Instigator / Pro
14
1511
rating
3
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#452

God exists.

Status
Finished

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

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

After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

MagicAintReal
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Description

Debate structure:

R1) Opening arguments
R2) Rebuttals + Opening arguments
R3) Rebuttals
R4) Rebuttals

R5) Conclusions

Definitions:

God: The necessary intelligent creator of the universe.
Exists: to have objective reality or being.

-->
@Alec

The lockout window doesn't exist at the moment. Ragnar is referring to a window of time before Ratings change where the mods can still remove vote(s). Currently votes physically can't be removed after a debate as it will screw up the entire Rating system.

-->
@Barney

"(A lockout window where new votes cannot be added, before the final calculations are made)." That lockout window is when no more votes are allowed on debates. I think there should be some voting regulations so only some people can vote. Virt made a fourm about it below:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1437

That is some serious BS.

There may need to be an extra state added to debates to avoid this problem in future. (A lockout window where new votes cannot be added, before the final calculations are made).

Poor Moe. I hope something can be done.

-->
@Ramshutu

Like when you invited me to rap battle.

-->
@RationalMadman

The problem in your other debate was between your chair and your keyboard.

And also change my loss vs him to a win, because Ramshutu completely misrepresented my case and misinterpreted my arguments.

...and it's Moe's first loss. Cruel. #justice4moe

-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@Moeology

Ugh, I’m really sorry Moe.

This is an absolute travesty.

I know that voting restrictions are being worked on, but given this blatant abuse here just lost Moe a debate - is there any possibility this can be retroactively adjusted? Even if you had to manually tweak ELO?

-->
@Christfollower

Vote Reported: Christfollower // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: He displayed the topic well and was well researched.
Reason for mod removal: The vote fails to meet the voting standards

4.) intelligence is predicated on physical brains.

While I get cons point here, this seems like a pretty tenuous argument. If your arguing that a supernatural being can or can’t exist, I think that whether intelligence depends on physical things is the least of you worries.

While pros counter was long, it’s two basic points “correlation is not causation”, and “just because we’re intelligent and have brains doesn’t mean everything that is intelligent requires brains”

This is not massively strong on either side here, but I kinda lean pro here that con is making larger factual claims without a factual basis.

This is my main issue with cons approach, if you want to use facts to undermine a philosophical argument - those facts have to be well supported, in multiple places con has not done that.

Given these, I feel that cons counter to both the KCA and the IS contingency argument were not sufficient, and therefore arguments go to pro

Finally, con raises the idea of quantum fluctuations being able to produce things without direct cause. Pro points out that unstable energy are the cause - and that just because we don’t necessarily directly observe the cause doesn’t mean that one doesn’t explicitly exist.

Pro plays to the intuitive strength of the KCA here. The reference example that it may have a cause was actually pretty good.

However, cons was fairly adamant that there could be no cause as quantum fluctuations are the absence of anything at all. My issue here is that while I feel cons argument is just as asserted as the KCA, I find pros rebuttal of quantum fluctuations having a cause more convincing - I don’t think this element of the KCA was strongly won by pro, but I think cons argument falls short, if con is going to argue a factual rather than philosophical objection, the basis has of it has to be better established.

3.) Temporal creation.

So I feel I’m missing something here. Con keeps arguing that creation is impossible because creation is temporal. But also argues that the universe can “originate”.

It seems pro happily agrees that the origin of the universe is timeless, and it’s not necessarily a temporal chain of events.

To me, that should be the end of it, I’m quite happy to consider the idea of philosophical non-temporal creation along the lines of timeless quantum fluctuations, or a timeless God.

It seems con is too: but is objection to it appears to be whether it is called “creation” or not. I literally do not get the line of reasoning con makes here and it appears to be merely splitting hairs - as I do not view pros premise of creation philosophically different from cons idea of quantum origination.

Con also states that the multiverse is necessary and contingent, given his contingent is being used here, I don’t think com really provides an explanation at how the multiverse can both require something else to exist, and is it’s own cause. Pro points these aspects out in his rebuttal.

Cons only response is that the universe can be dependent on itself through quantum fluctuations.

My issue here, as pro elaborates a little - is that quantum fluctuations and the laws that cause them may well have a cause. That the universe originated from anything else implies that it’s contingent on something else. If pro has argued that the universe (or multiverse), was always there, I’d be more sympathetic, as happily matches P1, but pro arguing that the multiuniverse originated from itself is not convincing - especially as con conceded P1.

