I kind of agree with that on the front of the K, I think the only way to argue against position (if pro makes a perfect pitch) is to argue against moral absolutes, or at least partial objectivity (applies to humans - but not to animals outside).
One thing I will point out, for your own future growth, is that con effectively conceded the whole debate twice: When he argued an additional mechanism of judging moral decisions in addition to homeostasis: he’s effectively conceding homeostasis can’t explain morality, and as what he raises is fairly arbitrary and subjective ad-hoc rationalization - he concedes the objective point too. In addition, he argued that the teeniest, tiniest harm allows morality to be judged, you mostly pointed this out: but he basically conceded that homeostasis can’t renser moral decisions because you cannot use them to weight harms.
If you had pointed these two out in more detail: the latter simply by saying that the homeostatis of slapping someone is more aggregious than the least harmful form of rape: it would have been easier to award you the debate on the spot. It’s always harder to spot in the debate than out of it.
Conversely: the big wedge for me that I was hoping you would exploit more, was moral compulsion. We feel compelled to follow morality, con offered no explanation for why we feel that, and it was mostly implied by most of your argument on commands - but it wasn’t explicit enough: that compulsion on its own is neatly unanswerable by homeostasis could have made the debate far more one sided. Instead you were mostly lucky that con hinges the debate on homeostasis, and you argued it slightly better.
When your opponent uses quotation marks (“like this”) around stuff you said I the previous round, and then provides a reason to discount that information this is called a “rebuttal”, a new point, is where a new piece of information, unrelated to the “ rebuttal” or other “arguments” is added out of the blue.
At the most charitable, he made one new point, and even that is kinda borderline in the context of everything said and didn’t end up changing any of the weighting decision.
I’ve seen this type of argument multiple times, so I think it’s fairly common. I made a variation of it years ago myself - but using Saddam Hussein, on MySpace - so that kinda dates it.
Bear in mind these responses aren’t a reason why your arguments were bad - simply my opinion (as an Atheist) as to how you could make it harder to argue against.
If he had made the same argument about Stalin, and argued if Stalin had made a rule that everyone who said anything bad about Stalin should be shot on sight, that it would not have been Stalin ordering people to their death, it would have been their own choice - that would have been a good argument that was directly equivalent. That’s what I was trying to get at with my RfD.
Yes, i think it was specifically incomplete - but is a great explanatory example - when you can change the word God for Stalin, and make an argument is a fairly compelling moral argument it implies immorality using an agreed baseline, rather than having to specifically prove one example of another.
If you’re arguing God, and talking about Biblical questions and quotations as pro did - fight the ground that is strongest for you. In this case, using
Blocks citations and theological principles would have been better. Arguing from a secular position massively weakens your position in my view, as you cut off the biggest source of support for your arguments
This is purely personal preference: but the strongest way, in my view, that you could have argued this, is to have offered a specific framework then defended that framework. While your argument is valid, it was a bit of a patchwork of different examples and positions that made it harder for you to defend as a whole and tie everything together; that’s not to say that you’re argument was poor.
As a hard core Atheist, I don’t think this would have been too hard for me to argue against the individual points you made: the only argument I could have made against you presenting and defending a framework, is biblical support - which immediately gives you the advantage with your excellent interpretation argument.
Saying that, you didn’t do badly by any means, pro was hampered by the forfeits, and very short dismissive rebuttals.
Note that his Stalin rebuttal was really good - if you’re interested in atheism debates, this is a great example of one individual point.
Con brings an interesting K to the argument. I contend that both the Theistic and Atheistic viewpoints make several predictions about how the world should look like. If Atheism is true, then this is what it should look like; and if Theism is true, this is what it should look like. The Atheist view point, for example, would say that evil is incompatible with Theism and the Theist would say, for example, that objective moral facts can only exist in a Theist-centered world.
The first argument I brought up, the ontological argument, is an a priori proof of God's existence while the KCA and moral argument are an a posteriori proof of God's existence.
I propose that we can know God's existence through both pure logic and through empirical evidence. ”
Yeah, it’s more the case you can’t handle people voting against you and feel more inclined to harass and harangue them repeatedly in private. I vote for you when you win, and against you when you don’t.
I do find it hilarious when you take it so personally.
Nah, I don’t see many fraudulent votes at all, there’s a couple of individuals that are generally rather mad at him: but they don’t actually seem to vote on anything he puts up. In my view he has good days and bad days.
At this point you only seem to be able to shout at me for how biased I am, without specifically being able to name an instance.
It’s like you’re accusing me of being a thief without even being able to tell me what I’m supposed to have stolen, and can’t even given any actual reasons why you think I stole anything in the first place.
I actually think you need to spend time on reading comprehension.
When you continually state that I’m holding a position, which through my entire RfD and multiple posts I clearly justify why I do not hold that position: it kinda makes me think you’re not interested in facts, but you’re just interested in soothing your own ego. Seriously, you keeping telling me that I’m
Weighing arguments in one way, when I clearly and specifically show otherwise in my RfD.
I’ve voted for you, and against you. I’ve voted for you in scenarios where I didn’t feel your morally deserved it, and against you when you did - when the arguments warranted such a position.
You’ve commented very positively on several of my RFDs on your debates - but it seems my RFDs, based on the same process and methodology and weighting as this one are only considered to be “excellent” by you when they happen to come down in your favour.
You dont seem interested in valid votes - the fact that you’ve demanded I should have rejected cons arguments because of arguments you did not make demonstrates this - you seem solely fixated and outraged that I didn’t vote for you. I’m fair and excellent when I vote for you, and outrageous and biased against you when I vote for someone else.
This is not about fairness, or reasonableness of votes - this is down your own personal animosity that someone dared to vote against you - outrage I can only presume to be stoked due to your own inability to accept your own shortcomings.
That’s not my problem, and I will simply direct you to both my RfD and failing that, my Avatar, which clearly expresses my personal level of concern for your outrage.
Actually, a more accurate assessment is that I asked what was wrong with the vote, you made some generic complaints, could not point to any specific examples of where I did anything wrong and the most you’ve ever provided was saying that I didn’t consider something that was literally explicitly described and considered in my RfD. You then ran away and continued to make generic accusations without any specific substance.
I’m still waiting for some specific issue or error you think I’ve made on any of the votes you’ve taken issue with. So far it’s all generic “your votes are terrible” and arbitrary “your biased”. I’ve asked you a few times now.
If you can’t tell me what’s wrong with the vote, I’m assuming you can’t see anything wrong with the vote.
You changed the definitions. This is a fact. You added a definition. Fact. You modified the definition of God. fact. Any argument you’re not make where you claim the definitions were not changed, is not based on fact.
You argued based on these new definitions. This is a fact.
You proved the sun met the definition of God based upon your new definitions - not the definitions in the info. This is a fact.
Con challenged your definition as absurd, and as it is factually established that challenging your new definitions is valid - this argument is valid.
All of these points are unchallenged by you, and you have addressed only in nonsensical assertions, and deliberate misrepresention.
There are, easily a thousand different arguments you could make to argue why I should have ignored cons argument and accepted your argument as true - however not a single one of them was presented by you in your debate.
Asserting the definitions are valid and accepted over and over and over again is not an acceptable rebuttal because you argue from a position that ignores that the definitions you are using have been modified from the ones in the info.
As you make none of the relevant arguments in the debate - you lose.
Worst still, you’re supposed to be not only a grown man, but a teacher and a self professed smart guy: and yet almost every response you’ve made refuses to acknowledge this basic set of facts - you changed the definitions, you offered no defense of the new definitions, those new definitions were challenged.
Simply sticking your head in the sand and acting as if I’m not considering the thing I’ve literally mentioned in every single post is not the actions of a rational human being.
