Instigator
Kikomori avatar
Points: 0

Does God Exist

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Tiwaz avatar
Points: 0
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Sorry for taking a long time to begin.
Firstly, I would like to talk about the burden of proof. In a debate about God, Pro has BoP (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). I am going to attempt to debunk the abrahamic God here, But Pro, Even if you successfully manage to completely debunk all of my arguments here, You must prove your god exists.
Now then, I am going to use an argument here that I believe you are all familiar with - the problem of evil.
This was originally penned by Epicurus, "Is God willing to prevent evil, But not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, But not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? "
This argument still stands strong. Religion has attempted to discredit it, But still failed in my opinion. Soul-maker is key here. The soul maker argument states evil exists in order to prove ones self to God. This goes hand in hand with free will, So I will talk about them both here. This is probably the worst rebuttal - God is supposedly omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient and omnibenevolent. A being of this sort would not seek to test people, And a God who cared would make perfect humans. It can be inferred, Then, That he would also not give humans free will, As the negatives of individuals like Hitler and Stalin would surely violate an all loving individuals moral code.

The other point is the law of non contradiction. Essentially, God's qualities are contradictory, Therefore, He cannot exist. Firstly, Omnipotence is self contradictory. I am sure you are all familiar with the paradox coming with this quality - can God create a rock he cannot lift? Pro can answer this for me.
Furthermore, Coming hand in hand with above is the contradiction of being all knowing, All loving and all powerful, And yet allowing evil to occur? This is perfectly represented in Epicurus' point.

Published:

S1 – The Debate Framing
You are specifying the Abrahamic God, not God as a conceptual being. The title indicated no such thing, but it appears you’ve set forth several criteria. This is also not an extraordinary claim by definition – most philosophers have toyed with the prospect, and everyone has thought about the concept. Much more crazy things have been thought up, reality is one of them
.
S2 – Refutation
Normally I would save this for the following rounds, but I believe my opponent specified I should debunk his claims or assertions.

Epicurus
A perfect, loving God would not necessarily create a perfect universe. In Genesis God refers to his creations as “good,” not “perfect.” When he made Adam, God said it was not good for Adam to be alone. In revelations it is acknowledged in several ways that this world is imperfect and will eventually be replaced.

Omniscience & Omnipotence
In the Bible God cannot do anything which contradicts his holy character. However, he can do anything which he wants to. This is how we would define biblical omnipotence, which defeats the rock argument.

Omnibenevolence
An omnibenevolent being's creations are not necessarily omnibenevolent. All things derive from his being (in the Aquinas sense) of God. Thus, imperfections are really due to our relative derivation from the objective standard of God. In the same way good traits may point towards God (plato's forms), imperfections point towards his inverse - the archetype of chaos. Evil could be represented as a personable manifestation of this contraposed deity or concept.

S3 – Rational Justification for Believing in a Creator
There is plenty of evidence (if you believe in mainstream science/physics) to believe in God/artificial design.

For instance, the Big Bang. Universe size is currently perfect, and within the space of 3 minutes it would have had to expanded to a slightly smaller size than the current size for nuclear fusion to have occurred. Without this incredibly brief period of nucleosynthesis our universe would entirely be made of hydrogen, and thus no stars or rocky planets would have ever existed in our universe.

Probability
A simple 2% variant in carbon or oxygen would make life impossible.
The cosmic microwave background varies by 1/100,000, if this were slightly smaller our universe would be diffuse gas. If slightly larger, it would be primarily composed of black holes.
The electron to proton ration cannot vary by more than 1/10^37 or there would be no chemical reactions.
(And so on)

But, as it turns out – there is a physical limit to improbable occurances. The lowest probability event that can ever happen within our universe is: 1/10^143
It would be virtually impossible for all the constants to have received such perfect fine-tuning by chance.




