A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 6 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
This is a debate open to everyone. Voting is open to all except the following people: imabench, coal (YYW), Zeichen and SamStevens. This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. I am taking the Pro position.
A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Good luck to my future opponent.
“I mean, could you not find something better to do than play a game that takes hours or days to complete, of which generates nothing of serious value? What do you produce by playing this game? Could not your mental energy be directed better into something that is:1) Productive2) Is actually difficult to achieve, thereby granting you a better feeling once completedHonestly, Mafia (debate) is nothing more than a time-sink for people who have boring lives. ………..Just think of all the possibilities life have to offer (e.g. travelling, learning a trade/skill, reading to learn etc.), and then realise the embarrassment of camping behind a computer to try and win a game of no consequence.”
“nothing of real value produced by participating/finishing a (debate). The results are ultimately pointless, and all the work done in between amounts to nothing more than text.”
“Whilst you may not be able to adopt every homeless child in the world right now, (debating) will not (seriously) help you reach that goal. Big dreams usually take small, incremental steps. For example, writing 80, 000 words for a novel will not be done in a day. First, it requires learning how to write. This could require reading articles, books and the like, which could total a week, yet you still would not be at your goal. Investing small increments into these big dreams can greatly reward you in the end. Mafia only distracts from your dreams.” https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Mafia-is-a-waste-of-time/1/comments/25/
“Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better. If you are to judge me the winner now, you will in fact be part of an advocacy--an advocacy of making debate about effecting real change, and not meaningless points.”
“The opponent leveraged several personal attacks against me, in this section”
“. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate”
“6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)”
“Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better”
“If you have somehow not been convinced by any of the above arguments, then I argue that debate does have the purpose of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten through debate, people will begin to not believe in it. Since people currently do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god fine-tuning the universe (http://www.finetuneduniverse.com/) (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/), there is still purpose in arguing its validity, in order to help people believe the right things. Hence, this debate has purpose, in that it has the potential to help people.”
“he debate has no purpose because ultimately belief in God is a matter of faith and the fine tuned argument does more to defend that faith than it does to actually recruit new believers. Most people join religions because they are in a vulnerable position and they are seeking, belonging, less ambiguity in life, a meaning, family and for many other reasons.”
“people believe fine-tuning is the result of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, therefore (2) all these people are involved with a cult. My opponent has not sunstantiated this leap in logic, and thus it remains a non sequitur which should not gain traction in this debate.”
“a system of religious beliefs and ritual” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
“I argue that debate does have the purpose of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten through debate, people will begin to not believe in it.”
Let's examine what he wrote, so that we can determine whether it has merit.
My resolution affirming argument is untouched
My round 1 argument, of which affirmed the resolution, has at no stage been contested in this debate. Thus, if you think the resolution should be debated (I know, it's shocking to expect a debate to do that), then it is as clear as day that the resolution remains affirmed.
This is the most important contention of the debate, because if the opponent does not win this, he immediately loses the debate.
My opponent's argument is still a Kritik: Ignoring his obvious appeals to authority (which logically fallacious), the opponent changes his line of argument, now arguing that his style of argument does not fall under the category of Kritik, but rather “theory”. Previously, he argued (In Round 1 under “Role of judges and debaters”) that the rules did not matter, insofar as changing society only comes about through challenging rules.
Indeed, as the opponent agrees: the rules specified against making arguments which would be “challenging assumptions in the resolution”. However, an assumption in the resolution is that the resolution should be debated, elsewise no one would bother creating resolutions.
The opponent attempts to obfuscate his Kritik by engaging in irrelevant semantics, of which are of no consequence. Whether “challenging assumptions in the resolution” is labelled a “Kritik” or “theory” does not change the fact that the opponent challenged assumptions in the resoluton, which was the definition of rules outside the debate (rule number 6), and since breaking the rules merits a loss (rule number 10), this constitutes a loss for the Con side.