2.) The KCA

Pro made a good KCA argument, that there has to be an underlying first cause to prevent infinite regress. I feel does well to show this cause must have some of , but not all, the qualities attributed to God.

I don’t buy that this is special pleading, as pro is attributing God as the “thing” he showed to exist. IE: There must be an exemption somewhere, so if there is already an exemption, it supports the idea of God.

I don’t feel that cons circular reasoning argument is that good here either, as I feel that the conclusion of God is drawn not from an implicit assumption that such uncaused causes exists, but that an uncaused first cause is a conclusion that follows from resolving infinite regress on P1.

Pro covers these points pretty well in his rebuttal.

Con also asked additional questions about the exemption, which pro covers by pointing out that it’s not an exemption as there is no proven rule.

0.) New information for pro.

Given cons history, and the likelihood that pro is not aware of the details, I wanted to challenge the agreed voting rules: I believe con has asked you to accept the rules in order prevent the most regular voters, and those who have voted against him in the past from voting to improve his chances of winning. In addition, the chances are likely that Bifolkal, the only con voter is con himself too.

I do not feel that I should be bound by rules that inherently benefit one side, when the other party may not have been aware of all the issues at hand.

If pro reviews my RFD, or reviews my voting history on Magics debates (where I have gone both ways) and concludes it is biased or unfair in ANY way, feel free notify the moderation team and remove this vote.

1.) IS, Necessary being.

So this argument, is essentially that all things require a cause, that means that there must be something that exists to be that cause that doesn’t itself require a cause.

I felt the portion of this argument for why this cause was a personal an intelligent being was highly tenuous, and almost an afterthought.

It wasn’t fully clear to me what cons rebuttal actually was, by the end, it appeared that he used the concept of a multiverse to argue that sum of contingents isn’t limited to this universe. To me, it isn’t fully clear why con feels this negates the premise, because I do not believe anything pro said would be refuted if you assumed that the sum of contingent things ended at the multiverse level rather than at the universe level. This counter appears to be mostly splitting hairs, rather than genuine rebuke

-->
@Alec

Vote Reported: Alec // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Tie
RFD: Good arguing on both sides.
Reason for removal: Tied votes are removed unless the debaters request it To award a tie, one still needs to analyze the arguments in the debate and give reasons for why the debate should be a tie

-->
@Bifolkal

***************************
Vote Reported: Bifolkal // Mod Action: Removed
Points Awarded: 5 points for arguments and sources
RFD: See below
Reason for removal: This account is under reivew
***************************

Sources
Con's sources on intelligence won him the debate, because they showed intelligence to be a property of neurons that weren't around until recently (cosmologically speaking) and that negates an INTELLIGENT creator of the universe, even if I grant Pro the creator and necessary parts of their burden, and negates the resolution.
Pro's sources were used well, but for example, when Pro cited the Phil Papers for what philosophers thought, it not only seemed irrelevant to me, but Pro didn't use it to develop his case at all and another Pro's source was live science to show that quantum fluctuations were in fact caused, but when I weigh Pro's live science with Con's NASA and Cambridge sources on quantum fluctuations and inflation, I have to take direct, primary and reliable sources over indirect ones, and for this, sources to Con for effectively using credible sources to substantiate their case and negate the resolution.
Pro's sources were less effective for them.

This is the entirety of a positive case for an intelligent creator and it is simply assertions, I mean, there is not a hint of actually linking intelligence to the creator without asserting that it must be so or Pro double and even triple dipping into his other arguments. I mean, Pro was attempting proof by the stone when it came to an intelligence by simply asserting their entire case for intelligence.
From this gaping hole in Pro's case, Con was able to show not only that intelligence is a property of neuronal things, which Pro seemed to refuse to respond to Con's persistent nagging about it, but also that neurons didn't exist until some millions of years ago quite after the universe.
Pro put so much effort into the first two parts of his burden that he left the intelligence part of it very thin and it toppled his arguments.
I walk away from reading this debate thinking about intelligence and based on the debater's performances, I'm going to recall a memorable and substantial case for intelligence being a result of neurons/brains which had unanswered questions aimed directly at Pro to the effect of "Pro can you show intelligence without neurons? which Pro consistently ignored, and not have an inkling of an idea of how a timeless entity was somehow lacking these substrates yet possessed intelligence, not by anything Pro said in this debate.
Without the emergence of neurons being refuted, I must accept that this is when neurons emerged and that this is the only evidence of intelligence provided in the debate, as Con's source from Cambridge said that many non-human animals and of course humans have neurons for consciousness and Con's other source from the NIH showed the neurons emergence millions of years ago.
These both show that intelligence is a property of neurons, not available before the universe was created.