Round 2
Published:
Firstly, this is my first debate on here after migrating from DDO, and to see a competent debater is amazing, so I hope we can have a civil and interesting debate.
Anyway, I will address pro's 'rebuttal' of my points and then address his. 
This is also not an extraordinary claim by definition – most philosophers have toyed with the prospect, and everyone has thought about the concept

 An extraordinary claim is one which is not supported by the available, or ordinary, evidence. (Sagan Standard Wiki)
Yes, God Is an extraordinary claim, as without reaching or diving into philosophy, there is no real evidence of a divine creator. I apologise, I did intend to Include abrahamic in the title.
In Genesis God refers to his creations as “good,” not “perfect.”
This seems to me like a non-sequitur (pro probably will disagree) as it seems illogical that a perfect deity would not create a perfect world. It is also logically impossible for a God to change their mind, as an all knowing deity would know what causes the opinion shift, and therefore would already change their mind.  The bible even says this
Numbers 23:19 New International Version (NIV)
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
    not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Just to clarify, are you a creationist, pro? Not that it is relevant particularly to this debate, I'm just curious. 
Omniscience & Omnipotence
In the Bible God cannot do anything which contradicts his holy character. However, he can do anything which he wants to. This is how we would define biblical omnipotence, which defeats the rock argument.
I disagree, you say 'he can do anything he wants to' so again, can he create a stone that he does not lift? If he wanted to, could he?

An omnibenevolent being's creations are not necessarily omnibenevolent. All things derive from his being (in the Aquinas sense) of God. Thus, imperfections are really due to our relative derivation from the objective standard of God
Again I find this logically inconsistent. An all loving being would not want to see his own creation suffer, and he would stop it if he could, logically speaking. Therefore his creation should be loving, logically. 

Universe size is currently perfect
Nope. The universe is still expanding, so when is it the 'perfect' size?

Without this incredibly brief period of nucleosynthesis our universe would entirely be made of hydrogen, and thus no stars or rocky planets would have ever existed in our universe.
During the universe expansion, because so much matter was so densely compacted, it was very hot, allowing protons, neutrons and electrons to form atoms.

A simple 2% variant in carbon or oxygen would make life impossible.  
I couldn't find any data on this figure, so I would be grateful if pro could provide his source. However, during earth's development, this was the case. For millions of years, the earths atmosphere was mostly CO2, Hydrogen and Water Vapour, being spewed out by volcanos. The steam eventually condensed to form oceans, where life first began. Oxygen was actually toxic to life for a while before life evolved to use it. The planet's elemental balance now is only possible due to the development of plant life and bacteria which shifted the balance

What pro is getting at is the fine tuning argument, and this can be perfectly summed up like this.
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
The fact is that life is fine tuned for the universe we are in, not the other way around. These values are only fine tuned because of the value we put on it. Like rolling 6 6s in a row. The chance of that is 1/216 but so is the chance of rolling a 2, 4 and 1. They are only important because we can put those values there.
Published:
Definitions

I feel it’s necessary to lay out a definition before continuing.
Extraordinary – 1 Very unusual or remarkable. 1.1 Unusually great. (Oxford Dictionary source). Etymology: From Latin extraordinarius, from extra ordinem; equivalent to extra + ordinary.

Rebuttal

So, under the common definition – the proper one, a God claim would be an ordinary claim. Even under the Sagan definition (quite a biased source), a claim of God would not meet his definition for extraordinary. God may be proven empirically or logically with currently available evidence.

Adherents of modern materialism employ something referred to as Methodological Naturalism. That is an average scientist given something unexplainable will just assume there is a natural cause. An example would be when a doctor confronts some unexplained recovery they just say: “modern medicine just cannot explain this yet.” In truth, this would be the extraordinary claim under Sagan’s definition.

“The universe is still expanding, so when is it the 'perfect' size?”
I meant the perfect size to harbor life. Many scientists believe the universe will eventually collapse in on itself. Colloquially the “big crunch.”

“This seems to me like a non-sequitur (pro probably will disagree) as it seems illogical that a perfect deity would not create a perfect world.”
These quotes are to properly present the Abrahamic or Christian God. Since God doesn’t refer to his creations as “perfect” it corroborates my claims.
“can he create a stone that he does not lift? If he wanted to, could he?”
If he is all powerful there is nothing he cannot do. If he chooses to fail at lifting the rock, then he isn’t failing. Of course, there would simply be no stone that he cannot lift because he can lift any stone he chooses to create. This is like saying “God isn’t all powerful because he’s all powerful.”

