Total votes: 8
A hearty well done to both Pro and Con for this debate.
Firstly, regarding sources I will be giving a tie. While Pro gave the sources, it seems to me that Con was challanging the acedemia of the source and as such, I at least virtually consider Con to be using the same source.
I had very little difficulty in understanding the legibility of both Pro and Con.
Both had very good conduct.
Regarding the arguments: I believe pro best stated his argument in R4 with: "Thus we are saying because there is at least one possible world where God is necessary, then God is necessary in all possible worlds. This is not a stretch but a basic foundational axiom of modal logic. In modal logic, necessary means true in all possible worlds, including the actual world as the actual world is a possible world."
Which Con refuted with in R3 actually: "Using meer logic we can't make a possible being necessary, because as a quality of being possible, it must be possible that it does not exist. " and "By possible, I mean that something could exist, or it could not. That doesn't necessitate the possible thing existing."
My vote goes to Con because, essentially, the word "necessary" in modal logic must be taken under the context/mode of the "can be." Meaning we are speaking of what would be necessary in a "can be" context, as is shown in the way this argument is layed out.
According to the definition of the word possible from modal logic: it signifies that a proposition can be true in at least one possible world, or that a state of affairs can be realized without contradiction.
And as Pro pointed out "neccessary means true in all possible worlds, including the actual world which is a possible world." which shows that Pro has removed the context of the "can be" that is demanded by defintion of possible in the same sentence, which Con refuted with: " Using meer logic we can't make a possible being necessary, because as a quality of being possible, it must be possible that it does not exist." Showing that Pro changed the context in his argument.
For those who have studied Formal Logic, Pro changed the suppositio of the word: necessary. He went from ideal (a necessary thing in this "can be" context) to real (a necessary thing in a "is" context) in a syllogism, which is a fallacy as Con showed by bringing in real being for the suppositio of the word: necessary.
Forfeiture by Pro.
I will say that Con presented an excellent moral argument for its existence.
Forfeiture from Con.
This was pretty clearly a win for Pro.
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
Con forfeited.
Disclaimer: When I vote on debates, I vote on the quality of the debate. Who my vote goes to does not necessarily mean that I agree with their position/conclusion on the topic of the debate.
While both parties gave interesting points, I think Con was closer to the point than Pro was.
Marriage always involves the health of both parties and we have natural rights to ensure we can take care of those needs. While future generations are in the picture, they carry less significance since they are an effect and not a cause. This comes from the idea: a defect in the cause is a defect in the effect. If the marriage is bad, the future generation is in trouble as Con pointed out. At that point, it would have been better to debate on whether or not the evil of a divorce or forced marriage is proportionate to the effects that will happen. Since Pro did not go there, my vote will go to Con since his points were closer to the heart of the problem.