Total votes: 16
Pro's argument wouldn't be compelling in empirically proving God's existence, but does explain how it is 'possible'. Con's rebuttal would have been effective if the resolution were different, but the resolution questions the 'possibility' of a Christian deity existing; not the deity existing in actuality. Since it is the 'possibility' that is in question, Con would have been required to demonstrate that it is meta physically impossible for the Christian God to exist. The only part in Con's rebuttal that remotely touches on the 'possibility' of the Christian God would be that Creatio ex Nihilio (CEN) has never been observed (since if CEN is impossible then it would be impossible for the Christian God to exist). However, Con failed to demonstrate that CEN is an impossibility; at face value just because something hasn't been observed does not mean it is impossible. For example, aliens are metaphysically possible, yet have never been observed. Hence, at best, Con depicts the existence of the Christian God to be unlikely, but this is not enough for him to win the debate.
Concession
Up until Pro conceded I would have awarded him arguments. I am interested to know why Pro conceded.
Regardless, all points to Con for Pro's concession.
Concession
Concession
Concession.
*Arguments*
Pro's gist:
Essentially, Pro argues that scientists are fallible, scientific theories have been proven false and encourages people to analyse data themselves. Pro is basically advocating against the 'appeal to authority fallacy'.
Con's gist:
Con's argument is that we should value expert opinion in fields they are experienced in. Moreover, he states that because we cannot study many particular fields in science, it is not intellectual laziness to take stock in their opinion.
Big Bang Theory/DM/black holes etc.
I must note, both Pro and Con had questionable interpretations of the theory. Pro states that inflation, dark matter and an expanding universe is "conjecture" and Con states that the big bang theory is not based on "empirical evidence" and that black holes and dark matter "cannot be verified". Moreover, Con states that physicists aren't scientists. Con commends the theory of gravity (most likely Einstein's theory of gravity) which immutably predicts the big bang -- I am unsure why this was used to show uncertainty in the big bang. I am also unsure why this or the relevance of the scientific method plays an important role in this resolution specifically as it isn't tied to question of whether or not expert opinion should be believed.
Weigh-ins
After reading Pro's argument, I don't feel less inclined to believe in expert opinion. In complexed areas of science, the average person wouldn't be able to draw reasonable conclusions from raw data. Especially since Pro references the Big Bang Theory -- I am certain the average person wouldn't be able to understand Einstein's field equations which implicate a cosmological singularity. Maybe if Pro had stated people should remain sceptical and not believe in things that they fundamentally can't understand or haven't researched enough, his argument would have had more efficacy.
Con's argument is more reasonable -- he demonstrates why expert opinion should be valued. I agree with his statement that the only other option would be to remain agnosti. Pro effectively rejected the position of agnosticism since his argument advoctated for the derivation of your own conclusions rather than to remain sceptical. Thus, it really boils down to one's (most likely) uneducated opinion vs. an expert's opinion on raw data. I must award arguments to Con for this reason.
*Conduct*
Pro forfeited a round. Conduct goes to Con.
Conduct:
I've considered this as a tie, even though I would lean slightly towards Pro. I thought Con was passive-aggressive, but there was nothing particularly unconductful said.
Arguments:
If Kritiks were allowed I could understand Pro's argument. He positions it as no matter what faith you have, it will lead you, reliably, to the ultimate truth (what is actually correct in the end -- be it hell, annihilation, void etc.). However, Con forbade kritiks and I would have to consider this argument as such, because Con provided an example in the description:
Person A: "I believe God exists."
Person B: "Do you have any evidence that God exists?"
Person A: "No, I believe based on faith.
This leads me to believe that truth refers to the veracity of the particular religion; not 'The Truth' conveyed by Pro. Pro ended up conceding the key premise of Con's case in the final round. I would urge Pro to not concede too quickly; if you feel like you are losing continue debating -- it isn't all about who's objectively right, but rather who provided an argument with greater efficacy. Thus, I award arguments to Con.
Sources weren't used, hence tied. S&G is even, hence tied.
FF .
Pro concedes.
Forfeiture