As your raising yet another point and dropped all others, I’m assuming that you’re agreeing that you changed the definitions, your agreeing that these new definitions weren’t agreed, you’re agreeing that it is fair and valid for con to challenge them, that you agree that you offered no rebuttal to that objection, that the objection was valid, and you failed to provide any of the subsequent arguments you’ve made here in your debate, and your agreeing that it would have been unfair for me to reject cons arguments on the grounds of the things you didn’t raise on the debate, and your accepting that my assessment of his argument against you is completely fair and valid?
I’m just asking, because you appear to have dropped about 472917 arguments you’ve made so far.
It’s pretty obvious in my RfD and in the dozen or so replies you seem to be ignoring that I have been using the definition you provided in the info.
However, I used the definition in the info to determine that you weren’t using the definitions in the info due to a modification and an addition. As a result I used the definition in the info to conclude that your new definitions were challengeable. Further when con pointed out that your definitions - which I weighed as not being the ones in the info - were nonsensical: I had to concurr - as they were not the ones in the info and thus challengeable. Your only reply was to assert that the definitions were agreed. any guess what I did?
I assessed this argument against the definitions in the info and realized that the definitions you used - as they weren’t the ones in the info - were very much not agreed.
So yes - I weighted and assessed both arguments based on the definitions in the info. Exactly as the rules stated
You changed the definitions in the body of the debate. The definitions you used cannot be considered accepted. Telling me they should be accepted repeatedly, over and over again - doesn’t make them any more accepted. This argument is hilarious.
Secondly, telling me all the reasons why I should have explicitly rejected cons arguments only count if any one of them were included in the debate, by you, as an argument against con. None of them were, and as such no matter whether you make 1 post or 10,000 posts telling me how I can’t accept cons position - they have no value as they weren’t in the debate.
It is laughable that someone who continually demands complete tabula rasa ignorance from all voters in all matters - now demands that voters insert their external opinion the moment tabula rasa doesn’t go your way.
If this is all you have, and it seems this is all your talking about - then I completely welcome your concession that my vote was completely valid, and attribute your incoherent rage to your own frustration that in your bullish overconfidence, in creating an unfair debate to trick an unsuspecting individual into engaging in a semantic battle you felt certain to win - you demanded everyone vote on your semantics - and then completely missed the glaring opening it provided.
Fittingly in a debate about the sun - the fault lies not in your stars, dear Brutus, but in yourself.
Not wanted to put words in the voters mouth, but it seems to me that he’s saying that con pointed out reasons why your definitions were silly, and you didn’t have a response to any of the points - in general - other than to fall back on asserting your definitions are correct. That’s what you did, even in the case of earth worship.
You claim the voter lied, you quoted him as saying:
“Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this,”
This is an incomplete quote, the full quote is:
Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this, other than to become increasingly angry and repeatedly demand that his opponent obey his special “rules” and definitions.
In the full context the voter is replying to the SUM of your position, not the specific individual point.
It’s really bad form to quote mine people - ESPECIALLY when you’re in the middle of calling them a liar.
- should have offered definitions in order for his argument to be valid
- incorrectly argued that an elephant could be considered as God
- incorrectly treated definitions of superhuman as the only part of the definition.
- incorrectly
The best and most appropriate place to have put this, was in his final debate round 14 days ago. Not after voting is finished, and gave a result he doesn’t like.
After a review of objections, I am re-writing this as a superseding RFD, I’m removing all elements of my previous RFD intended for constructive feedback - as it seems that they’re not being views as such - and clarifying the argument based on some specific misunderstandings raised. I feel this reworded RfD better covers my intent - and specifically addresses my reasoning on points raised by con in the comments.
Firstly, I’m going to spell out an important point.
I do not favour any particular debater, topic or ideology when it comes to voting: and I don’t think anyone can accuse me of adding personal bias or my opinion on contentions into my votes. I will vote against my principle and beliefs - and regularly so - as I feel the better arguments should win.
My RFDs are often excessive and lengthy - especially for close debates - as it’s important for both sides to see my reasoning is transparent.
The major bone of contention I’ve had with several debaters is concerning “drops”. Bsh1 and some others feel that as a voter, I should come down hard on drops: specially they had specific ideas of how I should weight them, and how I should consider them.
I will be explicit that I do not agree: Dropped arguments DO matter and are factored into all my decisions, but my weighting and interpretation of them depend on specific context, and specific facts.
Specifically, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt on merit rather than technicality.
If I feel that one side has argued a particular point, but has not responded to a specific individual issue inline - I will err on the side of merit - the fact that the side argued the point is more important than the technical way they have argued the point.
Likewise, if an argument is prima facia absurd - and is dropped, I will factor this in (as it should not have been dropped), and consider it unrefuted, but will weigh the argument on merit, not on technicality.
I am not looking at arguments, deciding I don’t like them: and voting against them. I am not taking positions, or peoples deciding I don’t like them, and voting against them. I try and keep consistent from debate to debate. I often change my mind multiple times through reading a debate, and often do vote in a different way to how I started.
I feel BSHs main complaint, relating to drops is because he disagrees with my voting methodology: that I should be more like a high profile collegiate debate judges in terms of the vagaries of voting technicality. That’s his opinion, and possibly fair: though this is online debate, and I’m not a trained judge, so the best you’re going to be able to hope for is that I’m fair.
The critical thing here, is that I’m voting for virts arguments - not for virt. Bsh is absolutely correct that I am favouring virts arguments - and I am doing so because my weighting and methodology make me feel his arguments had more merit - and I will stick by that every time.
The critical point is that while you may disagree with my methodology - it’s not a biased methodology - it can help you as much as harm you, and what I award to pro today I award to con tomorrow.
In the context of an online debate forum - while you may baulk at my methodology not being identical to some bespectacled technical pedant - which I will defend - I don’t think you can ask for much more than that.
Pros made 3 arguments, I considered one refuted, one weak, but accepted and one particularly strong and accepted. Con made a multitude of individually smaller and logically weaker arguments none of which were as logically tight as the strongest argument made by pro. A Kritik was presented, which I felt was logically refuted by pro.
As a result, it is necessary I award arguments to pro on the balance.
1.) The Ontological Argument:
Pros formulation was good, there was a good justification of possibility, but the overall defense of 1st and 3rd premise as
A whole was minimal. This lowered the overall weight of this argument.
I am excluding the 1st and 3rd parts of Cons rebuttal from my assessment as I feel these are already covered in other arguments (4Os and possible paradox) - though I will reference the impact these have on OA later as the two are linked.
The second point that the argument begs the question due to it assuming that God is possible, is rejected as a rebuttal for two reasons - A: If I accept cons statements as true, pro is only maybe wrong and thus not refuted. B: pros defense on the grounds of possibility by referencing any possible world helps establish that possibility; both in his original argument and his rebuttal where he produced a logical formulation of why God is possible - the latter of which I felt was an excellent exchange on pros part. (Note: in my previous RFD I mixed up pro/con - which I do FAR too often and possible confused con)
On the force analogy - I side with pros rebuttal that it’s not structurally parallel (which was mentioned explicitly)- I felt Con needs to establish how an omnipresent force can meet the criteria of the MGB of God required for the OA which pro points out wouldn’t help - as such an example would itself be God.
In this final rebuttal, con asserts that logic and maths are contingent, not necessary. And then asks the question of whether these two things are necessary and then questions whether anything is necessary. The formulation suffers the same issue as the second point, that even if I accept this argument as true - it doesn’t refute the premise - only shows it’s possibly wrong.
As I feel pros argument about possibility tries to cover this necessity portion again, and because even were I to assume both points 2 and 5 were true: they only show Pros argument is maybe false not is false - I feel none of the points raised here by con are sufficient to refute the OA as a while - though I consider pros formulation rather weak.
In terms of drops. Con claimed pro dropped two points: I don’t consider cons 3rd point dropped, as i consider this covered by the paradox counter argument pro made. The 5th point I do not consider dropped either as I think it’s wrapped up (though poorly), by pros subsequent rebuttal.
As a result, while weak, this argument goes to pro - just.
