Instigator / Pro
21
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#646

No Gods Exist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
0

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Wrick-It-Ralph
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con FF a round in the middle of the debate which halted the entire debate since this means that Con couldn't post arguments in the last round. This is poor conduct.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Considering that neither side here defines What they actually mean by God (slap!), I am forced to piece together the definition. I’ll deal with that at the end.

Pro starts off with a set of justifications as to why the concept of Gods should be ruled out by default.

He starts by explaining the omni god and their properties a logical contradictory. He raises the typical problem of evil, and uses the contradictions inherent to rule this God out.

He goes on to rule out lesser gods that adhere to the laws of physics. This seems much more tenuous a position in my view - and it’s not fully clear whether there are any Gods in between.

The God by definition argument - imo does a reasonable Job of ruling out - or at an explanation for why evidence is required of Gods by definition.

The metaphysical argument - smacks of special pleading - and feels as if pro is simply trying to rule out Gods by definition. The logic seems to be incredibly sneaky to me, and doesn’t feel intuitive as it doesn’t feel as if Pro has truly covered all bases.

Cons opening argument is a typical Kalam and Ontological arguments. These are well presented and they work as they appear prima facia intuitive.

Pros rebuttal here is one of the best take downs of the ontological argument I’ve seen: pro points out that pro is jumping from a possibility to an actuality in a hidden step - providing a modified of premise 2 version that follows better and specifically highlights the logical error the OA makes. The take down explains his the replacement of does exist with possible clearly undermines the whole position. This was excellent.

The KCA take down was just as good. Again, one of the best.

To start with, pro points out we have never seen anything that has begun to exist - everything is made from something else - and this is the first time I’ve seen this argument. It uniquely specifies why we can’t make the determination from the first premise.

The second part was also unique - when modifying Kalam to use formed from something else (which is all we have ever seen), it loses its intuitive power.

In my view both these points were excellent take downs.

Cons rebuttal uses the free will argument to challenge the problem of evil. I feel this rebuttal was exceptionally generic, con needed to take the fight to con and challenge on specific arguments and issues using examples. As the PoE is intuitive, the argument presented by con fails to really explain what it is about the formulation that is wrong.

Con also doesn’t fully offer a rebuttal to “omni Gods” other than the issue of KCA infinite regress issue.

As this is the last round by con, I feel I can summarize at this point.

In the end, pros position here is a bit pokey - but there is enough there for me to feel he’s met his initial burden of proof. It feels like the are gaps in his definitions, but as these were pointed out, it would really be my opinion. As a result, I feel with cons forfeits and lack of a significant counter, I have to side with pro.

Arguments to pro.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I'm voting on argument based on the first two rounds only. Please let me know if you think this is unfair.

Argument:

This was interesting. Both of the first two rounds were comprehensive, so there's not much to say there. Pro ruled out why he thinks that none of the gods that he mentioned can exist, and Con went the logical route as to why a god must exist. Because of the forfeit, the essentially boils down to who critiqued the other's opening argument better.

Omni-Gods:

I would have given this to Con had he fully explained why the universe can't be infinitely old, but because he put this off for the next round, this point falls and I am giving the point to Pro.

Evil:

Con did a good job here of showing his point on evil, and how it must be objective to work in the scenario he describes. I'm giving this point to him.

Maximally Powerful Beings:

Con doesn't really give a rebuttal here, instead using the watchmaker argument. Without sufficient backup, it falls and this point goes to Pro.

Ontological:

Pro wrote a very long rebuttal to this, but my problem with it is that it argues purely over semantics. He never critiques the underlying argument and only the words on top, so this point is tied.

Kalaam:

Pro sufficiently ruled this out by saying that it doesn't relate to a god, so he gets this point.

All-in-all, Pro got more points, so I am giving argument to him. I hope both parties will redo this so that I can see the full debate. Good job. :)

Conduct:

Pro gets conduct because Con forfeited.

*Tied In All Othes*