PGA2.0

First of all, I note an important point, the presupposition nature of this debate.

IMO, Proponent's (Pro) strongest argument was the Universe's age as judged by lights speed (R1). Contender (Con) countered in several ways. Indirectly, he undermining the Universe's dating method's reliability by questioning the dating method for a part of it, the Earth (4.5 billion years). Another was the time it would take DNA/RNA replication. A third is Dr. Jason Lisle's, the "horizontal problem." The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention principle addresses P4. Con identified that the speed of light cannot be determined in one direction but relies on a two-way measurement. Finally, the Thomas Aquinas argument was the coup d'etat.

The take from these arguments; something is off. Thus, human standards and measures are in question, begging from the present to the past.

I felt Cons R1's rebuttal regarding the speed of light a little lacking. It did not develop the argument for the rate of the Universe's measured expansion seen in starlight distances now as opposed to then (Premise 4). (i.e., A universe/balloon analogy in which two dots [representing stars or points of distance] on a balloon expand and increase the length between the two as air is added, questioning whether the expansion rate is accurately calculated in the present looking back to the past. More air would fill the balloon faster, increasing the distance quicker). As Con pointed out, God put the starlight into place in one day (R2). Thus, in the BB model, the acceleration would have embodied that time frame - one day, not billions of years in determining the age. Thus starlight either appeared mature, or the expanding Universe's pace was faster in the beginning, are other explanations that counter P1. P1 and P4 (Pro - R1) are the problem areas of the Pros argument.

Cons R1 "rebuttal" included the significant presuppositions nature of the evidence. He developed this argument in every future round. Con reminded Pro that both sides examine the issue with worldview baggage and bias - the creation framework opposing the "Naturalistic" framework. The creation view holds the belief in a mature universe. Thus, Pro countered whether God is a deceiver, focusing his argument on the appearance of things rather than maturity. I thought Con responded adequately. But this brought further questions to mind. Is the naturalistic view sufficient in determining the age? In R3, Con enhanced the presuppositional side of the argument. His presentation here went unanswered by Pro and, IMO, is at the heart of this debate. That argument from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae is:
1. The argument from motion (Whatever is moved is moved by something else/Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions...).
2. The argument from efficient cause (...nothing can be the efficient cause of itself/If there is no first cause then there will be no others...).
3. The argument from necessary being (...objects in the universe come into being and pass away/If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence...Therefore, a Necessary Being exists.).

A++

These three queries, IMO, make the presuppositional nature of Pros entire argument questionable.

Of Pros R1 five premises, Con correctly focused on Premise 1 as not being adequately demonstrated in future rounds.

P1. The Universe can't be younger than the time it takes for light to reaches us.

Please note, Pro never explains why the speed of light is as it is - its nature. What makes that speed possible? The constant is assumed possible in/by a naturalistic worldview, the worldview Pro offers for the age of the Universe - Naturalism.

Pro argued that He is not looking at this from a naturalistic position was thoroughly refuted. Pro is doing what he claims he is not, as Con demonstrated. For instance (as a side excursion), Pro did not give an adequate reason as to why his view was anything other than a naturalistic framework, as pointed out by Con ("...he is a naturalist because he does not believe in supernatural processes."). Pro does not believe...or does not use. Pro solely used a natural argument. End of discussion.

Pro believes the speed (the constant) is what it is because of chance happenstance - no intent or purpose. Poof! That is quite a presuppositions assumption and leap that demands support that never materialized.

I thought Pros' other charges were adequately fended off by Con.

Thus, I believe Con had the better argument and reasoning.

Contender, I am sorry to be so critical, but after agreeing to this debate I felt you did not give it a good effort and let me down. I waited in anticipation for two weeks at a time for your replies and was very disappointed. I thought this debate topic was not one that many people had tackled and I wanted to see two good presentations. I only got one.

Round 2 was the only round that Contender engaged in and I thought his sources, while accredited, had very little to do with the topic of personhood. They never established or gave good reason to believe personhood begins at birth, the topic of debate. Only source # 3 came anywhere close.

Contender failed to address Pros arguments on almost every issue including a) what was most reasonable to believe, b) the rule of law, c) equal application of the law, d) morality, e) moral value, f) absolute value, g) logic or h) the philosophical aspect. Con never established with certainty or good reason why personhood begins at birth or is attributed at birth by his sources, whereas I was expecting Con to provide arguments for just that - personhood begins at birth.

Thus, Con never addressed what Pro sought as Cons burden of proof:
"Here is where the debate begins – I, as Pro, must advocate why this proposition is most prudent. Con, on the other hand, must advocate that personhood is not only implied by biological humanity, but also by other predicates."

Nor did Contender refute Pros logic.

Here is an example that Con did not address:
"To reject the Pro position, that biological humanity is the sole implication of personhood, would be to state that either biological humanity does not implicate personhood at all, or biological humanity is not enough to implicate personhood."

Contender never justified why it was not enough, just asserted.

Cons Embryology 101 was a lesson on how the unborn develops but had very little in understanding how personhood begins at birth.

Cons syllogism failed on P1. I was given no sufficient reason, just assertion of P1. I failed to understand how lack of consciousness disqualified the unborn from being a personal being by its very nature. Pro mentioned how those in a coma (or for that matter, I would add sleeping) are disqualified from being people. Contender could have attacked that argument, but alas, he never did.

Because Contender missed two round of the debate and provided a bare minimum on the other round I believe he should be deducted conduct points since only one side put forth the effort. Also, Pro was very gracious in waiving the rounds and giving Contender a chance to catch up. Thus, I feel Pro deserves conduct points.

I felt that spelling and grammar were adequate for both opponents.

Pro wins the debate in every category because he was the only one who bothered to post an argument. There was nothing to judge by Con (Contender), no argument to judge as to its merit.