Instigator / Pro
7
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#3176

A Supernatural Deity Probably Doesn't Exist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
11,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Description

BOP is shared evenly

Supernatural - attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
Deity - a god or goddess
Exist - have objective reality or being.

Vote bump

-->
@Sum1hugme

Hey, you're not debating me. But remember you are saying it is specific to general knowledge, so, just how detailed are generalities? Don't bother answering; like I said, this isn't about or by me; I'm a bystander blowing smoke in the wind.

-->
@949havoc

What? Induction totally relies on past data to make predictions about the future and acquire knowledge.

-->
@Sum1hugme

But if induction "doesn't need certainty to have knowledge," how is it "based on past evidence?" You've just argued a circular; logic doesn't hold in that condition.

-->
@949havoc

I know, I didn't claim certainty. Induction deals in probabilities based on past evidence.

-->
@Sum1hugme

But your proposition does not speak to certainty; it speaks to probability; an entirely different concept. I take your proposition at its word; every one of them.

-->
@949havoc

Because induction doesn't need certainty to have knowledge or to say something will probably be the case in the future.

If there is "overwhelming inductive evidence," why is the proposition only probable, allowing for the potential of outlying arguments? Inductive reasoning being a logical method by specific to general reasoning. Doesn't seem to compute. Specifics find difficulty fitting into probables.