2.) KCA
Pro formulated the KCA very, very well here. Pros set up and structure made his argument incredibly strong.
Cons response was two fold: first was a reformulation of the logic to indicate the universes cause has a cause. I did not find this compelling due to the issue of infinite regress pointed out by pro - he argues that it seem logical or philosophically impossible that there can somehow be no stop of causes and I find this more compelling than pros statement that it is possible.
Secondly was the quantum theory argument, this is good in its own right - but falls short of being compelling for similar reasons: where did those rules come from? Pro pointed this out.
The inductive proof as Con mentions in his third point falls afoul of this same fundamental issue as the other two.
Pros case is very convincing to me, and all revolves around his argument that infinite regress and causation that con wasn’t able to touch. Con did assert that an infinite regress should be considered possible, whereas pro argued that it should not be considered possible - and I considered the latter more reasonable weighing the two arguments. As a result, cons rebuttal on these points are not sufficient, and pro carries the argument. Not only that, I felt the formulation of the argument and defense was particularly strong.
Drops. Con claimed that he had proven that infinite regress was impossible and pro had dropped this. In my view, pros previous argument concerning infinite regress clearly addresses this point - though neither side goes into too much detail of proof - pro certainly did not provide a justification to accept infinite regresses are possible as he claims.
As a result, pro wins this point, given the formulation and defence, I rank this particularly strongly.
3.) The moral argument.
I felt this was the weakest of all three of pros argument. The form was good, but pro neglects to really justify his reasoning for why everyone agreeing on right and wrong necessarily requires God.
In the first argument - con confuses the logical with the moral - it is logical to maximize wellbeing for everyone - but morality is as much about feelings. However, pro didn’t notice it this, nor truly addressed this part of the argument.
I especially felt pro mostly refuted his own position - building up his view of objective morality saying its something everyone could agree with - then specifically giving an example of humans disagreeing on moral matters; plus dropping a few sub points sealed this one.
Con mentions the free will/omniscient issue. If I accept this argument as true, it doesn’t disprove God, only free will and pros morality argument.
As such if I accept this entire point as true - it doesn’t refute the contention of the debate.
Despite cons objections, pro does not appear to hinge the existence of God off free will - and the arguments he made based on free will were considered in cons favour already.
Note: After multiple reviews, pros argument about free will has REALLY grown on me as I understood it more. I don’t think it’s fair to materially alter my vote at this point, but felt it worth mentioning.
5.) onnipresent/omniscient
Con doesn’t explain this well, and despite multiple reads it was completely non-obvious what con meant. I don’t feel con really presented what the real paradox was, or justifies it to me as a voter.
While this could well be me being dumb, I can’t ask for clarification, and I’m going to be just as dumb reviewing pros arguments too: so I cannot consider this point.
6.) omnipotent paradox.
Con points out the true definition of omnipotence is paradoxical - pro agrees but clarifies “what is meant” philosophically by omnipotence. He definition in round 3 (not in the final round 5 - as claimed in cons comment objection.)
Con refuted the idea of paradoxical omnipotence as he defines it, but as pro presents a reasonable philosophical definition I view pros argument on the meaning of omnipotence more relevant, and feel that as a result, cons paradox argument does not hold water.
Con raises the standard problem of evil. This is a good attack against the existence of a loving God. I felt that the argument lacked depth - that the framing appeared to indicate that god shouldn’t allow any evil at all - which appeared to be overly simplistic in the face of pros more nuanced analysis of evil as a necessity.
I didn’t feel that Pro defended this well, but he did erode the point with the necessity of evil, he does not justify the extent of evil in order to throw out this argument.
In the comments, con objected to this, indicating that he had refuted free will: I simply didn’t mention the free will portion here as Con already won the point, and I felt it redundant.
As a result, cons basic argument on this position leads me to award this point to him, but the framing of the argument was weak.
8.) Creation.
Con argues that something can come from nothing. Because this was really mostly covered and argued as part of the KCA relating to causes, origins and the laws of physics, I won’t consider this separately. I feel this has already been covered by pros defence of the KCA.
9.) OA revisited.
So after revisiting the 4o argument - Con really established 1 weak point out of many. The KCA and paradox counter is stronger than this 1 weakly established point, so I can’t consider point 1 or 3 established for the OA. Thus the OA stands
The Kritik is that we have no frame of reference for God, so arguing about his existence or not is largely irrational and a debate on the topic is largely nonsensical.
Pros response is pretty devastating upon first read - atheism and theisms positions are specific and in cases predictive and thus it is possible to draw conclusions about God when the claims are specific.
Con objects to this; as he feels that pro did not do a good enough job to rebut that god is unreferencable. In my view - pro gave a good argument that God is demonstrable through comparing the universe to claims - which indicates that God is either referencable or he isn’t but it doesn’t matter in the context of this debate. Con made no real counter to this, and I think in the context of what pro said, the kritik isn’t valid on its face as pro has either refuted the kritik or refuted the harms with this position.
As a result, I do not consider this portion or the harms specifically “dropped” - as I think this is covered by pros counter.
This was most contentious as I feel con mostly misunderstood the nature of my position: I felt pro could have done more, and acknowledged more in his rebuttal - however I also felt his argument wiped out cons kritik completely.
The merits warrant the invalidation of the kritik, but if viewed on the grounds of style and formality it is fractionally less clear. For the purposes of transparency and feedback - I highlighted this in my previous RfD, and chaos ensued.
I will probably keep doing this - but will be much more clear to avoid confusion.
So: summarizing this all, pro proved God existed weakly with the OA, and strongly with the KCA. Con only weakly (in my view) disproved god with the problem of evil. Matching these both up, pro has to be awarded arguments.
Definitions are normally posted in the first round of a debate - and if they are not accepted they can be challenged. This is what happened. It is neither valid nor reasonable to expect your definitions to be accepted by fiat: especially when you’re argument is inherently and specifically semantic. You can’t change the definitions to nasty semantic nonsense and not accept the validity of challenge.
I am just waiting for a couple of clarifications from moderation before reposting - I will assume my updated RFD is sufficient if I don’t hear back - I think having giving 24 hours is more than fair and sufficient chance for the moderator to respond.
I need to point this out as the rejection of the RFD makes a fundamental error, and as I just noted, so so both current votes.
Both votes, and the moderator state that the definitions used in the debate by pro are contained in the info of the debate. This is incorrect, and obviously incorrect viewing pros opening round:
The definitions pro uses throughout his arguments are defined —IN HIS OPENING ROUND— as additional definitions and cannot possibly be considered agreed to. At no point can anyone consider any of the definitions pro presented in the CONTENT OF HIS DEBATE to be automatically assumed to be true by fiat as if presented in the info.
I am not sure how any other voter can assume definitions in the content of the debate are sustained by fiat and unchallengeable - that’s literally nonsensical, biased and unfair to con - but I have no control over the agency of others...
As a result - I do not believe it is fair, reasonable or just and to consider pro to have successfully defined and won his position by unilateral fiat based on definitions he presents in the CONTENT and thus subject to challenge.
Given this, I think voting as if the definitions presented in the content are fixed and unchallengeable causes cons arguments to have been rejected unfairly - and thus not fairly considered.
The pseudo-kritik is IMO valid - but while pro doesn’t address the specifics head on - he points that if he proves P1 separately then his P1 stands. I think this is also valid.
As pointed out, con hinges all other counters to pros arguments to homeostasis, the dominos all fall and Pro satisfies P1.
So, given this, pro establishes P1, and even if con refutes P1, that leaves me a choice of whether cons refutation of P1 was as strong as pros establishment. Here, I don’t think went into nearly enough detail or provided enough information as pro did for C1, so I don’t feel it fair to award all arguments on this single fact.
Conclusion:
This was actually tough to weigh: Firstly, many arguments were implicitly linked together, and I had to determine whether of one thread was pulled the sweater fell apart.
As a bystander, this felt a little like two storms-troopers having a shoot out: there were several times where either side could have been obliterated with the right argument at the right time, but there were opportunities not taken.
