoxes which pro concedes at points by putting limitations. I'm going to give Con conduct and arguments. Conduct bc he was attentive and didn't ff. Arguments bc he really didn't get rebuked and the above mentioned.
Virt ff one round and misposted an argument. Though those were not malicious, it showed poorer conduct.
But Con killed himself by contradicting his entire argument when he insisted that God must be able to do illogical things. If he affirms illogic, not only do all his premises fail, but all his rebuttals fail too.
For example, con says God cannot fly unless God is subject to natural law, thus nullifying His omnipotence. But that is logic, and he has just affirmed that God should not be limited to the logical. So if he is right, his argument is wrong!
Disallowing logic simply dealt a fatal blow to his argument for almost all of his rebuts depended on logic. I say almost all because, some of his rebuts were just semantics, not logical. When he spoke about immovable objects and irresistible forces, universal qualities cannot exist in a universe with the opposite quality, that is the definition of "universal", so all he is doing is playing with words. There is no logic there at all.
Virts arguments (when he did post them) were neat and concise. His conclusions followed from his premises and his argument was consistent in its use of logic and the expectations thereof.
He also had better citations.
"Answer and we'll talk about the score board."
No. I'm not obsessive. I don't care if you are irrationally obsessed. You made a stupid argument, that is life. Do better next time. As bsh1 said, you seem a little too invested in this. For your own mental health, I think I'll put you on ignore till your obsession quiets down.
If you have them, take them or smoke them. And keep the foot elevated.
She gets her pussy wet from time to time yes. She's not very highly sex-driven though, she's all about that platonic fuckery.
"God is female and is not omnipotent"
So are you saying God can get her dick hard?
"The definitions clearly read "able to do all things""
I haven't read the debate, but normally I don't give a shit if one side provides definitions, unless both sides agree to those definitions explicitly. I also ignore when people post rules such as BSH1 at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to let one side unfairly impose rules on another side unless they explicitly argue that certain rules should be accepted. Debate is a chaotic battlefield where anything goes and I just won't allow for such a structured agreement unless both sides are vocal that I should respect the rules of the debate, within the debate.
God is female and is not omnipotent.
'The phrase "God not being able to" should never be uttered, because god is supposed to "be able to do anything." There are no qualifiers like "be able to do anything "within reason" or "within his nature" because that's necessarily limiting an unlimited.'
Most rational theists, claim he is omnipotent which does not mean "he can do anything" . Omnipotent comes from a latin word that just means "most high". He can maybe do things we may perceive is illogical or impossible, but they are obviously logically consistent and possible.
"Is god UNABLE to violate logic and able to do anything?"
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, 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.
hahahahaha the troll is silenced by an argument he voted against, couldn't refute, yet voted that it was insufficient.
LOL
Stumped?
Yeah, that's the exact argument I made in the debate, and you claimed it was not good enough.
Come on.
What's your response to the questions:
1. Can god violate logic and infinitely remain logical?
2. Is god UNABLE to violate logic and able to do anything?
Answer and we'll talk about the score board.
Btw your vote was reported by Virt, not me, please answer those questions.
"Check and mate."
Look at the score again.
I made the same argument in the debate...guess you didn't read that either...figures.
Check and mate.
Ok, so we'll operate on the idea that god can violate logic, great this makes sense.
Now you say God can be limited and still be omnipotent because he can violate logic, so then I would point out at the moment that god violates logic he no longer has the power to infinitely remain logical.
Therefore when he violates logic he relinquishes a power he supposedly has, the power to infinitely remain logical.
Why does god not have the power to infinitely remain logical?
"God can be limited and still omnipotent."
"No, he cannot."
Why not? God can do the illogical. He can be limited and still omnipotent. You are the shooter dude. Its your gun and your foot.
You made an illogical argument, own it.
God cannot fly and birds can, birds have more power than god.
"Why should it negate omnipotence when you have argued that God is not limited by logic?"
The phrase "God not being able to" should never be uttered, because god is supposed to "be able to do anything." There are no qualifiers like "be able to do anything "within reason" or "within his nature" because that's necessarily limiting an unlimited.
Now, please look, this is the contradiction that I tried to highlight in the omnipotence paradox and you textbook use it right here.
"God can be limited and still omnipotent."
No, he cannot.
If he can violate logic, then that makes perfect sense, that would speak to his omnipotence, remember, I was not the debater that brought up that god cannot violate logic, Pro did.
Opps on you.
"And God not being able to "Negates omnipotence. That's what you can't see."
Why should it negate omnipotence when you have argued that God is not limited by logic? God can be limited and still omnipotent. That is illogical, but so what right?
Make up your mind. Is God able to illogical things or not? You must pick one position. Argue both and you contradict yourself. You are the shooter. Your gun. Your foot.
"And God not being able to"
Negates omnipotence.
That's what you can't see.
"Respond to the debate content, not your thoughts."
I did. Your entire argument is self-contradictory. I am aware you don't see the contradiction. If you did, you wouldn't have posted it.
And God not being able to do illogical things is not being "subject" to logic. Words mean things. You can't substitute them willy nilly without changing meaning.
So make up your mind. Can God do the illogical or not? If you say "yes" as you seem to want to say now, then God can be "subject" to logic AND still be omnipotent. Your gun. Your foot.