“Again I find this logically inconsistent. An all loving being would not want to see his own creation suffer, and he would stop it if he could, logically speaking. Therefore his creation should be loving, logically.”
God could not logically create a square. Likewise, he could not create beings that may never choose evil.
“During the universe expansion, because so much matter was so densely compacted, it was very hot, allowing protons, neutrons and electrons to form atoms.”
Right, I am aware of that. The universe had to be of sufficient size; not too large not too small. It had to reach that size within the space of 3 minutes.

“These values are only fine tuned because of the value we put on it.”
Math is not exclusively a language – it is an abstractive system. It is used quite commonly to express fundamental laws, rules, and conditions of our universe.

CLARIFICATION

On the 2% data – that was meant to be about the constants related to the formation of stars. That was a very unfortunate mistake, I was talking about a 2% variation in the constants necessary to form stars. A 2% variation would produce too much oxygen or carbon would make life impossible due to stars not being able to form. (source)

Round 3
Published:
I feel pro is being extremely disingenuous, when he presents us with the notion that God is not an extraordinary claim. This is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
God may be proven empirically or logically with currently available evidence. 
No. God may be argues for using false premises, faulty logic and an egocentric view of the universe, not 'proven.' If we could indeed present proof of God's existence, there would only be very small groups of people who do not believe, like 'flat earthers.' Instead, what we are seeing, as science evolves, free thinking is encouraged and education is more readily available, more people drift away from common religious ideas, shown by the rising level of agnostic atheists.

Many scientists believe the universe will eventually collapse in on itself. Colloquially the “big crunch
No. What is actually believed by 'many' scientists is that the universe will keep expanding until all stars eventually die, white and red dwarfs burn out and black holes radiate away. This is called heat death. Another outcome is that the universe will keep expanding and this will keep speeding up (due to dark energy) and the universe will eventually be expanding faster than light speed.  All matter rips apart and no two particles can ever interact (fittingly called the big rip). Heat death is the most likely, and the big crunch is more of a hopeful possibility than a real likely event. 
 Since God doesn’t refer to his creations as “perfect” it corroborates my claims. 
This is most definitely circular logic., You cannot repeat something the very thing you're trying to prove exists said in order to prove it exists.

Of course, there would simply be no stone that he cannot lift because he can lift any stone he chooses to create. This is like saying “God isn’t all powerful because he’s all powerful.”
So you concede the paradox. "there would simply be no stone that he cannot lift because he can lift any stone he chooses to create" shows Pro believes that God is incapable of creating a stone which he cannot lift, and therefore he is not omnipotent. "God isn’t all powerful because he’s all powerful.” Is a nice way of putting it.
God could not logically create a square.
What?
he could not create beings that may never choose evil.
Yes he could - free will is not a necessary construct, and it is arguable by many modern psychologists that it is not something humans are even capable of, just an illusion presented to us by our brains. 
Right, I am aware of that. The universe had to be of sufficient size; not too large not too small. It had to reach that size within the space of 3 minutes.
Why? I fail to understand how this can logically prove God - if anything it should serve the opposite. Why would deity make the universe expand from a singularity, give it a set of rules to follow and hope for the best. If a God exists, creation is infinitely more likely, and any logical person knows that creation is impossible. 

The fine tuning argument exposes the egocentric view of the universe that the ones who hold it have. It comes back to the puddle analogy - "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” The universe is not finely tuned for life, but life just so happens to fit in the universe we are in. The laws of the universe are essentially human labels to help us understand how the universe functions, not there so the universe can allow life to exist within.
Published:
On Fallacies and Strawmen
My opponent accuses me of being disingenuous. He then continues on to be incredibly disingenuous in the vary next paragraph (strawman 3).
 
STRAWMAN 1
The biblical God can do anything

Real claim: The biblical God can do anything which does not contradict his divine nature. For instance, he cannot lie (Titus 1:2; KJV). Contrary to atheist claims, the biblical God cannot do anything that is impossible by means of definition.