At the end, I think con did not establish the homeostasis principle as a valid moral framework, through his contentions, pro highlighted its insufficiency - and as this was the primary reason pro gave me to reject P1, the failure to demonstrate Homeostasis consequently affirms P1 as a result - and thus the debate contention.
As a result, I can’t say con refuted the crux of pros opening arguments - but also I can’t say that pros use of OMF stands against homeostasis either.
The upshot of this, is basically that P1 passes or fails based on cons homeostasis argument. On this count, I believe con fails to demonstrate this in the face of pros arguments - and as such he fails to offer a valid rebuttal to pros main arguments on these points.
As a result - I have to consider P1 stands.
Now: onto ancillary points:
Free will: pro argues that atheism cannot account for free will. If I accept pros argument as true - there is no clear argument he provides as to why this necessitates objective morality proving God.
While this would be valid in a “does god exist” debate - in the current debate, it does not appear relevant to the contention. So I must reject it.
Conversely, while con refutes pro in a similar manner (IMO), I don’t feel this negates the content either. Unless one side or other clearly explains why god must exist if morality is objective - or not - I can’t use this argument to draw a conclusion. Okay
The NAP. Pro uses this to rebut con, con clearly points out that this is a straw man - and I agree and thus reject this as a rebuttal.
In terms of where to draw the line, with pros arguments on the effects of homeostasis as con presents them, does not make clear the lines drawn between species, and whether affecting the homeostasis of a single celled organism is immoral - I also side with pro here. Con does not provide any method I can see of using homeostasis assessing moral judgements between species or uses homeostasis to present this distinction and thus the point can’t be considered refuted.
Con does reference neural capacity - but as this is an additional contention to homeostasis - and as Con doesn’t show it is objective, or makes any attempt to explain how it could be applied - I can’t consider it a rebuttal to pros very specific point - and pro points out this insufficiency.
On the point of moral commands/OMF, I have to dismiss this point. While my interpretation of what pro said was that morality is a compulsion, that we follow - and that con did not provide an explanation of why such a compulsion exists without God - this isn’t explicitly what pro said and the phrasing he used. I don’t want to use my interpretation of what pro said unless it’s cut and dry.
Con somewhat undermines pros presentation of commands with a single sentence that if there were no universe, there’d be no babies and no one to torture them - this would have been a fascinating avenue - but one that con didn’t follow, and in my view is insufficient on its own to consider P1 refuted.
Finally, pro argued that we are commanded not to kill, the compulsion to follow moral behaviour makes them inherent commands, this element of morality that pro highlighted was mostly dismissed by con (though I will cover this later), and con did not seem to explain why homeostasis would necessarily lead to that same compulsion, only that it did.
These were the primary exchanged arguments (other than ancillary points that I will weight separately), and I wanted to conclude on them as a whole:
Pro summarizes that cons argument on the harm part of the argument was arbitrary. I agree. Cons attempts to show trivial harms are the reason massively immoral acts are immoral is almost self refuting in the context of the debate - I believe pro manages to highlight these weaknesses and insufficiencies of the framework as a result.
Pro summarized that cons argument on the long vs short term homeostasis was also a cop out. I also agree. If con had argued driving was immoral - which he could have - it would have been reasonable, but cons attempt to resolve short and long term seems arbitrary, con did not satisfactorily explain this, and I think pro highlights this sufficiently in his response.
Con sets up a fairly compelling framework that allows us to measure, analyze and determine the morality of actions. In his main rebuttal con provides an argument based on homeostasis against pros main points. Allowing a direct contrast example for me to weigh.
Pro points out two primary thrusts of objections: 1.) cons explanation has a series of potential moral paradoxes. 2.) cons argument would apply to single celled life which seems absurd.
Both of these points cast legitimate doubt on cons argument.
Con follows up with detailed explanations on both counts, that seem reasonable, however a major contention that pro raises is not answered by con: Namely, if it is possible to commit an obviously immoral act without harming homeostasis, cons argument is refuted. Con focuses instead on showing that a given act causes harm, no matter how small or trivial that harm may be.
Con also deflects the second point. Saying that we draw the line because of aspects of consciousness.
Furthering this, there was an exchange about long term and short term benefits and homeostasis. Relating to cars and driving. Pro argued that driving should be considered immoral based on the framework, whereas con disagrees citing long vs short term homeostasis.
Sources, conduct and grammar inseparable so marked as a tie.
Note: apologies if I have mixed up pro and con here - hopefully it’s clear.
Arguments:
Pro starts laying out his logical case for why objective morality (which is not contested by either side) supports God.
This majority of pros opening argument is largely uncontested by con - other than con offering his own explanation as refuting pros positions, and hinging all his points directly on that.
This means this whole debate turns on whether con shows that his explanation for moral facts is valid, and pro needs to show the reverse. If pro does it that, it appears all objections to pros position are removed and pro wins.
Con sets up his argument on homeostasis, effectively explaining an objective way of determining whether an action is moral or not.
Generally speaking, as I can’t score conduct: there wouldn’t be any specific impact from the forfeit, other than if one side made a good argument that isn’t refuted. It’s hard to determine a winner without considering unrefuted arguments - but if both sides are happy with me doing so I can provide constructive feedback in the RFD of both sides along with the decision.
I’ve generally started avoiding doing that, as it seems a collection of individuals are unable to discern constructive feedback portions, from my actual decision.
Should I consider consider creationism better as it explains more things?
All that being said: even if I give con the widest benefit I can give as a voter, I still think he loses this one. Pros opening round was so comprehensive, and so unrefuted - that I don’t think it would be fair awarding this any other way.
Moreover, while there were several small claims made by con that were not refuted or addressed by pro: there were large numbers of small explanations from protein catalysis, and issues with MU that were addressed.
While this could have been closer had con not forfeited the final round - that con so easily dismissed the main thrust of pros comprehensive explanation gave con a mountain to climb either way.
Note: I’m certain I have mixed up pro and con so much during this RfD, it’s not done intentionally.
I have to give this to pro. Con did not explain how free will or the prime mover necessitated creationism, or is something that is explained by creationism. Pro questions the applicability later on - and I am forced to concurr.
9.) Predictions.
None of cons predictions, other than the examples of IR mentioned, were addressed by pro at all.
As these are all presented as predictions of creationism, I must consider them as unrefuted, though they are fairly weak.
10.) Conclusion
Pros supportive arguments primarily revolve around showing how good abiogenesis is at explaining the origin of life through natural means.
Cons supportive arguments primarily revolve around pointing to aspects of the world that creationism can explain.
I would consider both valid approaches, as neither were directly contested by the debaters or obviously against the definitions.
Not only did this muddy the waters a bit, but as creationism tends to be about everything, and abiogenesis being a small part of biology - it’s hard to know how and what to weigh without being unfair to either side.
I kind of agree with that on the front of the K, I think the only way to argue against position (if pro makes a perfect pitch) is to argue against moral absolutes, or at least partial objectivity (applies to humans - but not to animals outside).
One thing I will point out, for your own future growth, is that con effectively conceded the whole debate twice: When he argued an additional mechanism of judging moral decisions in addition to homeostasis: he’s effectively conceding homeostasis can’t explain morality, and as what he raises is fairly arbitrary and subjective ad-hoc rationalization - he concedes the objective point too. In addition, he argued that the teeniest, tiniest harm allows morality to be judged, you mostly pointed this out: but he basically conceded that homeostasis can’t renser moral decisions because you cannot use them to weight harms.
If you had pointed these two out in more detail: the latter simply by saying that the homeostatis of slapping someone is more aggregious than the least harmful form of rape: it would have been easier to award you the debate on the spot. It’s always harder to spot in the debate than out of it.