Ad Absurdium: If you don't agree that the opponent has already lost, if we are to take Wylted's notion of rules not applying to debates, then there can be no generally accepted ways of debating, because it boils down to the subjective interpretation of the debater. Thus, trolling, insults, using the comments section for references or to extend character count, blackmail, death threats, doxxing etc. all become viable methods of debate, due to allowing “progress” and “freedom” (the opponent's words), and thus all common understanding on acceptable debate conduct is completely disregarded.
Thus, rather than arguing the resolution of the debate, the debate is far more susceptible to all the above problems, thus making the resolution of any debate far less likely to be debated, and thus severely hindering productive discussion on the resolution. All this due to the opponent deciding that this debate isn't meaningful, which is, again, a subjective interpretation.
What should be preferred is an inter-subjective agreement on rules prior to debate, thereby allowing for productive debate on all resolutions, provided rules are prior supplied. This is precisely what I implemented in my debate structure in this debate, and this is why it should be preferred over the opponent's subjective interpreation method.
Self-defeating: It is the opponent's claim that in debating me, he hopes to help me stop “wasting my time” (Round 1 “Debate should have Purpose”). However, he also claims that I'll “fight [him] hard in this battle,” that I am “too much of a coward to be done letting your strength be a weakness, and will press on”.
This renders the opponent's arguments self-defeating, because as he attempts to argue against me in a debate he considers to have no purpose, one where he told me to forfeit in the first round, he continues to engage me in a debate that he considers to have no purpose, knowing precisely that this will happen.
If the opponent was truly interested in helping me not “waste my time”, he would stop responding, because this would allow me to stop, too. Hence, by continuing this debate, the opponent is implictly conceding that this debate isn't wasting my time, thus contradicting his own argument/Kritik.
Counter argument to: Framework
Self-defeating: We do not have to delve far into the content of the opponent's arguments, before we find more contradiction. In this section, the opponent demands that you “ignore [Pro's] rules”, and then follow his rules, which contradicts the opponent's argument of allowing “freedom” and challenging rules (Round 1 “Role of judges and debaters”). If his rules were to be implemented, by his own arguments, they should be ignored, because they restrict freedom and need to be challenged.
Thus, as will become a recurring theme, the opponent's arguments contradict each other. In this instance, the opponent has accidentally created an infinite-loop, through his arguments, in which we are never to escape continual rejection of established rules, in the name of freedom and changing society.
Therefore, it would be wiser to not base the vadlity of challenging rules based on their restriction of freedom and ability to change society, and instead judge the merit of said rules. Since I advocate for the latter, please see my third paragraph in “Ad Absurdium” for defence of my advocation.
A note: Furthermore, just to be clear, all allegedly dropped arguments are either re-addressed in this counter argument, or else addressed under “Ad Absurdium” (an argument I made in this round).
Counter argument to: Anal Destruction
Cultural relativity is a terrifying excuse: The opponent attempts to excuse his uncivil comments by arguing that they would not considered uncivil in the southern part of the United States. By using that principle, witch burnings in modern Kenya should not be considered uncivil, because that is “completely subjective” and we are not from Kenya. Stoning women to death for being raped in Pakistan should not be considered “inherently wrong”, because that is a different “cultural background”. Unless the opponent would like remain ambivalent to witch burning and honor killing, I suggest he uses a better metric than cultural relativity to excuse his uncivil conduct.
Reiteration of rule violation: To reiterate my counter arguments in the second round (under “Counter argument to: Anal Violation”), these are the uncivil comments:
(1) “I doubt it, it is her dream to be a housewife, I think she could use the same mental energy to learn how to sew clothes so she can save her future husband money since she likely won’t contribute to the household financially.”
(2) “Or she could use the same mental energy to learn how to pick up women, so her husband doesn’t get bored by having just a single hole to fuck repeatedly until the end of his days.”
Comment number 1 has the implication that I won't be intellectually/physically able to contribute, which is a personal slur against me.
Comment number 2 suggests that women are to be picked up to be used as disposable goods. It further suggests that I would be too boring sexually for my husband.
Finally, I posit that both comments were non-essential to the debate, hence further affirming their uncivil nature.