STRAWMAN 2
Extraordinary semantics

Real definition provided from Oxford and other sources. [1][2][3] His source, a Carl Sagan Wikipedia article with an unknown author and no citation for the definition. [4]

STRAWMAN 3
“God may be argued for using false premises, faulty logic, and an egocentric view of the universe”

Needless to say this is not the case. One simple example is the cosmological arguments, formed on the basis of observable conditions. One may also note this isn’t merely a strawman, but also an exception fallacy. I have also pointed out the egocentrism of materialists and scientists with my earlier point about naturalism.

Upon reading this round further, here is a quote from one of the final paragraphs. I am incredibly hurt by this implication I am illogical. “If a God exists, creation is infinitely more likely, and any logical person knows that creation is impossible.

FALLACY 1
Moving the goalposts

EX 1) His title does not match his claim in R1 (the Abrahamic God).
EX 2) He denies passages from the Bible are relevant claiming they are non-sequitor. If he wishes to argue the Christian God, we must properly present the Biblical perspective. I am not using them as evidence, only to show that his portrayal the biblical God is wrong or misrepresentative.

Rebuttal

Contention 1. The Big Crunch
The other two possibilities seem impossible. There isn’t real evidence to show that the universe is infinite, and it honestly seems like a logical impossibility. Space is largely flat to a margin of 0.4%, and as far as we can tell it’s Euclidean. In other words, the global geometry of our universe is not necessarily the same as the local geometry of our universe’s perceived two dimensional manifold.

This happens to be true of every other actual two-dimensional manifold we know of, that it’s actually a gradually curved plane. Now, imagine space is not in-fact flat, but curved. The global curvature would be so gradual we would not notice.

Contention 2. The Rock
I realize the temptation, but you must not remove such a sentence from the surrounding ones. Context was very important in this context and this is another strawman. “If he chooses to fail at lifting the rock, then he isn’t failing” was the sentence which preceded it.

God simply cannot fail at doing what he wishes to do. No matter how heavy a rock he makes, he will always be able to lift it unless he chooses not to. God cannot draw a circular square, likewise he could create a stone of tremendous size but he would always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not included in biblical omnipotence and the Bible makes this expressly clear. [5]

Contention 3. Free Will
Make an actual argument against free will.

Contention 4. Fine-Tuning
Imagine waking up in a deep hole somewhere as a self-reasoning logical entity and not asking “hey, maybe someone put me here.”

Why is the speed of light 186,282.397 miles per second?
Why is the energy of a body equal to the mas of the body times the speed of light squared? E=mc^2
Why is the gravitational force between two objects proportional to the mass of each and inversely to the distance between them? Why is this relationship so
predictable?
Where do these laws come from?
Why does matter obey them?
Why are they so precisely tuned that if they were even slightly changed life could not exist in our universe?

Are they just symptomatic of the average patterns of particle behavior? If so, why do they appear invariable with no exceptions occurring?

Moreover, since I don’t feel like listing and continuing to express the absolute improbability of these things occurring, here is a compiled list of 140 fine tuning parameters.[6] In order for our universe to have arrived by the Big Bang event the chances would be about 1/10^1230. [7] To put this into perspective, there are 10^78 atoms in the known universe.

Conclusion

A teleological designer is much more likely than an entirely naturalistic process. Therefore, it is more reasonable to conclude that God exists than it is to assume he does not.

Sources
[7]: Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, P.445




Round 4
Published:
Let me address each of the "straw men" from my previous round.
The biblical God can do anything
I never said this. You did :
Omniscience & Omnipotence
In the Bible God cannot do anything which contradicts his holy character. However, he can do anything which he wants to. This is how we would define biblical omnipotence, which defeats the rock argument.
So I do not really understand how I am strawmanning anything, considering Pro decided to retcon his original argument in order to accuse me of such.

So called straw man two is getting tiresome, and, as I stated previously, Is a poor attempt by my opponent to shift the burden of proof. 
His source, a Carl Sagan Wikipedia 
Sagan Standard. 