Conversely: the big wedge for me that I was hoping you would exploit more, was moral compulsion. We feel compelled to follow morality, con offered no explanation for why we feel that, and it was mostly implied by most of your argument on commands - but it wasn’t explicit enough: that compulsion on its own is neatly unanswerable by homeostasis could have made the debate far more one sided. Instead you were mostly lucky that con hinges the debate on homeostasis, and you argued it slightly better.
You won on penalties after missing 3 open goals!
When your opponent uses quotation marks (“like this”) around stuff you said I the previous round, and then provides a reason to discount that information this is called a “rebuttal”, a new point, is where a new piece of information, unrelated to the “ rebuttal” or other “arguments” is added out of the blue.
At the most charitable, he made one new point, and even that is kinda borderline in the context of everything said and didn’t end up changing any of the weighting decision.
His “new points” were rebuttals to your points in the previous round.
I’ve seen this type of argument multiple times, so I think it’s fairly common. I made a variation of it years ago myself - but using Saddam Hussein, on MySpace - so that kinda dates it.
Bear in mind these responses aren’t a reason why your arguments were bad - simply my opinion (as an Atheist) as to how you could make it harder to argue against.
It was a good rebuttal with some limitations.
If he had made the same argument about Stalin, and argued if Stalin had made a rule that everyone who said anything bad about Stalin should be shot on sight, that it would not have been Stalin ordering people to their death, it would have been their own choice - that would have been a good argument that was directly equivalent. That’s what I was trying to get at with my RfD.
Yes, i think it was specifically incomplete - but is a great explanatory example - when you can change the word God for Stalin, and make an argument is a fairly compelling moral argument it implies immorality using an agreed baseline, rather than having to specifically prove one example of another.
If you’re arguing God, and talking about Biblical questions and quotations as pro did - fight the ground that is strongest for you. In this case, using
Blocks citations and theological principles would have been better. Arguing from a secular position massively weakens your position in my view, as you cut off the biggest source of support for your arguments
This is purely personal preference: but the strongest way, in my view, that you could have argued this, is to have offered a specific framework then defended that framework. While your argument is valid, it was a bit of a patchwork of different examples and positions that made it harder for you to defend as a whole and tie everything together; that’s not to say that you’re argument was poor.
As a hard core Atheist, I don’t think this would have been too hard for me to argue against the individual points you made: the only argument I could have made against you presenting and defending a framework, is biblical support - which immediately gives you the advantage with your excellent interpretation argument.
Saying that, you didn’t do badly by any means, pro was hampered by the forfeits, and very short dismissive rebuttals.
Note that his Stalin rebuttal was really good - if you’re interested in atheism debates, this is a great example of one individual point.
“Since Vert makes no arguments against the K”...
Virt, debate round 2.
“1. The K
Con brings an interesting K to the argument. I contend that both the Theistic and Atheistic viewpoints make several predictions about how the world should look like. If Atheism is true, then this is what it should look like; and if Theism is true, this is what it should look like. The Atheist view point, for example, would say that evil is incompatible with Theism and the Theist would say, for example, that objective moral facts can only exist in a Theist-centered world.
The first argument I brought up, the ontological argument, is an a priori proof of God's existence while the KCA and moral argument are an a posteriori proof of God's existence.
I propose that we can know God's existence through both pure logic and through empirical evidence. ”
Yeah, it’s more the case you can’t handle people voting against you and feel more inclined to harass and harangue them repeatedly in private. I vote for you when you win, and against you when you don’t.
I do find it hilarious when you take it so personally.
Nah, I don’t see many fraudulent votes at all, there’s a couple of individuals that are generally rather mad at him: but they don’t actually seem to vote on anything he puts up. In my view he has good days and bad days.
Don’t worry, you only get hundreds of angry PMs from Magic Aimt Real if you vote against him.
Yeah: no, I don’t do that.
At this point you only seem to be able to shout at me for how biased I am, without specifically being able to name an instance.
It’s like you’re accusing me of being a thief without even being able to tell me what I’m supposed to have stolen, and can’t even given any actual reasons why you think I stole anything in the first place.
I actually think you need to spend time on reading comprehension.
When you continually state that I’m holding a position, which through my entire RfD and multiple posts I clearly justify why I do not hold that position: it kinda makes me think you’re not interested in facts, but you’re just interested in soothing your own ego. Seriously, you keeping telling me that I’m
Weighing arguments in one way, when I clearly and specifically show otherwise in my RfD.
I’ve voted for you, and against you. I’ve voted for you in scenarios where I didn’t feel your morally deserved it, and against you when you did - when the arguments warranted such a position.
You’ve commented very positively on several of my RFDs on your debates - but it seems my RFDs, based on the same process and methodology and weighting as this one are only considered to be “excellent” by you when they happen to come down in your favour.
You dont seem interested in valid votes - the fact that you’ve demanded I should have rejected cons arguments because of arguments you did not make demonstrates this - you seem solely fixated and outraged that I didn’t vote for you. I’m fair and excellent when I vote for you, and outrageous and biased against you when I vote for someone else.
This is not about fairness, or reasonableness of votes - this is down your own personal animosity that someone dared to vote against you - outrage I can only presume to be stoked due to your own inability to accept your own shortcomings.
That’s not my problem, and I will simply direct you to both my RfD and failing that, my Avatar, which clearly expresses my personal level of concern for your outrage.
Actually, a more accurate assessment is that I asked what was wrong with the vote, you made some generic complaints, could not point to any specific examples of where I did anything wrong and the most you’ve ever provided was saying that I didn’t consider something that was literally explicitly described and considered in my RfD. You then ran away and continued to make generic accusations without any specific substance.
Again: your ignoring everything I’ve said. Over and over.
The definitions in the info were accepted.
You argued different definitions.
Pro challenged your definitions.
Asserting that they were accepted omits the key fact that the definitions you said you were using were not accepted.
You keep trying to wriggle our of that noose.
I’m still waiting for some specific issue or error you think I’ve made on any of the votes you’ve taken issue with. So far it’s all generic “your votes are terrible” and arbitrary “your biased”. I’ve asked you a few times now.
If you can’t tell me what’s wrong with the vote, I’m assuming you can’t see anything wrong with the vote.
You changed the definitions. This is a fact. You added a definition. Fact. You modified the definition of God. fact. Any argument you’re not make where you claim the definitions were not changed, is not based on fact.
You argued based on these new definitions. This is a fact.
You proved the sun met the definition of God based upon your new definitions - not the definitions in the info. This is a fact.
Con challenged your definition as absurd, and as it is factually established that challenging your new definitions is valid - this argument is valid.
All of these points are unchallenged by you, and you have addressed only in nonsensical assertions, and deliberate misrepresention.
There are, easily a thousand different arguments you could make to argue why I should have ignored cons argument and accepted your argument as true - however not a single one of them was presented by you in your debate.
Asserting the definitions are valid and accepted over and over and over again is not an acceptable rebuttal because you argue from a position that ignores that the definitions you are using have been modified from the ones in the info.
As you make none of the relevant arguments in the debate - you lose.
Worst still, you’re supposed to be not only a grown man, but a teacher and a self professed smart guy: and yet almost every response you’ve made refuses to acknowledge this basic set of facts - you changed the definitions, you offered no defense of the new definitions, those new definitions were challenged.
Simply sticking your head in the sand and acting as if I’m not considering the thing I’ve literally mentioned in every single post is not the actions of a rational human being.
As your raising yet another point and dropped all others, I’m assuming that you’re agreeing that you changed the definitions, your agreeing that these new definitions weren’t agreed, you’re agreeing that it is fair and valid for con to challenge them, that you agree that you offered no rebuttal to that objection, that the objection was valid, and you failed to provide any of the subsequent arguments you’ve made here in your debate, and your agreeing that it would have been unfair for me to reject cons arguments on the grounds of the things you didn’t raise on the debate, and your accepting that my assessment of his argument against you is completely fair and valid?
I’m just asking, because you appear to have dropped about 472917 arguments you’ve made so far.
It’s pretty obvious in my RfD and in the dozen or so replies you seem to be ignoring that I have been using the definition you provided in the info.