Since these were uncivil comments, and maintaining “a civil atmosphere” is the fourth rule of this debate, and because violations of any of the rules merits a loss (rule 10), Con should immediately lose the debate.
Counter argument to: Most Meaningful
Please see my “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, of which was argued this round.
Counter argument to: Impact Analysis
Poor conception: I reject the opponent's “changing the world” conception. As seen in “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, it is not internally consistent. Thus, the opponent's attempt to change “the culture of the site” is self-defeating, and therefore should not be considered an effective argument. A preferable model in which to judge debates is offered under “Ad Absurdium”, of which is my argument found earlier in this round.
Real world impact: If you do not accept the explanation for the rejection above, then please consider the usefulness of this debate with me. As I showed previously, people do believe that an omniscient, omnipotent creator god can be proven through fine-tuning. Since approximately 1/3 of the world “is considered to be Christian” (https://www.thoughtco.com/christianity-statistics-7005330), and because religion can be an important part of their lives, surely they would want to justify their belief with non-contradictory arguments. How strong is faith if it is untested?
Furthermore, I personally would like to know if there is indeed fault in the resolution of this debate. By not arguing the resolution, the opponent is preventing me from determining whether the argument is acceptable for proving God, thus potentially altering my life for the worse (I could miss an opportunity to embrace a great argument, or I could miss an opportunity to avoid a bad argument). Seeing as I once did not believe the resolution (when I was 14), debating the resolution has been proven to have real world impact.
Finally, there is a difference between knowing the truth and espousing the truth, because the opponent argues that knowing the truth is not worth it. Sometimes, not saying what you know can avoid the pitfalls of knowing the truth. Hence, the opponent's argument here does not alter the value in knowing the truth, especially when you run the risk of burning in hell or believing in God falsely your entire life.
Unless the opponent wants to argue that believing in God has no effect on one's life, then it appears self-evident that it should be a resolution for debate, because it has real world impact.
Below are a list of dropped arguments by the opponent:
False equivalence of Mafia and debating (since dropped, it stands that I never argued that debating was a waste of time).
Charge of hypocrisy (since dropped, it stands that even if my actions were different to what I advocate for inside the debate, this should have no bearing on the debate).
Thank you for your comment. Here is my responses to your arguments:
Argument 1: If God isn't perfect, then proving God's existence becomes impossible, because you couldn't distinguish intention from creation of the universe. In other words, if are trying to prove God's existence through the creation of the universe, how do we know what's a mistake and what isn't? Thus, saying that God isn't perfect couldn't be used as evidence to negate the resolution.
Argument 2: If we're unable to perceive God's omniscience and omnipotence, then we're unable to use it as evidence of his existence.
If God chooses not to take action with his qualities, then again, we cannot use anything as evidence of his existence.
While I agree that an intelligent designer (or entity, as it were), would attempt to find the most simplistic modalities by which to create and run our universe, I disagree that our universe being complex is evidence against an intelligent designer. This may simply be an inevitable consequence of the evolution of conditions originally made by a creator - just like winding up a toy car and then letting it take off. I find your premise very interesting and thought-out, but ultimately flawed.
Argument 1: I think your argument is that there are things that need to be re-tuned in the universe, and the fact that they aren't already properly tuned is evidence that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer because he's omniscient and omnipotent - and would therefore be able to create a universe that didn't need re-tuning. My contention is that God isn't perfect, and did not create the universe as such the first time around. Or, by giving free will to humans and possibly the universe as well (see "argument 2"), he created an inevitable chaotic quality to the universe.
Argument 2: I believe Omniscience and Omnipotence can be demonstrated in ways we may not be able to perceive, for example perhaps holding together the laws by which our universe operates - i.e., physics. However, assuming this isn't true, I can tell you that an entity such as God could possess both qualities but simply choose not to take action with them. It's said God endowed humans with free will - the freedom to make choices that govern their lives, and more importantly not interfering with the consequences of said choices. If free will is applied not just to humans, but to the universe as well, then God could still be omniscient and omnipotent without using these qualities to affect the universe he created.
I really enjoyed this debate, I hope you keep posting!
