Instigator / Pro
6
1512
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
6
0

With 6 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

Analgesic.Spectre
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1448
rating
26
debates
26.92%
won
Description
~ 1,477 / 5,000

--Overview--

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.

--Topic--

A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god

--Rules--

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

--Structure--

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.

Added:

is it really that fine tuned ? 99.999999% is uninhabitable

Added:
--> @Analgesic.Spectre

I'm citing this debate in the Kritik guide.

Added:
Instigator
--> @eXclusua

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.

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bifolkal

Thank you for voting :)

Added:
--> @Analgesic.Spectre

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!

Added:
Instigator

Thank you, Ragnar, for you effort in voting :)

Added:
Instigator
--> @David

Wow, 47.41%!!!!

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.

Added:
Instigator
--> @David

"tbh I really don't care about win percentage" -- Nice coping mechanism. By the look of it, it looks like you debate to lose.

Added:

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

Added:
Instigator
--> @David

That just shows how flawed the Elo system is here.

Added:

tbh I really don't care about win percentage

Added:
--> @Analgesic.Spectre

Rofl. Given that I'm now no. 6 on the leaderboard...

Added:
Instigator
--> @David

It looks like your sub-50% win-ratio is recovering, so I'd hate to cause you further embarrassment.

Added:
--> @Analgesic.Spectre

Not a problem. I'd gladly take this debate sometime soon if you wanna redo it.

Added:
Instigator
--> @David

Thank you for the concise vote, Virtuoso : >

Added:
Instigator
--> @Ramshutu

Thank you, Ramshutu, for taking the time to create a thorough vote :)

Added:
Instigator
--> @Wylted

1-3

Added:
Instigator

Thank you, RM, for your reasonable vote :)

Added:
--> @Wylted

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."

Added:
Contender

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.

Added:

Hard one, as evidence does not mean proof.

Added:
Contender

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.

Added:

A better analogy would be that you're Rambo and SHE is Rocky Balboa. That is iconic comparison.

Added:

Rocky Balboa was a prize-fighter. A showman overall.

He won well and had grit but he was no street fighter.

Added:
Contender

This is what debate is supposed to be like. Not a prize fight, but a street fight. I am Rocky Balboa and analgesic is acting like Tommy Gun