Definition: "An extraordinary claim is one which is not supported by the available, or ordinary, evidence"
Now whilst ordinary was never truly defined by Sagan, the implication is obvious. If the evidence is tangible, observable, not circumstantial etc, we can class It as ordinary. To prove God, Pro has demonstrated the need to jump through hoops of logic and build conclusions on premises, usually supported by his interpretation of evidence. This makes God not ordinary. Furthermore, God is intangible, and outside of the parameters of testability, making it 'extraordinary' to claim such a thing exists.
 One may also note this isn’t merely a strawman, but also an exception fallacy. I have also pointed out the egocentrism of materialists and scientists with my earlier point about naturalism.
The exception fallacy, also known as the stereotype fallacy makes a conclusion about a group of people based on observations of or data on one individual. For example, getting cut off in traffic by an older gentleman driving a car may result in the generalization that all old people must be bad drivers—a stereotype fallacy.
I don't believe I ever did this - I said that the use of the fine tuning argument shows an egocentric view of the universe. This is an ironic example of pro oversimplifying my argument in order to make it easier to discredit. Also known as a straw-man. You can point to other arguments here also falls short, because you didn't use the cosmological argument in your debate in the first place. 

EX 1) His title does not match his claim in R1 (the Abrahamic God).
This was already addressed as a mistake in P2.
EX 2) He denies passages from the Bible are relevant claiming they are non-sequitor. If he wishes to argue the Christian God, we must properly present the Biblical perspective. I am not using them as evidence, only to show that his portrayal the biblical God is wrong or misrepresentative.
This is not what happened. I pointed to the use of biblical passages in your argument and referred to that as a non-sequitur. To note, yes, pointing to biblical passages to prove God Is non the less fallacious, as the bible is only relevant once the existence of such a deity has been proven. Using the bible to establish an identity to such a being is fine, but the bible can not be used to prove the validity of the bible. 

The other two possibilities seem impossible. There isn’t real evidence to show that the universe is infinite, and it honestly seems like a logical impossibility. 
This is a clear argument from personal incredulity. The Big Crunch is only likely if the amount of dark energy dramatically decreases, but this contradicts reality, with the expansion of the universe actually speeding up, signifying the opposite. Heat death may see a 'spontaneous loss of entropy,' but the likelyhood of a Big Crunch model is disappointingly low (honestly I wish it was true, as it is much more optimistic than the other two, but it is just a possibility among many based on current physics.) The reality of the situation is that this is a pointless line of argument, as the end of the universe is completely (currently) unknown to physicists, and the three possibilities put forward by myself and Pro are just hypothesis from top physicists. 

If he chooses to fail at lifting the rock, then he isn’t failing” was the sentence which preceded it.

God simply cannot fail at doing what he wishes to do. No matter how heavy a rock he makes, he will always be able to lift it unless he chooses not to. God cannot draw a circular square, likewise he could create a stone of tremendous size but he would always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not included in biblical omnipotence and the Bible makes this expressly clear.
I understand pro's line of logic here, but I must contend. In this scenario, God can always pick up the rock, just doesn't want to, meaning he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, because he will always be able to lift it eventually.

Make an actual argument against free will.
I don't remember any argument against free will that I made, but here is a quick one that I posted elsewhere. 
Chun Siong Soon (as one example) conducted an experiment in 2008 (verified, Repeated and peer reviewed since) where he used an FMRI machine to monitor subject brain activity, Told them to 'choose' to push a button on the left or right hand. He found, Amazingly, That 'the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness' suggesting that the delay reflects the operation of high level control areas that prepare a decision long before it enters awareness.
This shows we do not have the freedom we think we have - it can accurately be predicted what a person will do before they even choose to do it. To put it another way - free will is an illusion.
Im sure you agree that Sam Harris is a fantastic writer -. Harris S, 2012. Free Will: https://www. Samharris. Org/free-will

Fine tuning
Pro seems obsessed with why. Not a question science answers, but I can do my best.