Dude, I have a win-ratio of well over 90% on DDO. You clearly don't know who you're talking to. But it's okay. Not everyone could beat a front-page Debate Leaderboard debater like me.
"tbh I really don't care about win percentage" -- Nice coping mechanism. By the look of it, it looks like you debate to lose.
Yeah. If you look at my percentage of my entire 8+ year debate history, I have about a 47.41% win rate, which is about average especially considering my early debates were total shit
That just shows how flawed the Elo system is here.
It looks like your sub-50% win-ratio is recovering, so I'd hate to cause you further embarrassment.
Not a problem. I'd gladly take this debate sometime soon if you wanna redo it.
Thank you, Ramshutu, for taking the time to create a thorough vote :)
I usually without reading arguments until debates are finished, but you calling focus on the resolution silly got my attention...
Had the word been proof, the con side would be very very difficult. Instead she took the hard one, basically trying to argue against raw evidence...
As per your off topic case, I wonder why you did not simply start a debate on that topic instead of hijacking this one? I actually enjoyed the read, particularly the callbacks to that rather epic debate. I'll be sure to cast a real vote with feedback, not a mere "forfeiture."
I think the focus on the word evidence is silly, though obviously this was meant to be somewhat of a semantic debate. If she said "proof" the debate really would give the con side no room to argue.
No when he fought Tommy Gun he was a street fighter. Have you even seen the movies? He was street tough who just happened to be able to hold his own in the ring.
A better analogy would be that you're Rambo and SHE is Rocky Balboa. That is iconic comparison.
Rocky Balboa was a prize-fighter. A showman overall.
He won well and had grit but he was no street fighter.
Con was attempting to put up a decent case, but started to veer into ad hominem attacks and then Con forfeited 2 rounds leaving Pro's case basically untouched AND the rules explicitly state that forfeiture warrants a loss AND Pro even pointed this out last round. So, the forfeits mean dropped arguments and a loss for Con.
Forfeiture, and no challenge to pro's case (claiming someone should shut up and not make a case at all, isn't the same as challenging it).
Con's tactic (he should have challenged a debate on that topic, not made this off topic rant):
Con skipped half the debate rounds in what I'm guessing is a protest against intellectual elitism? What he did post was strictly off topic. I would by no means call it a K to the topic, because even those are related to the topic. This felt more like asking people to vote for him, because they like him more or that they hold some grudge against her from activity on another site.
Mafia is a waste of time:
I do thank con for the reminder of such a good debate.
This debate is a waste of time:
Like my old vote... "I'd say it's a waste of time (which isn't to say that's not people's right to waste their time how they see fit)."
When con agreed to debate the topic, he did so under a specific framework. Such includes the inability to be penalized a conduct point. Such includes that we the judges would weight the arguments in question under the precise resolution defined. You don't like the resolution, request it be changed prior to acceptance.
Some of the lines about how judges should vote for whom appealed to their their bleeding heart more (AKA, just vote your bias!), seemed highly inspired by notable intellectual rejects who trade votes instead of winning debates by merit (not to say winning the old fashioned way, given that fellatio was sometimes on offer for favorable votes... To be clear, I am highlighting the problem of the slope his argument is on, to my knowledge con has never been associated with those who are outright opposed to judicial integrity).
Within the confines of this debate, pro proved that God (as defined) is a self contradicting concept. I wish her luck in finding an opponent to actually debate this with.
Two forfeits plus nothing but ad homs from con. All dropped arguments are considered concessions by me. Since con forfeited two rounds he essentially dropped pro's entire arguments and conceded them. Rule one of the debate is no forfeits. Victory to pro.
1.) Con offers no argument whatsoever against the resolution, at all of any kind.
Pro wins on the resolution.
2.) Con clearly offered a Kritik argument that challenged an implicit assumption of the resolution. Haggling over whether this is a theory argument, or Kritik clearly goes to pro as pros main points are un-refuted. This together with exceptionally poor conduct that has no place in a debate (that pro highlighted in round 2), forfeits, etc are clearly also rule violations.
Pro wins on the grounds of the rules.
3.) is debate just a game.