However, I used the definition in the info to determine that you weren’t using the definitions in the info due to a modification and an addition. As a result I used the definition in the info to conclude that your new definitions were challengeable. Further when con pointed out that your definitions - which I weighed as not being the ones in the info - were nonsensical: I had to concurr - as they were not the ones in the info and thus challengeable. Your only reply was to assert that the definitions were agreed. any guess what I did?
I assessed this argument against the definitions in the info and realized that the definitions you used - as they weren’t the ones in the info - were very much not agreed.
So yes - I weighted and assessed both arguments based on the definitions in the info. Exactly as the rules stated
Yeah, you really need to stop demanding that I should have assessed cons arguments based upon arguments you didn’t make in the debate.
You changed the definitions in the body of the debate. The definitions you used cannot be considered accepted. Telling me they should be accepted repeatedly, over and over again - doesn’t make them any more accepted. This argument is hilarious.
Secondly, telling me all the reasons why I should have explicitly rejected cons arguments only count if any one of them were included in the debate, by you, as an argument against con. None of them were, and as such no matter whether you make 1 post or 10,000 posts telling me how I can’t accept cons position - they have no value as they weren’t in the debate.
It is laughable that someone who continually demands complete tabula rasa ignorance from all voters in all matters - now demands that voters insert their external opinion the moment tabula rasa doesn’t go your way.
If this is all you have, and it seems this is all your talking about - then I completely welcome your concession that my vote was completely valid, and attribute your incoherent rage to your own frustration that in your bullish overconfidence, in creating an unfair debate to trick an unsuspecting individual into engaging in a semantic battle you felt certain to win - you demanded everyone vote on your semantics - and then completely missed the glaring opening it provided.
Fittingly in a debate about the sun - the fault lies not in your stars, dear Brutus, but in yourself.
Why do you continue to demand that I use arguments you haven’t made in order to invalidate cons position? That makes no sense.
You also changed the definitions in your opening round, so even you didn’t agree to the definitions.
Why do you keep telling me that the definitions you posted in your debate and couldn’t possibly have been agreed to were agreed to?
Is con a time traveller? Mind reader? Did your info state you would post full definitions in the opening round?
You changed the definitions, and made them challengeable by preventing con from being able to knowingly accept them.
They didn’t change anything? The definitions are fair? You were using them correctly?
Awesome argument!
14 days too late, and in the comments section, not the debate round so can’t be considered in my vote, but still awesome!
Not wanted to put words in the voters mouth, but it seems to me that he’s saying that con pointed out reasons why your definitions were silly, and you didn’t have a response to any of the points - in general - other than to fall back on asserting your definitions are correct. That’s what you did, even in the case of earth worship.
Which definitions are you talking about?
The definitions defined in the info? The ones you created an enforceable rule to prevent con from challenging?
Or the ones you posted in your opening round AFTER con had accepted the debate, and could not logically or reasonably be presumed to have accepted?
You used the latter.
And finallly, I can’t reject cons argument based on an argument you didn’t make. That wouldn’t be tabula rasa.
Also note.
You claim the voter lied, you quoted him as saying:
“Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this,”
This is an incomplete quote, the full quote is:
Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this, other than to become increasingly angry and repeatedly demand that his opponent obey his special “rules” and definitions.
In the full context the voter is replying to the SUM of your position, not the specific individual point.
It’s really bad form to quote mine people - ESPECIALLY when you’re in the middle of calling them a liar.
If you feel that con:
- should have offered definitions in order for his argument to be valid
- incorrectly argued that an elephant could be considered as God
- incorrectly treated definitions of superhuman as the only part of the definition.
- incorrectly
The best and most appropriate place to have put this, was in his final debate round 14 days ago. Not after voting is finished, and gave a result he doesn’t like.
After a review of objections, I am re-writing this as a superseding RFD, I’m removing all elements of my previous RFD intended for constructive feedback - as it seems that they’re not being views as such - and clarifying the argument based on some specific misunderstandings raised. I feel this reworded RfD better covers my intent - and specifically addresses my reasoning on points raised by con in the comments.
Firstly, I’m going to spell out an important point.
I do not favour any particular debater, topic or ideology when it comes to voting: and I don’t think anyone can accuse me of adding personal bias or my opinion on contentions into my votes. I will vote against my principle and beliefs - and regularly so - as I feel the better arguments should win.
My RFDs are often excessive and lengthy - especially for close debates - as it’s important for both sides to see my reasoning is transparent.
The major bone of contention I’ve had with several debaters is concerning “drops”. Bsh1 and some others feel that as a voter, I should come down hard on drops: specially they had specific ideas of how I should weight them, and how I should consider them.
I will be explicit that I do not agree: Dropped arguments DO matter and are factored into all my decisions, but my weighting and interpretation of them depend on specific context, and specific facts.
Specifically, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt on merit rather than technicality.
If I feel that one side has argued a particular point, but has not responded to a specific individual issue inline - I will err on the side of merit - the fact that the side argued the point is more important than the technical way they have argued the point.
Likewise, if an argument is prima facia absurd - and is dropped, I will factor this in (as it should not have been dropped), and consider it unrefuted, but will weigh the argument on merit, not on technicality.
The really important takeaway, though, is this:
I am not looking at arguments, deciding I don’t like them: and voting against them. I am not taking positions, or peoples deciding I don’t like them, and voting against them. I try and keep consistent from debate to debate. I often change my mind multiple times through reading a debate, and often do vote in a different way to how I started.
I feel BSHs main complaint, relating to drops is because he disagrees with my voting methodology: that I should be more like a high profile collegiate debate judges in terms of the vagaries of voting technicality. That’s his opinion, and possibly fair: though this is online debate, and I’m not a trained judge, so the best you’re going to be able to hope for is that I’m fair.
The critical thing here, is that I’m voting for virts arguments - not for virt. Bsh is absolutely correct that I am favouring virts arguments - and I am doing so because my weighting and methodology make me feel his arguments had more merit - and I will stick by that every time.
The critical point is that while you may disagree with my methodology - it’s not a biased methodology - it can help you as much as harm you, and what I award to pro today I award to con tomorrow.
In the context of an online debate forum - while you may baulk at my methodology not being identical to some bespectacled technical pedant - which I will defend - I don’t think you can ask for much more than that.
So let’s summarize:
Pros made 3 arguments, I considered one refuted, one weak, but accepted and one particularly strong and accepted. Con made a multitude of individually smaller and logically weaker arguments none of which were as logically tight as the strongest argument made by pro. A Kritik was presented, which I felt was logically refuted by pro.
As a result, it is necessary I award arguments to pro on the balance.
1.) The Ontological Argument:
Pros formulation was good, there was a good justification of possibility, but the overall defense of 1st and 3rd premise as
A whole was minimal. This lowered the overall weight of this argument.
I am excluding the 1st and 3rd parts of Cons rebuttal from my assessment as I feel these are already covered in other arguments (4Os and possible paradox) - though I will reference the impact these have on OA later as the two are linked.
The second point that the argument begs the question due to it assuming that God is possible, is rejected as a rebuttal for two reasons - A: If I accept cons statements as true, pro is only maybe wrong and thus not refuted. B: pros defense on the grounds of possibility by referencing any possible world helps establish that possibility; both in his original argument and his rebuttal where he produced a logical formulation of why God is possible - the latter of which I felt was an excellent exchange on pros part. (Note: in my previous RFD I mixed up pro/con - which I do FAR too often and possible confused con)
On the force analogy - I side with pros rebuttal that it’s not structurally parallel (which was mentioned explicitly)- I felt Con needs to establish how an omnipresent force can meet the criteria of the MGB of God required for the OA which pro points out wouldn’t help - as such an example would itself be God.
In this final rebuttal, con asserts that logic and maths are contingent, not necessary. And then asks the question of whether these two things are necessary and then questions whether anything is necessary. The formulation suffers the same issue as the second point, that even if I accept this argument as true - it doesn’t refute the premise - only shows it’s possibly wrong.