Why is the speed of light 186,282.397 miles per second? Why is the energy of a body equal to the mas of the body times the speed of light squared? E=mc^2
Miles.
I don't know the significance of these questions
Why is this relationship so 
predictable?
Thats sort of the point in the law, so scientists can predict them  
Where do these laws come from?
Very clever people made observations and came to a conclusion. 
Why does matter obey them?
Thats why they are called laws and not random equations
Why are they so precisely tuned that if they were even slightly changed life could not exist in our universe?
And we are back to the egocentric model of the universe. You begin with the assumption that the universe set out to allow life to exist. The reality is, that we live In a universe that just so happens to allow life.
In order for our universe to have arrived by the Big Bang event the chances would be about 1/10^1230. [7] To put this into perspective, there are 10^78 atoms in the known universe.
And it is a 1/10 to the 1230 chance of the universe happening any other way. 

Conclusion: Pro has failed to provide any substantial evidence of his claims, and therefore, by a lack of evidence, it Is unreasonable to conclude in the existence of a deity.

Published:
Extraordinary

I am going to keep tugging on this thread because it’s very clear to me now how this would’ve been used against me had I not brought it up.

His provided definition can be found on the Wikipedia article word for word with no other citations or justification for defining it in that manner. Regardless, he has stated HE is the one who is arbitrarily redefining words in this round so now it hardly matters. I didn’t think it could get worse for him but he’s even mispresenting his own sources.
“Now whilst ordinary was never truly defined by Sagan, the implication is obvious. …”
Extraordinary means extraordinary, if Sagan meant otherwise he would’ve stated so. This isn’t a matter of burden of proof, and the above is WORSE than an unsourced Wikipedia article because it’s direct admission by him of redefining the term to something Sagan didn’t. This blatant revision would have been used against me to require some incredible proof such as pulling God out of the sky beard first had I not directly addressed it. I request voters take his blatant ingenuity into account; it’s quite ironic he accused me of the same ingenuity he is guilty of.

Extraordinary Closing Arguments
“Pro decided to retcon his original argument in order to accuse me of such.”
No, I didn’t. My stance has been consistent – he may do anything he chooses to which isn’t inherently contradictory. He cannot fail as that is contradictory to his holy/divine character and thus the rock case is merely a rhetorical contradiction based upon a presupposed strawman.
“This is a clear argument from personal incredulity.”
You are making several assumptions and my prior round counters both of them if you had taken the time to read it. Since you’ve stated the end of the universe is unknown to physicists you have no real way to debunk my claim or assert your own. By stating the big crunch is unlikely you are assuming 2 things:

Assumption i) the universe is infinite; assumption ii) the universe is flat with no endpoint.

Since you have admitted you have no proof of either it is more reasonable to conclude the universe will end eventually.

Philosophical Egocentrism
One might say assuming these incredibly improbable occurrences have a natural cause is truly unreasonable – and egocentric.

Naturalism vs Theism
I need only prove in the context of this debate that it is more rational to believe in God than it is to believe he doesn’t.

Free Will
Studies have also shown how we can block movements already begun unconsciously. This study shows little and serves no purpose towards refuting free will beyond complicating the topic further.

Constants & Laws
“Very clever people made observations and came to a conclusion.”
Yes, congratulations. These are laws that are inextricable from our universe and if everyone died today the laws would still persist. This also tells us nothing of their origin, as they're laws the universe obeys regardless of our abstractive measurement. 

“Thats sort of the point in the law, so scientists can predict them.“
It’s quite nice of our cold and impersonal universe to take our scientists’ feelings into account like that.

“And it is a 1/10 to the 1230 chance of the universe happening any other way. “
Perhaps, but in that case the universe would be completely inhospitable or chaotic. Slight tweaking to any of the underlying rules of our universe and it would be completely inhospitable.

It’s very convenient to ignore the why questions when they’re so incredibly revealing of your position. Naturalism is after-all inherently circular or prone to infinite regress.