Arguments
The debate description defines god as the necessary intelligent creator of the universe, so in my view, if Pro doesn't show 1. necessity, 2. intelligence, or 3. a creator of the universe, Pro cannot meet Pro's burden. Pro does very well and has clear arguments, but the debate was very long and this gave Con ample opportunity to refute Pro's rather loaded case.
Pro argues with the contingency argument and the Kalam argument basically attempting to show a necessary cause of the universe being that the universe is contingent on some necessary cause because the universe began to exist and the god attempting to be proven didn't begin to exist.
While I feel Con refutes those points sufficiently, it's rather immaterial, because even if I were to grant Pro the necessity and creator points, nothing about Pro's round 1 links this cause to an intelligence, except for what Pro said here
"So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
Perhaps Pro can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the only attempt at showing the intelligence part of Pro's burden in round 1.
This leaves me only really considering the intelligence point, because without one of the 3 things Pro has to show, 1. necessity, 2. intelligence, and 3. a creator of the universe, Pro cannot meet their burden, so I can even grant Pro #1 and #3 and just base my vote on the intelligence point, which is what I will be doing.
Here's the totality of Pro's case for intelligence.
1. "So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
2. "since the universe began to exist while the cause did not then the cause is personal and intelligent."
3. "God exists timelessly then due to his intelligent volition decides to create the universe."
4. "if the cause of the universe is impersonal and unintelligent, then the universe would be eternal. But since the universe began to exist, then the cause is personal and intelligent."

-->
@Alec

write out your RFD first and let me see it. I'll show you where to improve.

-->
@David
@Alec

Don't worry, Virt is a nice guy. Just be comprehensive in your RFD

-->
@Moeology

I'm worried that my vote would get reported.

-->
@thett3
@Mopac
@Logical-Master
@Death23
@Alec

You guys should vote on this one. I would appreciate it.

-->
@Alec

Under the COC to award sources you must:
"The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources."

Think of it this way, you don't award anything because you want to, but because the debaters left it feeling dishonest to leave it out of your vote. S&G for example. when one side is non-legible "Bob's spelling was so awful, it made it difficult to understand what case he was trying to make... Plus every paragraph he confused they're there and their." For Sources you might have "Joe used sources to undermine Jane's case, Nasa.gov showing that he Earth is not flat was of particular impact to the arguments. I am unsure why Jane thought PizzaHut.com was a sufficient counter to that."

-->
@Alec

Virt's right.
If it's the case that you want to award source points, you need to:
1. take at least one source example from Pro and say what it did for his case (impact).
2. take at least one source example from Con and say what it did for his case (impact).
3. say which impact was more successful and why (credibility, relevance, support).

-->
@Alec

Such a vote would be removed.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Moeology

My pre vote. I want to make sure both debaters are okay with it before I send it out. I don't want my vote to get reported.

Citations: Con. Con cited various scientific papers. The most relevant cite Pro used was Live Science, which is both .com and has ads.

Everything else: Tie. Both debaters were good and I barely understood what they were saying. They both used multiple terms that were too hard for me to understand.

Basically, under my vote, Con wins 7 to 5.

-->
@David

So more accusations and defaming me publicly?
Noted.
What does moderation think about RM continuing to accuse me of collusion after being told by moderation to stop, see below.

-->
@David
@Moeology

LOL, you are a victim of a crime you are angry at me for exposing. Hilarious irony.

virt, there's zero rule against what I am doing.

-->
@Moeology

Thanks man, yeah, I get on this site to get away from people at work!

-->
@MagicAintReal

Yeah mate, no worries. I seriously doubt you would do anything like that.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@RationalMadman
@Moeology

Yeah this is basically openly slandering someone which I view as a serious offense. Let the mod team do their work please.

-->
@Moeology

Thanks for sticking up for me bud and letting RM know that I'm not a bad guy.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@RationalMadman

I am not sure that Magic participates in such unethical behavior. That's a pretty serious allegation.

The RFD itself, for most of it, is fine but it contains a very obvious problem. He claims that I asserted that the first cause was intelligent without proving it or providing arguments ... when I clearly did provide arguments.