As I feel pros argument about possibility tries to cover this necessity portion again, and because even were I to assume both points 2 and 5 were true: they only show Pros argument is maybe false not is false - I feel none of the points raised here by con are sufficient to refute the OA as a while - though I consider pros formulation rather weak.
In terms of drops. Con claimed pro dropped two points: I don’t consider cons 3rd point dropped, as i consider this covered by the paradox counter argument pro made. The 5th point I do not consider dropped either as I think it’s wrapped up (though poorly), by pros subsequent rebuttal.
As a result, while weak, this argument goes to pro - just.
2.) KCA
Pro formulated the KCA very, very well here. Pros set up and structure made his argument incredibly strong.
Cons response was two fold: first was a reformulation of the logic to indicate the universes cause has a cause. I did not find this compelling due to the issue of infinite regress pointed out by pro - he argues that it seem logical or philosophically impossible that there can somehow be no stop of causes and I find this more compelling than pros statement that it is possible.
Secondly was the quantum theory argument, this is good in its own right - but falls short of being compelling for similar reasons: where did those rules come from? Pro pointed this out.
The inductive proof as Con mentions in his third point falls afoul of this same fundamental issue as the other two.
Pros case is very convincing to me, and all revolves around his argument that infinite regress and causation that con wasn’t able to touch. Con did assert that an infinite regress should be considered possible, whereas pro argued that it should not be considered possible - and I considered the latter more reasonable weighing the two arguments. As a result, cons rebuttal on these points are not sufficient, and pro carries the argument. Not only that, I felt the formulation of the argument and defense was particularly strong.
Drops. Con claimed that he had proven that infinite regress was impossible and pro had dropped this. In my view, pros previous argument concerning infinite regress clearly addresses this point - though neither side goes into too much detail of proof - pro certainly did not provide a justification to accept infinite regresses are possible as he claims.
As a result, pro wins this point, given the formulation and defence, I rank this particularly strongly.
3.) The moral argument.
I felt this was the weakest of all three of pros argument. The form was good, but pro neglects to really justify his reasoning for why everyone agreeing on right and wrong necessarily requires God.
In the first argument - con confuses the logical with the moral - it is logical to maximize wellbeing for everyone - but morality is as much about feelings. However, pro didn’t notice it this, nor truly addressed this part of the argument.
I especially felt pro mostly refuted his own position - building up his view of objective morality saying its something everyone could agree with - then specifically giving an example of humans disagreeing on moral matters; plus dropping a few sub points sealed this one.
I consider this point refuted by con.
4.) Omniscience
Con mentions the free will/omniscient issue. If I accept this argument as true, it doesn’t disprove God, only free will and pros morality argument.
As such if I accept this entire point as true - it doesn’t refute the contention of the debate.
Despite cons objections, pro does not appear to hinge the existence of God off free will - and the arguments he made based on free will were considered in cons favour already.
Note: After multiple reviews, pros argument about free will has REALLY grown on me as I understood it more. I don’t think it’s fair to materially alter my vote at this point, but felt it worth mentioning.
5.) onnipresent/omniscient
Con doesn’t explain this well, and despite multiple reads it was completely non-obvious what con meant. I don’t feel con really presented what the real paradox was, or justifies it to me as a voter.
While this could well be me being dumb, I can’t ask for clarification, and I’m going to be just as dumb reviewing pros arguments too: so I cannot consider this point.
6.) omnipotent paradox.
Con points out the true definition of omnipotence is paradoxical - pro agrees but clarifies “what is meant” philosophically by omnipotence. He definition in round 3 (not in the final round 5 - as claimed in cons comment objection.)
Con refuted the idea of paradoxical omnipotence as he defines it, but as pro presents a reasonable philosophical definition I view pros argument on the meaning of omnipotence more relevant, and feel that as a result, cons paradox argument does not hold water.
7.) PoE.
Con raises the standard problem of evil. This is a good attack against the existence of a loving God. I felt that the argument lacked depth - that the framing appeared to indicate that god shouldn’t allow any evil at all - which appeared to be overly simplistic in the face of pros more nuanced analysis of evil as a necessity.
I didn’t feel that Pro defended this well, but he did erode the point with the necessity of evil, he does not justify the extent of evil in order to throw out this argument.
In the comments, con objected to this, indicating that he had refuted free will: I simply didn’t mention the free will portion here as Con already won the point, and I felt it redundant.
As a result, cons basic argument on this position leads me to award this point to him, but the framing of the argument was weak.
8.) Creation.
Con argues that something can come from nothing. Because this was really mostly covered and argued as part of the KCA relating to causes, origins and the laws of physics, I won’t consider this separately. I feel this has already been covered by pros defence of the KCA.
9.) OA revisited.
So after revisiting the 4o argument - Con really established 1 weak point out of many. The KCA and paradox counter is stronger than this 1 weakly established point, so I can’t consider point 1 or 3 established for the OA. Thus the OA stands
10.) The kritik.
The Kritik is that we have no frame of reference for God, so arguing about his existence or not is largely irrational and a debate on the topic is largely nonsensical.
Pros response is pretty devastating upon first read - atheism and theisms positions are specific and in cases predictive and thus it is possible to draw conclusions about God when the claims are specific.
Con objects to this; as he feels that pro did not do a good enough job to rebut that god is unreferencable. In my view - pro gave a good argument that God is demonstrable through comparing the universe to claims - which indicates that God is either referencable or he isn’t but it doesn’t matter in the context of this debate. Con made no real counter to this, and I think in the context of what pro said, the kritik isn’t valid on its face as pro has either refuted the kritik or refuted the harms with this position.
As a result, I do not consider this portion or the harms specifically “dropped” - as I think this is covered by pros counter.
This was most contentious as I feel con mostly misunderstood the nature of my position: I felt pro could have done more, and acknowledged more in his rebuttal - however I also felt his argument wiped out cons kritik completely.
The merits warrant the invalidation of the kritik, but if viewed on the grounds of style and formality it is fractionally less clear. For the purposes of transparency and feedback - I highlighted this in my previous RfD, and chaos ensued.
I will probably keep doing this - but will be much more clear to avoid confusion.
So: summarizing this all, pro proved God existed weakly with the OA, and strongly with the KCA. Con only weakly (in my view) disproved god with the problem of evil. Matching these both up, pro has to be awarded arguments.
Definitions are normally posted in the first round of a debate - and if they are not accepted they can be challenged. This is what happened. It is neither valid nor reasonable to expect your definitions to be accepted by fiat: especially when you’re argument is inherently and specifically semantic. You can’t change the definitions to nasty semantic nonsense and not accept the validity of challenge.
I am just waiting for a couple of clarifications from moderation before reposting - I will assume my updated RFD is sufficient if I don’t hear back - I think having giving 24 hours is more than fair and sufficient chance for the moderator to respond.
I need to point this out as the rejection of the RFD makes a fundamental error, and as I just noted, so so both current votes.
Both votes, and the moderator state that the definitions used in the debate by pro are contained in the info of the debate. This is incorrect, and obviously incorrect viewing pros opening round:
The definitions pro uses throughout his arguments are defined —IN HIS OPENING ROUND— as additional definitions and cannot possibly be considered agreed to. At no point can anyone consider any of the definitions pro presented in the CONTENT OF HIS DEBATE to be automatically assumed to be true by fiat as if presented in the info.
I am not sure how any other voter can assume definitions in the content of the debate are sustained by fiat and unchallengeable - that’s literally nonsensical, biased and unfair to con - but I have no control over the agency of others...
As a result - I do not believe it is fair, reasonable or just and to consider pro to have successfully defined and won his position by unilateral fiat based on definitions he presents in the CONTENT and thus subject to challenge.
Given this, I think voting as if the definitions presented in the content are fixed and unchallengeable causes cons arguments to have been rejected unfairly - and thus not fairly considered.