I will consider any argument for debates, even ones like this which are so far left field, it’s travelled once around the earth to arrive at right-field. Cons argument are essentially that I should not consider any debate that doesn’t have some positive real world impact. If I were to weigh cons argument by the very merits he asks me to - then It is not clear why his debate approach in this single debate here should change the world.
The only argument for why this should be what debate is for, is that it’s not a game - and we know it’s not a game because pro is not playing pool - together with other similar assertions presented without justification.
This is wholly unwarranted claim is the basis for this kritik and pro gives me no good reason to believe it. Why would Con be playing pool if debate was a game?
As a result, I can’t really consider anything that comes after as warranted.
Pro again wins.
4.) who has more real world impact.
Even if I overlook points 1-3, and vote on clear impact to the real world, con offers a substantial number of points in addition to this real world impact argument. I agree with pro that these are wasting pros time - something con argued is a negative impact.
Con also offers no framework for how the content of this nonsense has any impact on the real world: it mainly boils down to asserting that this resolution will change no ones mind either way - something pro addresses.
Pro pointing out that this weird anarchic thread of argument is detrimental debate is compelling, as is the idea that pro argues that honing debate arguments and position is beneficial clearly seems more reasonable.
As a result, even voting based on cons argued voting lens means I am compelled to vote for pro too.
5.) The rules
I’m willing to accept harms from rules, and reject rules as presented rather than argued by fiat.
I will actually grant cons argument that there is some notional inherent harm in accepting the kritik portion of the argument, and that he shouldn’t be marked down on that particular rule violation - as this was not directly addressed by pro.
However, for the remainder of the rule violations con offers no argument for harm for the rules, and gives me no clear reason to reject them. So these must stand - which means I must accept those rule violations.
This goes pros way too.
6.) Pro argues the resolution has been affirmed
- and says if I think the resolution should be debated, I should consider it affirmed. As I do generally feel the resolution is the most important point of the debate, id agree with pro here too.
Conclusion: there is no lens or analysis that I could warrant awarding this to con. While the approach was ballsy from con - the sloppy, and petulant way he argued let him down, the appearance of trolling undermines his position in the very lens he argued to judge him by, so I have to say this is an easy vote for pro.
Con attacked the character of Pro and took it a little stranger than Ad Hominem, he relied on the 'appeal to hypocrisy' fallacy.
CREDIT TO: https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/appeal-to-hypocrisy/
The Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Conclusion: Therefore X is false.
So, what Con failed to do in this debate is explain why, if Pro has stated elsewhere that activities online that have barely any real-life impact waste life that therefore those activities should result in us concluding that the resolution in false. Pro is entitled to be a hypocrite, Pro is entitled to not only play devil's advocate but break their moral code or life prioritising system in order to engage in the arena of debate. It is not our place as 'judges' to judge their moral integrity when we officially vote (that's for outside of the arena) but rather to judge if Pro represented the resolution well or Con tore at it well enough in a debate of this format.
What I am left with is Con completely offering 0 arguments against the resolution but instead Con defeated their own case, because Wylted is wasting his own life as are voters under the system of life priorities that Con is advocating (on behalf of Pro in the past on the Forums).
Pro explained how an omnipotent being, even if it is omniscient, is invalid to be tested for omniscience as it could not only fool any test but the very idea that we could test the being with components within the reality that it totally controls and has created is ludicrous.
Con offered 0 refutations to this, one would be that the ability to test omniscience is not absence of untested omniscience and to Kritik the Kritik back onto Pro and push harder with the rest of the case to impress and convince voters that the resolution is false due to others factors while leaving that as a stale-mate counter-Kritik'd angle. Con didn't do so, thus the Kritk alone won Pro the debate.
Pro also Kritiks that evidence of complexity of design necessitates a creator, to this Con offered 0 refutation.
Con lost the debate and forfeited the last 2 Rounds. Con tried voter intimidation against me (which is a CoC violation on 2 counts due to how he encouraged his opponent to join in with it as well) in the comments but because he's Wylted, the mods won't do anything about it and I feel bad for him so I'll let it be.