Round 5
Published:
Extraordinary means extraordinary, if Sagan meant otherwise he would’ve stated so. This isn’t a matter of burden of proof, and the above is WORSE than an unsourced Wikipedia article because it’s direct admission by him of redefining the term to something Sagan didn’t. This blatant revision would have been used against me to require some incredible proof such as pulling God out of the sky beard first had I not directly addressed it. I request voters take his blatant ingenuity into account; it’s quite ironic he accused me of the same ingenuity he is guilty of.
If we are speaking directly to voters, I invite them to actually read back in the debate from this point, and consider the validity of this claim. I redefined no term - I merely made it clear what the significance of extraordinary was. But as pro is unwilling to make this distinction, I must do so for him
Extraordinary "Very unusual or remarkable." (plain dictionary defintion.
Does God fit this description: Yes. Pro would undoubtably agree that God is remarkable, I think any believer would. Unusual would be debatable here, but note the use of or. 
This analogy perfectly gets at the purpose of this, and I wish I had put it here sooner. It is from a wiki article, so pro will probably not read it.
Alice and Bob are two friends talking after school. Alice tells Bob that she watched a movie the previous evening. Bob believes her easily, because he knows that movies exist, that Alice exists, and that Alice is capable and fond of watching movies. If he doubts her, he might ask for a ticket stub or a confirmation from one of her friends. If, however, Alice tells Bob that she flew on a unicorn to a fairy kingdom where she participated in an ambrosia-eating contest, and she produces a professionally-printed contest certificate and a friend who would testify to the events described, Bob would still not be inclined to believe her without strong evidence for the existence of flying unicorns, fairies and ambrosia-eating contests.
Note the use of evidence
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Now, the evidence for God mostly relies on (il)logical conclusions from the world around us. Convincing to some, yes, but strong, no, not when we can host a debate such as this one, and so many disagree with the proposition. Strong evidence would undoubtably make God indisputable.

No, I didn’t. My stance has been consistent. e may do anything he chooses to which isn’t inherently contradictory. He cannot fail as that is contradictory to his holy/divine character and thus the rock case is merely a rhetorical contradiction based upon a presupposed strawman. 
I have already addressed the flaws here and it is astounding pro hasn't even tried to see this. There is no straw man - He cannot fail as that is contradictory to his holy/divine character and thus the rock case is merely a rhetorical contradiction - that's the entire point. If he cannot fail, he can create the rock he can't lift, and thus can't lift the rock. The 'logical contradiction' excuse acts as a get out of jail free card, and allows pro to skirt around the argument, a usual tactic. 

“This is a clear argument from personal incredulity.”
You are making several assumptions and my prior round counters both of them if you had taken the time to read it. Since you’ve stated the end of the universe is unknown to physicists you have no real way to debunk my claim or assert your own. By stating the big crunch is unlikely you are assuming 2 things:

Assumption i) the universe is infinite; assumption ii) the universe is flat with no endpoint.
I assumed neither. I pointed to the current scientific consensus, being the universe reaches complete and total entropy in heat death. There are three main possibilities for the death of the universe, and due to the current understanding of physics, heat death seems the most likely.

Since you’ve stated the end of the universe is unknown to physicists you have no real way to debunk my claim or assert your own.
Sure, but you have no ground to make the claim from in the first place. Again, you neglected to mention the big rip, which could arguably be (unfortunately) more likely than the Big Crunch, as the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing (which would be expected If the big crunch was likely. I never said the universe was infinite, (we are literally discussing its death). Unfortunately, pro is either being disingenuous or just lying by saying that the Big Crunch is the only outcome, as it is just an improbable hypothesis based on current physics.

One might say assuming these incredibly improbable occurrences have a natural cause is truly unreasonable – and egocentric. 
I don't think pro quite grasps the concept of eocentricism. How is believing that we are here thanks to a slow and basically random process more self centered than believing a being created the universe just for us. 

It’s quite nice of our cold and impersonal universe to take our scientists’ feelings into account like that. 
And another misrepresentative straw man (or a terrible attempt at humour). You seem to be completely misunderstanding my point here. Scientists invented the laws so they could predict. The universe did not invent the laws, we did, to try and understand it. This also exposes the key reason many believe. Not out of evidence or logic, but out of will, so that the universe is personal. Ring back to egocentricisim 

 Slight tweaking to any of the underlying rules of our universe and it would be completely inhospitable.
This begs the question. It assumes that the universe only exists to allow us to live in it, which assumes a God must exist. The universe could have turned out any of the other ways (and even may have done if you believe in the increasingly likely parallel universe model, but thats not the point) and to assume it exists just so we can is almost narcissistic and frankly quite ridiculous. 