Actually, that was a great RFD, you really took time to analyze it all. nice work again.
Thanks for the thorough, well-explained honest vote.
Thanks for the feedback!
you're joking right?
"God isn't subordinate to logic. That is just a no meaning phrase you're throwing around."
Did you read what Pro wrote in the debate, or did you just vote blindly?
He said in the debate god CANNOT GO AGAINST LOGIC.
Respond to the debate content, not your thoughts.
"Do you think being subordinate to logic, as Pro CONCEDED in the debate, is a power unlimited in terms of extent?"
God isn't subordinate to logic. That is just a no meaning phrase you're throwing around.
"Do you think listing a bunch of things that god cannot do shows unlimited powers?"
God is omnipotent, I haven't a clue what you mean when you say, "unlimited powers". And if you contend that God should be able to do illogical things, then not being able to do some of the things you can do while still being omnipotent is possible. You can't argue both sides and not be contradictory.
"Please answer these."
If you want more in depth answers, start a thread. My vote only needs to stand to the vote mod, not you.
"Magic, either God cannot do the illogical"
Then you vote Con, because that's something in the set of powers UNLIMITED IN NUMBER, QUANTITY, and EXTENT that he doesn't have.
Think about it.
If I have the power to violate logic, and god doesn't, then I necessarily CAN DO THINGS THAT GOD CANNOT.
The definitions clearly read "able to do all things"
Do you think being subordinate to logic, as Pro CONCEDED in the debate, is a power unlimited in terms of extent?
Do you think listing a bunch of things that god cannot do shows unlimited powers?
Please answer these.
Outplayz, thank you for the honest vote, nicely done.
That is nice virt, but it is my vote no?
Magic, either God cannot do the illogical, in which case your objections to omnipotence are bogus, or God can do the illogical, in which case your objections using logic are bogus.
You shot yourself in the foot. Vert, being a decent person, feels despondent about his ff and misspost. But he did not lose to you. You just had an illogical argument.
Thanks for the honesty man.
I agree with Magic
Hey did you mention Pro dropping that creation is temporal and that he can't discern between a creator and the created product without time?
No?
Did you ignore the drops of what he had to affirm?
Yes?
Man up and remove that obviously biased, dishonest vote.
The source points are garbage too.
"This is wrong. Based on this logic it would be morally permissible to kill those who are disabled or those who are "unfit.' The "undesirables" hurt the overall "homeostatic" nature of the rest of society."
Can you explain how the disabled are unfit?
Do you know what fitness is?
"Oh come on, I'm merely pointing out that higher order mammals have to ensure their society's sustained survival in order to ensure the adept individual's sustained survival.
Eugenics was based on racial disparities not homeostatic maintenance and sustainability of the immediate society."
This is wrong. Based on this logic it would be morally permissible to kill those who are disabled or those who are "unfit.' The "undesirables" hurt the overall "homeostatic" nature of the rest of society.
"That line of reason was pretty much responsible for eugenics and an attempt to create a ‘master race’ by killing those who are ‘unfit’"
Oh come on, I'm merely pointing out that higher order mammals have to ensure their society's sustained survival in order to ensure the adept individual's sustained survival.
Eugenics was based on racial disparities not homeostatic maintenance and sustainability of the immediate society.
"Kinda curious if you think smoking is immoral? It’s obvciously harmful to yourself and those around you."
When it begins harming "those around you," you may be leading away from the maintaining of the homeostasis of those around you.
Behavior toward yourself is not morality to me UNLESS this behavior impacts others.
How your actions affect others' homeostasis is morality to me.
"Also are you pro life? Taking your views to its logical conclusion it would appear that abortion would be immoral."
I'm pro choice in those cases where the woman would need to terminate the fetus in an attempt to preserve and maintain her homeostasis.
If someone who can consent wishes to sustain their homeostasis, they shall not be impeded.
Also are you pro life? Taking your views to its logical conclusion it would appear that abortion would be immoral.
Kinda curious if you think smoking is immoral? It’s obvciously harmful to yourself and those around you.
That line of reason was pretty much responsible for eugenics and an attempt to create a ‘master race’ by killing those who are ‘unfit’
In some cases survival may cause an individual to go against society, but for the most part, when considering that the sustained survival of the individual is contingent on the survival of the society, the most adapt individual is only benefited if they work to sustain the survival of the society.
Interesting. Though in Darwinian Evolution it’s survival of the most adapt. It puts the individual against society.
Yeah, as a biology teacher I realized that one of the most universal things among us was homeostasis and our strive to maintain it. No culture, religion or worldview really ever changes that.
But thanks for the debate anyway, sorry for all of your mishaps.
God work.
The objective morality response was interesting. I don’t think I’ve seen an atheist affirm natural law
Yeah lol. I don’t really care. You can have the w
Nobody ever proves P1 in the KCA.
hahahahah, somehow, some idiot voter will still vote for you, so no worries right?
I'm such a fucking idiot. I posted the arguments for another debate to this one
Yeah.
Can you please wait until Saturday night/Sunday to post arguments? Thanks!
Ah, now we can comment.
The definition of god has been agreed by both debaters to be
god - the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.