Sorry for putting RFDs backwards. I’m pasting from a phone, and just can’t be bothered to wrestle trying to past from bottom to top!
As always, if either side would like any specific or generalized feedback, or clarification - let me know.
Gods existence:
The pseudo-kritik is IMO valid - but while pro doesn’t address the specifics head on - he points that if he proves P1 separately then his P1 stands. I think this is also valid.
As pointed out, con hinges all other counters to pros arguments to homeostasis, the dominos all fall and Pro satisfies P1.
So, given this, pro establishes P1, and even if con refutes P1, that leaves me a choice of whether cons refutation of P1 was as strong as pros establishment. Here, I don’t think went into nearly enough detail or provided enough information as pro did for C1, so I don’t feel it fair to award all arguments on this single fact.
Conclusion:
This was actually tough to weigh: Firstly, many arguments were implicitly linked together, and I had to determine whether of one thread was pulled the sweater fell apart.
As a bystander, this felt a little like two storms-troopers having a shoot out: there were several times where either side could have been obliterated with the right argument at the right time, but there were opportunities not taken.
At the end, I think con did not establish the homeostasis principle as a valid moral framework, through his contentions, pro highlighted its insufficiency - and as this was the primary reason pro gave me to reject P1, the failure to demonstrate Homeostasis consequently affirms P1 as a result - and thus the debate contention.
Arguments to pro.
As a result, I can’t say con refuted the crux of pros opening arguments - but also I can’t say that pros use of OMF stands against homeostasis either.
The upshot of this, is basically that P1 passes or fails based on cons homeostasis argument. On this count, I believe con fails to demonstrate this in the face of pros arguments - and as such he fails to offer a valid rebuttal to pros main arguments on these points.
As a result - I have to consider P1 stands.
Now: onto ancillary points:
Free will: pro argues that atheism cannot account for free will. If I accept pros argument as true - there is no clear argument he provides as to why this necessitates objective morality proving God.
While this would be valid in a “does god exist” debate - in the current debate, it does not appear relevant to the contention. So I must reject it.
Conversely, while con refutes pro in a similar manner (IMO), I don’t feel this negates the content either. Unless one side or other clearly explains why god must exist if morality is objective - or not - I can’t use this argument to draw a conclusion. Okay
The NAP. Pro uses this to rebut con, con clearly points out that this is a straw man - and I agree and thus reject this as a rebuttal.
In terms of where to draw the line, with pros arguments on the effects of homeostasis as con presents them, does not make clear the lines drawn between species, and whether affecting the homeostasis of a single celled organism is immoral - I also side with pro here. Con does not provide any method I can see of using homeostasis assessing moral judgements between species or uses homeostasis to present this distinction and thus the point can’t be considered refuted.
Con does reference neural capacity - but as this is an additional contention to homeostasis - and as Con doesn’t show it is objective, or makes any attempt to explain how it could be applied - I can’t consider it a rebuttal to pros very specific point - and pro points out this insufficiency.
On the point of moral commands/OMF, I have to dismiss this point. While my interpretation of what pro said was that morality is a compulsion, that we follow - and that con did not provide an explanation of why such a compulsion exists without God - this isn’t explicitly what pro said and the phrasing he used. I don’t want to use my interpretation of what pro said unless it’s cut and dry.
Con somewhat undermines pros presentation of commands with a single sentence that if there were no universe, there’d be no babies and no one to torture them - this would have been a fascinating avenue - but one that con didn’t follow, and in my view is insufficient on its own to consider P1 refuted.
Finally, pro argued that we are commanded not to kill, the compulsion to follow moral behaviour makes them inherent commands, this element of morality that pro highlighted was mostly dismissed by con (though I will cover this later), and con did not seem to explain why homeostasis would necessarily lead to that same compulsion, only that it did.
These were the primary exchanged arguments (other than ancillary points that I will weight separately), and I wanted to conclude on them as a whole:
Pro summarizes that cons argument on the harm part of the argument was arbitrary. I agree. Cons attempts to show trivial harms are the reason massively immoral acts are immoral is almost self refuting in the context of the debate - I believe pro manages to highlight these weaknesses and insufficiencies of the framework as a result.
Pro summarized that cons argument on the long vs short term homeostasis was also a cop out. I also agree. If con had argued driving was immoral - which he could have - it would have been reasonable, but cons attempt to resolve short and long term seems arbitrary, con did not satisfactorily explain this, and I think pro highlights this sufficiently in his response.
Con sets up a fairly compelling framework that allows us to measure, analyze and determine the morality of actions. In his main rebuttal con provides an argument based on homeostasis against pros main points. Allowing a direct contrast example for me to weigh.
Pro points out two primary thrusts of objections: 1.) cons explanation has a series of potential moral paradoxes. 2.) cons argument would apply to single celled life which seems absurd.
Both of these points cast legitimate doubt on cons argument.
Con follows up with detailed explanations on both counts, that seem reasonable, however a major contention that pro raises is not answered by con: Namely, if it is possible to commit an obviously immoral act without harming homeostasis, cons argument is refuted. Con focuses instead on showing that a given act causes harm, no matter how small or trivial that harm may be.
Con also deflects the second point. Saying that we draw the line because of aspects of consciousness.
Furthering this, there was an exchange about long term and short term benefits and homeostasis. Relating to cars and driving. Pro argued that driving should be considered immoral based on the framework, whereas con disagrees citing long vs short term homeostasis.
Sources, conduct and grammar inseparable so marked as a tie.
Note: apologies if I have mixed up pro and con here - hopefully it’s clear.
Arguments:
Pro starts laying out his logical case for why objective morality (which is not contested by either side) supports God.
This majority of pros opening argument is largely uncontested by con - other than con offering his own explanation as refuting pros positions, and hinging all his points directly on that.
This means this whole debate turns on whether con shows that his explanation for moral facts is valid, and pro needs to show the reverse. If pro does it that, it appears all objections to pros position are removed and pro wins.
Con sets up his argument on homeostasis, effectively explaining an objective way of determining whether an action is moral or not.
Generally speaking, as I can’t score conduct: there wouldn’t be any specific impact from the forfeit, other than if one side made a good argument that isn’t refuted. It’s hard to determine a winner without considering unrefuted arguments - but if both sides are happy with me doing so I can provide constructive feedback in the RFD of both sides along with the decision.
I’ve generally started avoiding doing that, as it seems a collection of individuals are unable to discern constructive feedback portions, from my actual decision.
Should I consider consider creationism better as it explains more things?
All that being said: even if I give con the widest benefit I can give as a voter, I still think he loses this one. Pros opening round was so comprehensive, and so unrefuted - that I don’t think it would be fair awarding this any other way.
Moreover, while there were several small claims made by con that were not refuted or addressed by pro: there were large numbers of small explanations from protein catalysis, and issues with MU that were addressed.
While this could have been closer had con not forfeited the final round - that con so easily dismissed the main thrust of pros comprehensive explanation gave con a mountain to climb either way.
Note: I’m certain I have mixed up pro and con so much during this RfD, it’s not done intentionally.
8.) prime mover / free will.
I have to give this to pro. Con did not explain how free will or the prime mover necessitated creationism, or is something that is explained by creationism. Pro questions the applicability later on - and I am forced to concurr.
9.) Predictions.
None of cons predictions, other than the examples of IR mentioned, were addressed by pro at all.
As these are all presented as predictions of creationism, I must consider them as unrefuted, though they are fairly weak.
10.) Conclusion
Pros supportive arguments primarily revolve around showing how good abiogenesis is at explaining the origin of life through natural means.
Cons supportive arguments primarily revolve around pointing to aspects of the world that creationism can explain.
I would consider both valid approaches, as neither were directly contested by the debaters or obviously against the definitions.
Not only did this muddy the waters a bit, but as creationism tends to be about everything, and abiogenesis being a small part of biology - it’s hard to know how and what to weigh without being unfair to either side.