I need only prove in the context of this debate that it is more rational to believe in God than it is to believe he doesn’t.
You have failed, as you can provide no evidence or proof that makes God likely, just weak observations. 
Published:
I will keep the round brief with no new arguments to ensure fairness.

“Yes. Pro would undoubtably agree that God is remarkable
The majority of the world is religious and theist. The only remarkable or extraordinary thing is God relative to humans. So, the only way he could define a God claim as extraordinary is if it wasn’t a claim and God was compared relative to humans.

“{Alice and Bob story}”
His example would fall under the definition of extraordinary because 1.) it contradicts pervasive knowledge while being illogical; and 2.) it’s an absurd, unorthodox claim.

The Rock
I am not ignoring the contradiction. He is an all-powerful being unable to fail, therefore he will be able to lift a rock regardless of how heavy he makes it. The rock argument presupposes God can do anything, when in reality that’s an inaccurate description of God.

The Big Crunch
Given no end point the universe will end in a heat death or the "big rip." Or whatever other theory they are brainstorming these days. The point is, both are only possible if the universe is infinite and not curved. So, you did not addresss my arguments and ignored the assumption they are making. Something to note, I did not make an argument of authority and briefly described how space could be a manifold.

Egocentrism
“How is believing that we are here thanks to a slow and basically random process more self centered than believing a being created the universe just for us. “
God could’ve created an alien species outside of our observable realm of inference. Naturalism makes the exact same assumption as intelligent design, the only difference is the vast improbability by comparison.

Thus, your position is egocentric not because of your belief in a deity or a personable universe but because you deny mathematical reality to support your assumption there probably is none.

Mathematical rules & scientific laws
My opponent has simply disagreed that the universe follows a set of rules. Scientists did not invent these rules, they observed them. Laws aren’t invented, products and devices are invented on the basis of observed rules. Since he disagrees observed laws and rules are real whether we exist or not, there is no substantive discussion to be had about probability.

“It assumes that the universe only exists to allow us to live in it, which assumes a God must exist. The universe could have turned out any of the other ways (and even may have done if you believe in the increasingly likely parallel universe model, but thats not the point) and to assume it exists just so we can is almost narcissistic and frankly quite ridiculous. “

Then why didn’t it? Clearly, we’re alive and in a hospitable environment. It’s a bit narcissistic and ridiculous to assume the universe just got here by vast improbability to validate your position. The parallel universe theory would've been one of many fantastic arguments you could've brought up, but you didn't. 

Conclusion
My opponent has denied science in stating laws are simple inventions of humans and has denied statistical reality. This, in order to validate his assumption that the universe has no meaning.

I intentionally separated the “contradictions” of the biblical God from the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument was not meant to argue the biblical God, only the probable existence of God as indicated by the title.
Dr.Franklin avatar
Added:
For what sells God for me is just how unique and complicated life is. Its pretty crazy when you get into it. Millions of species, each with unique features. I just don't see any of this happening by chance.
#9
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
It would be unfair.
#8
Tiwaz avatar
Added:
--> @Kikomori, @omar2345
Give him all the advice you would like. I would even be comfortable reorganizing the entire debate.
The only reason I asked you if you would like to rephrase it is because it says "does not" rather then "unable to."
Contender
#7
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @Kikomori
I think you can make better arguments and since it I think against the rules to give you advice. I will refrain from telling you how easily you can rebut his claims.
#6
Kikomori avatar
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
Why/
Instigator
#5
Tiwaz avatar
Added:
--> @Kikomori
You might wish to rephrase the below.
"I disagree, you say 'he can do anything he wants to' so again, can he create a stone that he does not lift? If he wanted to, could he?"
Contender
#4
Tiwaz avatar
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I had written up a logical argument using tautologies and corollaries which avoids unnecessary axioms then I realized I don't like putting in effort so I just decided to take the easier route instead.
Contender
#3
Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
Man, I thought your babies as currency debate was sleezy!! But fine tuning. That's bottom of the barrel = D
#2
Debaticus avatar
Added:
If I took this debate, I would be arguing the point that god doesn't exist. If the instigator is arguing the same thing, I don't want to make the mistake of taking the debate.
#1
No votes yet