Here is one: "If the necessary being was an impersonal explanation and given the eternity of the necessary conditions for the existence of contingent beings, then the contingent beings will exist eternally and will not fail to exist.This is true since the specifier in this case is eternally necessary, so the contingent being’s non-existence is impossible since the specifier could not fail to exist by virtue of its necessity. But a contingent could possibly not exist given their nature. So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."

I don't care about the actual vote, but the voter seems unaware that the argument even exists. I don't think that his vote, on this matter, is legitimate. It should at least be a tie on "better arguments". If he wants to have Con win on sources, I don't mind, I am not going to protest a vote just because it is against me.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@Moeology
@Bifolkal

Bifokal's RFD is more than sufficient per our standards.

-->
@Moeology

This is also a reason I am avoiding voting on his debate, including this one. I am hoping he stops picking on me.

-->
@Moeology

MagicAintreal gets his IRL colleagues and friends/family to help him with his debates. They will even gang up on others who aren't debating against him to teach them 'a lesson'.

It's best to sit tight for now, eventually they will get banned permanently for it if they pick on enough people.

^ This is not a threat, it's encouraging peace for now.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Thanks! Glad you found me vote to be honest. That’s all what I want

-->
@Moeology
@Bifolkal

Look, I don't want to speak for bifolkal, but he granted 2/3 of your burdens up front, so he gave you massive ground in the RFD.
Per the RFD, your 1st round was rather lacking in the intelligent department, right?
I think that's what bifolkal was getting at, but correct me if I'm wrong.

-->
@Bifolkal

Nice RFD, you precisely understood how I attempted to refute Pro's intelligent creator and for that I thank you.

-->
@David

Actually yes, you were very honest, you addressed the major points, I just happen to disagree with your assessment, but your vote was thorough and points were taken.

-->
@David

Thanks Virt, no worries.

-->
@Bifolkal

Thanks for your vote but there were clear problems with it.

-->
@Moeology

I'll look at it in depth when i get back. Thanks.

-->
@David

>when I weigh Pro's live science with Con's NASA and Cambridge sources on quantum fluctuations and inflation, I have to take direct, primary and reliable sources over indirect ones

I think this is another problem. Con's sources did not even support his case. The Cambridge declaration did ***not*** say anything to the extent that consciousness is dependent on neuroscience. Con absolutely misquoted that one and I showed so in the final round. The Live Science source that I quoted was written by a PhD physicist. "Both sources were physicists with PhDs in their respective fields and so are reliable sources to discuss quantum mechanics. One being Paul Sutter, a professor at the University of Ohio with a PhD in physics. The other being Matt Strassler, who is a theoretical physicist with a PhD from Stanford. So I hope it is clear to the voters that my case had superior sources than Con’s case." You completely ignored the fact that Con used a psychologist for philosophy. Why did you not factor this into account?

-->
@David

Bifolkal's vote is clearly problematic. Not only does he fail to engage most of the arguments, the arguments he does engage with, he gives an awful treatment.

>This is the entirety of a positive case for an intelligent creator and it is simply assertions, I mean, there is not a hint of actually linking intelligence to the creator without asserting that it must be so

I never asserted anything without proving it. Here is my argument for volition: "If the necessary being was an impersonal explanation and given the eternity of the necessary conditions for the existence of contingent beings, then the contingent beings will exist eternally and will not fail to exist.This is true since the specifier in this case is eternally necessary, so the contingent being’s non-existence is impossible since the specifier could not fail to exist by virtue of its necessity. But a contingent could possibly not exist given their nature. So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."

Did you skip over this one?

>Con was able to show not only that intelligence is a property of neuronal things, which Pro seemed to refuse to respond to Con's persistent nagging about it, but also that neurons didn't exist until some millions of years ago quite after the universe.

>I walk away from reading this debate thinking about intelligence and based on the debater's performances, I'm going to recall a memorable and substantial case for intelligence being a result of neurons/brains which had unanswered questions aimed directly at Pro to the effect of "Pro can you show intelligence without neurons?

What substantial case exactly? Con misquoted the Cambridge declaration to say something it does not and I pointed this out in the last round; that was his only argument that intelligence depends on neuroscience. Matter of fact, it is Con who absolutely failed to engage with my points on "correlation does not imply causation" and the fallacy of association.

-->
@MagicAintReal

No problem. I really hope you found it to be thorough and honest at least

add to my RFD that Arguments to Con, I never exactly wrote it.

-->
@David

Thanks for the vote Virt...you know my thoughts.